From: davideml@bellsouth.net   
      
   "Ahroo"  wrote in message   
   news:v3n_h.367$LR5.319@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...   
   >   
   > "Lilah Morgan"  wrote in message   
   > news:sS4_h.2949$296.1545@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   >> On a historical note, if I remember right, the real Cleopatra actually   
   >> wasn't that beautiful. I believe Hollywood started that trend with Elizabeth   
   >> Taylor portraying her. I've always found it interesting that she was   
   >> considered such a sexual icon/figure, when she didn't even make it to 40,   
   >> and was only invovled with Caesar/Antony(that we know of at least). She has   
   >> one guy for her first 20 years, and one guy for the next (almost) 20, and   
   >> she's some sexpot? Ooooooooook. I've always found that quite a telling   
   >> statement about political agendas when it comes to recording/translating   
   >> history.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > It certainly does seem that a lot of marriages "in the olden days" took   
   place for political   
   > and/or financial reasons, or perhaps other reasons relating to necessity,   
   convenience, etc. I   
   > wonder when the notion of "love" took hold?   
   >   
   > As for recording history, we can see from what goes on today, that you   
   cannot always believe what   
   > you are told. There have been a number of times when I have read something   
   in the newspaper that   
   > I have some first-hand knowledge about, and the newspaper has some of the   
   facts wrong. So imagine   
   > how skewed a biography or historical account might be when the author is   
   paid by the subject to   
   > write the account the way she/he wants it to be remembered in history.   
      
       Don't remember who said it, but someone said that history is written by   
   the conquerors, or   
   something to that effect.   
      
   > Even if the writer is relatively unbiased by the influence of others his or   
   her own political,   
   > religious, etc. beliefs, you still have to question the factual accuracy of   
   things - many things   
   > were passed down by word of mouth, by uneducated and illiterate people. Ever   
   play the "telephone"   
   > game? A group of people in the room; first person privately tells the second   
   person a story; the   
   > second person then tells the 3rd person; 3rd person tells the 4th and so on.   
   By the time the last   
   > person tells the story out loud, it is substantially different from the   
   original version. So it   
   > is with "history." In the game, it all happens within a matter of minutes.   
   Imagine the distortion   
   > over a period of many, many years!   
   >   
   > Laura   
           Legends and myths became "history" when writing was invented. But you   
   have a particularly   
   valid point about the so-called historians. They write from their perspective.   
       Which irritates the hell out of me when people today want to gloss over,   
   sanitize, and become   
   politically correct when it comes   to the less-than-perfect past events and   
   people living in those   
   times.   
      
   David   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)