wat0n wrote:This isn't a religious holiday though. We can actually be historically accurate.
We can be, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should be.
Indeed. But in this case it does show what the motivation is, I think.
Indeed.
Which non-religious celebrations for which we have ample historical evidence would fall into this category? Do you have an example?
Yes. The Queen’s Official Birthday celebrations in the UK are not held on her actual birthday. Does anybody in the UK care? No, not really.
Chileans for example celebrate independence on September 18th even though it was formally declared on February 12th several years later, but that's only because the process started on September 18, 1810 (something those involved didn't even realize at the time) and would include even some instances of self-government. So I can see why it would actually make sense to celebrate it on September 18, even if strictly speaking we only became independent on February 12, 1818.
Cool story, bro. But seriously, this highlights the fact that history only becomes history
in retrospect. At the time, it’s just stuff that happens, which nobody really understands. Dates are only seen as being significant years or even decades later, after the narrative we call “history” has been invented.
Not that I complain about having a holiday (even though I'd prefer some honesty about why it exists, and historical accuracy), I'm just curious.
As Napoleon once said, history is just a set of lies on which everyone agrees. Everyone agrees that Jesus was born on 25 December, and everyone agrees that Chile gained its independence on September 18, 1810. Why is this a problem?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)