“Winner writes history”. This simple phrase simplifies the complex narrative of history, particularly in the context of conflict. Today, it would take only a cursory search online to find examples of ‘losers.’ Why does this age-old saying persist? As is evident by the qualifying terms of ‘winner’ and ‘loser,’ history is entirely biased no matter who records it.
The question does not lie in whether the adage is true or not. Instead, it speaks to human nature as it has always been: subjective and easily influenced by a collective truth. In particular, before the age of technological advancement, history recorded by either side of a conflict served to form the basis of knowledge for all. For those who consumed written history and those who were informed by spoken word, a collective truth began to form. That is to say, many people’s truths merge into one generally accepted ‘fact’ that serves to define the outcome or course of conflict. This is not to say that ‘losers’ were historically incapable of recording their own sequence of events; rather, these records may well have existed and been lost with the passing of time. What is notable is that any such records were likely lost because of a collective truth that overtook any divergent interpretations of events, as is suggested by the saying “Winner writes history”.
Collective truth, whether formed out of fear, a majority’s biases, or other inequalities and influences, is the guiding force that determines which historical records are maintained and passed down over time to form the present day understanding of conflict. The superficial statement that only ‘winners’ wield the power to write history, and therefore inform present day understanding, is then to some extent inevitable if the collective truth that is adopted is one that benefits the victor in conflict, as it often is. It is in our acceptance or rejection of that collective truth and through our scrutiny that we must question recorded history; it will be our diversification of knowledge streams that will allow us to come to an attempted objectivity in our collective truths as history continues to unfold. To this effect, Napoléon is purported to have said “what is history, but a fable agreed upon?” Such a declaration may be more suitable and representative than the phrase “winner writes history” and its variations.
By Natalie Guarino