Saturday Slant: Change History

week 23

Discuss one event in history you might change, how and why you would change it, and then trace the ramifications through to the present.

Would you pre­vent Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s assas­si­na­tion? Perhaps you’d warn the Captain of the Titanic. Would you woo Nefertiti? Maybe you’d choose to change an event of a more per­sonal nature, such as the his­tor­i­cally recorded fate or actions of ances­tor. Tell your read­ers which his­tor­i­cal event you would change, why chang­ing it is impor­tant to you, and what dif­fer­ences that change would cause upon the fol­low­ing timeline.

How are other peo­ple Slanting? Check the com­ments! Leave a link to your Slant there!

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Lulu says:

    Mine ram­i­fi­ca­tions are up!
    Lulu x :)

  2. Frida says:

    Here ya be…you’re not gonna like it though. :D

  3. Frida,

    On the Saturday Slant com­ments you stated that I wouldn’t like your Slant. I dis­agree; I like it very much. I feel the same way, in fact, about the lessons we learn as a species and as a cul­ture. Despite that real­ity, how­ever, we often indulge in games of What If, this is in the nature of humanity.

    Would we actu­ally change the past? Some of us would indeed be self­ish, self-centered, and myopic enough to do it, yes. Most of us, I would like to think, would rec­og­nize the value of the past and any given event upon the present.

    It was, in fact, to get peo­ple think­ing along those lines and learn­ing that les­son that I posed the ques­tion I did. Others ask what event one would change, but they offer up the pos­si­bil­ity with­out respon­si­bil­ity. By ask­ing (twice) in the ques­tion to fol­low the ram­i­fi­ca­tions of the change through to present day, I was attempt­ing to get the read­ers to rec­og­nize that the past is invi­o­lable not sim­ply by the rules of physics, but also by the nature of our exis­tance and, as you pointed out, the lessons we must learn.

    Well said, Frida.

  4. Frida says:

    I said that because my answer totally evaded the ques­tion, which was worded in such a way that pick­ing a his­tor­i­cal event seemed com­pul­sory [and in light of your response, I have no doubt it was worded that way delib­er­ately]. Therefore, my “none of the above” answer was a non-answer by the para­me­ters set forth by the word­ing of the ques­tion. Pedantic, I know, but I fig­ured the other posters would take the ques­tion just as lit­er­ally, pick an event, write about it, post, and then see that I totally hadn’t answered the ques­tion. I wasn’t sure I could get away with that. ;)

  5. The point of the Saturday Slant is to get your slant, your take, your unique per­spec­tive on a par­tic­u­lar topic. A big part of the rea­son I cre­ated and con­tinue to pro­duce the Saturday Slant is because I’m a stu­dent of human nature. The Slant ques­tions inspire (but do not force) some­one to think crit­i­cally and deeply. I want to see the myr­iad of slants out there. Answering the ques­tion the same way as every­one else is inter­est­ing to me in a soci­o­log­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal sense, but when someone’s slant is not the norm I find it all the more inter­est­ing. When the per­spec­tive pre­sented is one I hadn’t antic­i­pated, I’m enthralled.

    Your response piqued my inter­est. Our sub­se­quent dia­logue about it holds my atten­tion indeed. Thank you.