Why is evey bunch of people has its own Historical Background?

[EiNsTeiN]

A weird phenomena I found here in RF that I didnt expect...

Every group of people view the history very differently than the others...
the very past, and even the very present events...

Whose responsibility is this?...do you think it's the media from one place to another?...or it's the perceptional view of events?

Lots of historical events I thought was well acknowledged, but surprisingly
found many people arguing them (even the fundamentals of the event) with me...

Express your thoughts please
</IMG>

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think differences in language and culture might account for a large part of the differences in how historical events are perceived?

I think it could help this discussion if you would give an example of an event and how it's viewed differently.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

I didnt want to give examples so that not to bend the conversation direction...
But if this will help, then it's a recent debate I have been envolved in concerning the Crusades...very different views between people exist in this issue...

I dont wanna start a conversation in a specific event, just discussing the general idea

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect there might be many more than just one reason why different historians from different cultures or societies view the same events in radically different lights.

One reason that I can think of off the top of my head is political. If the French and British were arguing about the Hundred Years War that devasted Southern France, the French historians might feel themselves pressured to make France look good, while the British historians might feel themselves pressured to make Britain look good.

Some years ago, I took a college class in which we studied the American Revolution from the British persepctive. It was fascinating how the events of the Revolution were seen by the British patriots who lived at the time. For instance: The British regarded their King as a sort of father to the colonies. And they regarded the colonists as unruly and rebellious children. Spoiled brats, basically. That's quite a different view, of course, than the view you get of the Revolution from American sources of the same time.

In the above example, it would seem there are reasons of pride, nationalism, and politics for the different views between the Americans and the British.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

By this view, do you think that a nation would never claim to be mistaken in any act? for keeping their pride?

Thank you for your generosity by the way

 

[Sunstone]

By this view, do you think that a nation would never claim to be mistaken in any act? for keeping their pride?

Good question! I know that many Americans get upset when their country is not portrayed in the most positive of lights. They either just don't want to hear about it, or they deny there is any truth to the criticisms, or sometimes they even call you a traitor for suggesting that America has ever done anything wrong.

At the same time --- and this might be a paradox --- there are many other Americans who do just the opposite: They enjoy portraying the country in the worse possible light. They take a very cynical view of American history and pretty much refuse to believe that America has ever done anything good in the world.

What is more rare than either group are those folks who look for a balanced view.

Alexis De Toqueville noticed that about Americans when he was here in the 1830's. He had an explanation for why Americans, for the most part, are either super patriots or super critical of America, but seldom (when compared to Europeans) balanced in their praise and criticisms of their country. But I forget now what his reasoning was.

BTW, you cannot find a much better book on America than Alexis De Toqueville's Democracy In America. If you ever get a hankering to understand this country, it's a very good place to start.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

BTW, you cannot find a much better book on America than Alexis De Toqueville's Democracy In America. If you ever get a hankering to understand this country, it's a very good place to start.

Thank you, I will look for it...
This doesnt differ much from my country, lots of people here including my family just think America and the west are evil, and really annoys me when they just start wishing it never existed...
In the other hand, lots love America that they are about to be Americans, forgetting all about their country and belongings, this is not perfect as well..

I tend to hate this view, that is judging a whole nation for individual acts, or even rare historical events...

 

[Sunstone]

I tend to hate this view, that is judging a whole nation for individual acts, or even rare historical events...

I agree. I think lots of people just want a simple, easy to understand version of events. They don't want to be confused by complexity. Unfortunately for them, the truth is often much more complex than the simple, dumbed down version of events they want to believe.

The notion that America is all good, or the notion that America is all bad, equally disturb me. Neither notion is very true. And unless people know the truth about their history, they will often end up doing the wrong things, while thinking they are doing the right things. That's dangerous.

 

[YmirGF]

Not only do historians tend to favor their country of origin when writing historical pieces, but there is also the penchant for some to rewrite history to suit their own political ends. It would be very interesting to compare grade school text books from various countires to determine their "slant" on events that are being taught to students. I think that would be very telling.

I do agree Sunstone. For many, education seems to officially end when they leave school and for example in North America there is a tendency for folks to become "couch potatoes". The point is that this type of person is ripe to be easily misled.

I think one thing that is a bit different about the demographic on RF is that it would seem that we all tend to read a bit more than on average, and are not glued to our televisions.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

I remember my Dad telling me about the history classes, when they used to learn how Gamak Abdulnaser was the best man in the whole Human history, which was funny because I have learned how in his age many were crying from unjustice, and other issue...and now adays, the history books are making Mobarak a hero and the best president ever...

No presedent or leader will let the history text books say the truth about him, he must be a hero whatever the case!

 

[doppelganger]

History is a form of mythology. It tells people who they are. So people who have a common identity share a common mythology of the origin of "them."

History is an inherent part of a group identity.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Well, I tend to believe that history in general is written by, either a strong nation and strong people, or by weak ones...

The first kind tend to believe everything is perfect, and the second tend to believe everything is unjustice and far from being perfect...

Actually, both, I think, can not be taken as honest, unbiased and reliable references..

So what we gonna do??

 

[Booko]

A weird phenomena I found here in RF that I didnt expect...

Every group of people view the history very differently than the others...
the very past, and even the very present events...

Whose responsibility is this?...do you think it's the media from one place to another?...or it's the perceptional view of events?

Even from one family to the next, people will view things differently. Every family has it's set of values and priorities, and that often shows up in people's perceptions of events.

For example, in my family it's considered bad taste to make a scene in public, so we will tend to view loud public protests much more negatively than a family where being highly verbal is more appreciated.

Lots of historical events I thought was well acknowledged, but surprisingly
found many people arguing them (even the fundamentals of the event) with me...

Any events in particular?

Sometimes it's just a matter of geographical or cultural distance. I mean, here in the U.S. in school we learn "history" that is really more the history of Europe and English-speaking North America. We have very little clue what the experience of the rest of the world has been, and like the ancient Romans, often view the world outside the West as being somewhat backward and barbaric.

We can get away with such views only because we're generally ignorant that our "civilization" was built on the back of discoveries made in every other part of the world, and we would not be where we are if we were not standing on the backs of those who had come before us.

Also, in regard to Islam in particular, many English-language sources still draw on centuries-old Western sources for information, and those sources were hardly objective.

I often find myself wishing I could read Arabic and have access to the sort of histories of Islam that might help me develop a more balanced view, for example. But I have to rely on other scholars and make a guess at their objectivity and accuracy.

 

[Booko]

I didnt want to give examples so that not to bend the conversation direction...
But if this will help, then it's a recent debate I have been envolved in concerning the Crusades...very different views between people exist in this issue...

Well, not to open up that can of worms, but just to give you an idea of where I started out learning about the Crusades:

In school, the first part of history we learned about was the Crusades. The glorious knights in shining armor went to the Holy Land to liberate it from those backwards folk living there.

There was no mention of abuses along the way, or when they got there (see stuff like the sack of Jerusalem :cover or the good things Europe got out of contact with the Islamic world. Oh -- I take that back. Apparently we got "spices" out of the deal. :biglaugh:

Not medicine, not astronomy, not preservation of ancient Greek texts, not philosophy or advances in mathematics...

There was never any mention that if someone wanted to get a real higher education, they went to Spain -- to Muslim universities. There was no mention that the Muslims world was safer, cleaner, more educated, and the women were treated far better than in Europe.

Well, if that's all the history I knew about the Middle East, that our shining knights in armor went to destroy the infidels and we learned about a few spices as a result, you can see how that would affect a Westerner's view of Islam, yes?

 

[Booko]

By this view, do you think that a nation would never claim to be mistaken in any act? for keeping their/ pride?

Well, a nation will admit to being mistaken with much difficulty, and they'll gloss over it in favor of touting the great things they did and putting the best spin on everything.

 

[Booko]

Well, I tend to believe that history in general is written by, either a strong nation and strong people, or by weak ones...

The first kind tend to believe everything is perfect, and the second tend to believe everything is unjustice and far from being perfect...

Oh, I wouldn't call the latter "weak" necessarily. For individuals and for nations, it's the really strong one that can admit to having some warts.

Actually, both, I think, can not be taken as honest, unbiased and reliable references..

So what we gonna do??

Look for as many sources as possible and sort of average them out. That's pretty much what I do.

 

[Random]

History is a form of mythology. It tells people who they are. So people who have a common identity share a common mythology of the origin of "them."

History is an inherent part of a group identity.

What he said.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Well, not to open up that can of worms, but just to give you an idea of where I started out learning about the Crusades:

In school, the first part of history we learned about was the Crusades. The glorious knights in shining armor went to the Holy Land to liberate it from those backwards folk living there.

There was no mention of abuses along the way, or when they got there (see stuff like the sack of Jerusalem :cover or the good things Europe got out of contact with the Islamic world. Oh -- I take that back. Apparently we got "spices" out of the deal. :biglaugh:

Not medicine, not astronomy, not preservation of ancient Greek texts, not philosophy or advances in mathematics...

There was never any mention that if someone wanted to get a real higher education, they went to Spain -- to Muslim universities. There was no mention that the Muslims world was safer, cleaner, more educated, and the women were treated far better than in Europe.

Well, if that's all the history I knew about the Middle East, that our shining knights in armor went to destroy the infidels and we learned about a few spices as a result, you can see how that would affect a Westerner's view of Islam, yes?

I didnt want this topic to arise...
I want to tell you not to mock this spice thing....in the past it was the economical engine for India for instance, it's something serious (Although it has nothing serious to do with the crusades issue!!)

There are manuscripts written by many kings from the middle age (like George the third, as I remember) which askes the Spanich Caliph for scholarshipps in Spain and other islamic cities..

You dont expect to get astronomy, medicine, or any other source of science in few years, and through such wars..

Actually, Europe call this era the dark age, due to lack of science, freedom, peace, and education...while the Islamic nation had all these by this time..
When women were treated as slaves in Europe (Even in holywood movies they show this), they were ministers in the islamic nations..
And when Europe was too busy in thier sectary wars, and fighting each other, Islamic nation was just living peacfully and preached peace in the far east countries, that indonisia , Malysia and these parts of the world enterd in Islam just by the muslim traders' manners..


All of what I said might be completely different from what you know...and thats why I opend this thread, to ask why?

 

[spacemonkey]

Just one thing, the Muslim world was more scientifically advanced during the Middle Ages because they controlled all of the repositories of ancient learning (Alexandria, Constatinople, ect.).