Courts across America have come to rely on scientific evidence in determining the guilt of innocence of a person. These courts have come to rely on scientific evidence because photos, video and eyewitness testimony are all subjective and unreliable. In fact without any real scientific evidence of a crime it is very difficult to get anyone convicted of a major crime because we assume if there is no such evidence no crime could have been committed. The citizens have clearly embraced this approach to justice as juries time and time again fail to convict when scientific evidence of some kind is not produced. This makes sense because it is near impossible to commit a crime without leaving some type of scientific evidence behind. Anthropologists study past humankind and they make most determinations about mankind based on scientific evidence. Given this evidence we can assume that the truth of a crime or even a people past or present is most likely to be found in science.
What if someone was condemned of a major crime and there was no scientific evidence to support that conviction? Murder for example. Would it be worth sending someone to a life term in prison or to the electric chair without any scientific evidence to support the claim that the accused was actually the criminal? How many cases have been overturned in which scientific evidence proved the innocence of the accused even after eye witness claimed the person was guilty?
What if I told you an entire people somewhere in the history of humankind had been convicted by historians for crimes and ideals they never actually committed or subscribed to? And what if I told you there was no scientific evidence to back up that claim? What if there was more? What if in fact the scientific evidence suggested that these people were not guilty of the crimes that history accused them of?
It could be anyone really. Genghis Khan. Alexander the Great. Both of these men were ruthless butchers of people who enslaved humans everywhere they went a conquering. The only real difference between Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan is ….. well it’s in the name now isn’t it. One is a villain and the other is “the Great” and they both did more or less the same thing. What people are not, at some point in their history, guilty and innocent and how can we tell the difference?
This is why constantly revising history is so critically important. History does not remain the same at least it doesn’t for humans. In the world of people history evolves every bit as much as the present as new scientific discoveries get us closer to whatever truth there is for us to know. In the Nuremberg trails evidence was presented that supported the claim that Germans had used the bodies of Jews to make soap and lamp shades and people were convicted for crimes based largely on that “evidence.” It took decades afterward before the technology existed to determine that there was no human DNA in the soap and the lampshades were made from sheep.
The point of all this is that when it comes to revising history there are those who encourage such research and those who do not. Only one reason for not revising history makes sense, that there is some truth those who oppose revision don’t want you to know.