English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Not recent recorded history but before events were written in books.
On what do you base your convictions in regard to that part of human history?

2006-07-26 18:07:13 · 14 answers · asked by Snake Oil 3 in Arts & Humanities History

14 answers

It depends quite a bit on who wrote the history books. Each writer is going to put his or her perception of reality into the work. If I writer is coming from a specific belief, this or her beliefs are going to color the work. Also archeology is based on educated guesswork. I think much of it is right on, but I think that sometimes they get it wrong. Someone will come along later with another discovery that proves the previous one totally of base.

By the Way, just because a history is about things in more recent times, does not guarantee that they will be accurate. People often have agendas when they write histories and so will slant it in a particular direction. Just think about news reports. You get totally different angles from CNN and FOX.

2006-07-26 18:16:13 · answer #1 · answered by Ereshkigal 3 · 2 0

Since Herodotus, I think history has been subjective. It depends on who both the storyteller and the audience are. American history, for example, is based on the United States as the dominant and ultimate success story of modern times. We are taught that Christopher Columbus was a great man and that the true pioneers of this country made peace agreements with Native Americans and they died naturally, or just caught the flu, and we took over their land. We are rarely told that California truly was Mexican territory and during the Gold Rush we hastily took it over. Not saying I am not a proud citizen of the United States, because I am very grateful to live here and to have been born in such a country, but the history classes in effect today, if teachers just work from curriculum and not from their own hearts, really do create a country of ignorance. I do not support that and I don't think anyone here should.

Seems to me that the President is a fine example of an A+ U.S. history student.

2006-07-27 14:39:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Everything written is written by a person- someone of flesh & blood- and therefore have a certain afliction towards what they are writing about. Sometimes they write in the pro and others in the con. What we have done throughout history, and mankind, is select the description of events that best suit our purposes. This does not necesarily mean they are the correct events, instead they are the interpretation of the event by one researcher. Like the Catholic Bible is an amalgamation of stories, accounts, and journals from a wide range of sources, so too has HIStory been written to apease the masses, the mob, the crowd, the following, or, in other words, those that do not have the time, patience, nor desire to investigate anything for themselves, AKA- the BLIND faithfuls.
So what is better for the American government?
A) To teach its' future generations about America's fine role in developing the world into franchises, cooperations, stock money and democracy.
B) To teach its' future geenerations the greedy nature of their endeavours and how the Vietnam & Golf Wars were abuse of power to massacre thousands of its' own citizens and more of the "enemy", just for power and cocaine, and who knows what else they achieved.
C) To teach every perspective of an event and allow the future to develope its own sense of balance!

I wonder what you'd choose?

2006-07-26 18:41:19 · answer #3 · answered by canguroargentino 4 · 0 0

History is taught from different perspectives, therefore its difficult to say who's right and who's wrong. I.E. The Civil War and the War of Northern Aggression. Ask a Brit about colonization in India and then ask an Indian about British colonization of their country. You'll get a couple highly contradicting views about the situation.

Now if you're asking if the US is more inclined to teach myth rather than reality in schools, I'd have to say yes. Kids are being taught very simplified and dumbed-down versions of events and the way they happened... Revolutionary war was all about taxes , WWII was because Hitler was killing Jews, etc.

2006-07-27 03:01:10 · answer #4 · answered by April M 3 · 0 0

I don't know. How would anyone truly know what happened before mankind became intelligent enough to record what happens. I do think that if the teacher is good at making history class fun and gives their students room to be creative that they can come up with a better hypothesis. Remember, no therory can be proved only disproved.

2006-07-27 05:46:48 · answer #5 · answered by 2 · 0 0

No, I think that it is tinted by where you are from. For example, I grew up in the south and I learned that the only reason why Lincoln started the civil war was because the south was becoming too economically powerful (much more economically powerful than the north) and he wanted this to end and the way to end this was to end slavery. I now live in the north and my northern friends learned that Lincoln started the civil war because he thought that slavery was morally wrong.

2006-07-26 18:12:23 · answer #6 · answered by Princess 5 · 0 0

ok, properly each and every man or woman has been preaching that morals might want to study in college and some human beings have even had the presence of options to assert that instructors are purely the enforcers even as mom and father might want to be coaching those issues. you could say that oldsters might want to be doing a range of of issues besides the undeniable fact that the very actuality of the remember is that many human beings obtainable did not even favor to have toddlers contained in the first position and are unlikely to regulate. properly i trust that faith, english and extracurriculars are maximum significant to educate in colleges. Even in a public college coaching about one of those diverse reigions supplies toddlers a glance at diverse cultures and, if taught proper, substances many classes on morals and appreciate. As a toddler learns english and literature they boost their vocabulary and browse extra. by reading extra you will get many diverse insights on human beings and the international in the present day. You boost your options and also you study a lot, although that is you study. Extracurriculars (paintings, song, gymnasium) enable one to particular themselves, launch pent up thoughts and those unforced matters enable students to appreciate themselves. toddlers can open up their minds and lives by those classes (song is foodstuff for the soul-and different such cliches). And contained in the very least they save toddlers off the streets and stepping into drugs..such issues as that.

2016-10-15 06:19:30 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Not exactly. History, after all, is written by the winners.

2006-07-26 18:11:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes and no. I remember my philosophy teacher in college once told us not to believe everything in this world. Even to what he is saying, that we should reserve even 1% doubt because we are not really sure where do these things come from. He's kinda weird telling his students to doubt him but it's true.

2006-07-26 18:14:57 · answer #9 · answered by *Jumeirah* 3 · 0 0

history his story the one who wins the war, writes the history of it.

2006-07-27 16:28:58 · answer #10 · answered by stanley c 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers