[deconstructionist]

Conspiratorial history studies that part of history that is a product of man's planning. In conspiratorial history we are led to believe that events, such as wars and revolutions, are the result of planned events.

In the catastrophic or accidental view of history we are led to believe that historical events, such as wars and revolutions were the direct result of some sudden or surprising event.

Which view of history do you take? The Conspiratorial or the Accidental? Or do you think it's a little of both, depending on the situation?

[deconstructionist]

i want more votes

[alecifel]

History is consequential. All events and circumstances are consequences of choices that were made. Humans are intellectually flawed, particularly those inclined to pursue power. They have a difficult time properly perceiving the consequences of their decisions.

This is what I've heard referred to as the "butterfly theory". A small, seemingly minor decision or action can lead to tremendous circumstances down the road. Adolf Hitler was born illegitimate but his grandfather, who nobody had seen for 20 years, showed up and passed the family name onto him, then disappeared again never to be seen again. I find it hard to believe history would have been the same if he was running for office as Adolf Shickelgruber.

So history, i.e., the present in past tense, is an ongoing set of consequential reactions that go back the the Big Bang. It is neither conspiratorial or accidental.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deconstructionist', 'i') want more votes

[ashurbanipal]

I think it's clearly got to be both (surely no one thinks that the eruption of Krakatoa, or, say, Vesuvius, was the result of a conspiracy?). But I think predominantly, it's conspiratorial, not accidental.