Historians have long debated the existence of the Ancient Hindu civilization in India. During the recent tsunami is S.E Asia, large tracts of sand were washed away from the eastern coast of India, revealing ancient temples. Similarly, the remains of the long lost city of Dwarka were found underwater off the coast of gujarat. Yet western historians continue with their skepticism. Hence the question.
2007-03-25 06:44:34 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I can't answer for Indian historians, but in Europe current historians are, in fact, proposing new ideas/thoughts. For example: the German civilians in WW2 were hard done to because of Allied bombing; WWI generals weren't really a bad lot even though they caused the death of millions; King John of England wasn't a bad sort, even though the country starved during his reign, because he was a good administrator.
2007-03-25 07:52:13 · answer #1 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This seems more like archeaology than history, but I think skepticism is an important component of learning. I wouldn't know if historians are close-minded about new ideas--certainly not all of them would be.
2007-03-25 13:48:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The older a historian gets, the more scrutiny he/she emphasizes on the information available.
2007-03-25 13:54:55 · answer #3 · answered by ibid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋