PDA

View Full Version : history


LHX
04-11-2006, 10:05 AM
there is no such thing as an accurate and reliable written account of history that details names dates and locations of people places and things

because of this
names
dates
and locations
can be said to be unimportant


what becomes important is identifying the process at work

any time spent debating historical records is time wasted
and these efforts prove ultimately to be unproductive


any piece of literature that claims to be an accurate account of events
can at best be looked at as a metaphorical representation of elements at work
or
as a revealing look at the authors perspective

Prince Rai
04-11-2006, 01:55 PM
haha thats true.

perhaps that why we dont "learn from mistakes from 'history'"

i read this book called

"what is history" by E.H. CARR its an amazing book explaining exactly what u just said LHX.

history will always be interpretations by "at-the-time" bias.

Aqua Luna
04-11-2006, 05:00 PM
I agree with you LHX...your right - what you said is important to remeber when seeking knowledge or sharing it...

and nice add-on, Princerai

HANZO
04-11-2006, 05:11 PM
i dont know were i read it but it was about mongol history, and it was looking at how the mongols were perceived as nomadic barbarians. But it pointed it that all this information written about the mongols were written by the losers, the people who fell to the mongol empire. We see this often with history, i mean the nations with more say will always write the history books. The native americans were seen as barbaric people. Its all biased and you cant trust the written history cause its always written by one side.

galt john galt
04-11-2006, 06:39 PM
history is writen from one's ideological perspective according to the times one lives in.

what point of view is being presented?

Visionz
04-13-2006, 01:01 PM
What about the history being written right now? I think if you want to look back at history to find the real story, find the popular consencsis (sp?), which is more than likely a lie, and then find the ideas that were ridiculed, which is more likely to be closer to the truth. The actual truth probably lies somewhere in between.

LHX
04-13-2006, 01:19 PM
What about the history being written right now? I think if you want to look back at history to find the real story, find the popular consencsis (sp?), which is more than likely a lie, and then find the ideas that were ridiculed, which is more likely to be closer to the truth. The actual truth probably lies somewhere in between.

its a good question

what about the history being written right now?

is it possible for new lies to spread these days?

i am thinking maybe not after 911


these days
the real historians seem to be people on blogs and internet forums instead of 'educated' historians


this forum is a more accurate portrayal of the society we are living in than what you might find in a newspaper

Prince Rai
04-13-2006, 01:27 PM
may be true! :P

newspapers etc are forums amongst a certain "people" who use certain language to convey an accent of events.

here we have a wide range of people from all over the place, who are not scared 2 say what they want.

Prince Rai
04-13-2006, 01:34 PM
What about the history being written right now? I think if you want to look back at history to find the real story, find the popular consencsis (sp?), which is more than likely a lie, and then find the ideas that were ridiculed, which is more likely to be closer to the truth. The actual truth probably lies somewhere in between.

history is distorted on various levels and in different areas.

not all history is false or wrongly based.

the ones that are, as you said, have a black white accent to it.
the truth lies in between the grey area.

history written now is still subject to human bias. recently schools in japan falsly or rejected to acknowledge some atrocities they commited against tje chinese. (it was a school history book)

SG
08-31-2009, 08:07 PM
there is no such thing as an accurate and reliable written account of history that details names dates and locations of people places and things

because of this
names
dates
and locations
can be said to be unimportant


what becomes important is identifying the process at work

any time spent debating historical records is time wasted
and these efforts prove ultimately to be unproductive


any piece of literature that claims to be an accurate account of events
can at best be looked at as a metaphorical representation of elements at work
or
as a revealing look at the authors perspective

The process at work is analysis......

The influence behind this would be historians. This is an occupation that needs to be looked at or reviewed

SID
09-01-2009, 05:49 AM
there is no such thing as an accurate and reliable written account of history that details names dates and locations of people places and things

because of this
names
dates
and locations
can be said to be unimportant


what becomes important is identifying the process at work

any time spent debating historical records is time wasted
and these efforts prove ultimately to be unproductive


any piece of literature that claims to be an accurate account of events
can at best be looked at as a metaphorical representation of elements at work
or
as a revealing look at the authors perspective

History is a bitch, because whoever writes history will be biased towards certain peoples, tarnishing their achievements just because they don't like them.

For example Kurdish influence goes back for ages in turkey, but they always paint the kurds as ruthless terrorists.

Prince Rai
09-01-2009, 09:42 AM
history and writing history are like a homosexual married couple. they can do what they want but it's not perfectly natural.

often because, as said, individuals write individual accounts and analysis of specific events, but they do not necessarily hold the true event at its purest and finest.

TSA
09-01-2009, 09:50 AM
that was the worst analogy ever.

TSA
09-01-2009, 09:54 AM
but yeah i agree with this thread. i think we put WAY too much trust on simple written accounts and assumptions historians are forced to make based on limited information.

we all know that in the modern day we lie when we wright, and often skew things to fit an agenda, or just write nonsense and gossip.

Tage
09-01-2009, 10:24 AM
i think we put WAY too much trust on simple written accounts


Religion is also victim to this.

V4D3R
09-01-2009, 02:23 PM
The difference between nowadays history and past history is we now have video footage to back up claims.

Prince Rai
09-01-2009, 03:34 PM
that was the worst analogy ever.

at least I can come up with something and i try to drop jewels. you are barely average.

Prince Rai
09-01-2009, 03:36 PM
The difference between nowadays history and past history is we now have video footage to back up claims.

true, but often video footage could be edited to try and misrepresent an issue at hand.