|
History
Jan 14, 2010 17:57:10 GMT -5
Post by NexsusX (Fury) on Jan 14, 2010 17:57:10 GMT -5
History is displayed by the eyes of the victors
so i ask this question can we confide in what history we are told or rather raised up by
|
|
|
History
Jan 14, 2010 20:33:16 GMT -5
Post by BulgarianMenace on Jan 14, 2010 20:33:16 GMT -5
Of course it is impossible to ever get a truly unbiased account of the facts.
First of all, even historians who try to present only the facts cannot help but unconsciously present them from a certain perspective which is sure to influence the way the reader interprets them.
To try to account for that ideally one should read as many different authors on one subject as possible so as to be exposed to as great a variety of perspectives on the same thing, and then decide for yourself what you think happened/how to interpret the events.
But then what you said comes into play. Certain things will be globally altered in the history books depending on who held power at the time. Sometimes alternative accounts of the events were never even written, and sometimes even if they were they were destroyed, persecuted, or just lost to time and so we have knowledge of them. And there's obviously nothing we can do about that except consider carefully the perspective of the authors of everything we read, especially about major conflicts.
|
|
|
History
Jan 19, 2010 20:18:43 GMT -5
Post by jonathan1515 on Jan 19, 2010 20:18:43 GMT -5
Here's how I see it.
Facts carry no bias (as long as they truly are facts). You can state that 23 romans died and 30,000 gauls died, and that's the facts.
However it's in the interpretation of these facts that causes bias. The historians will use the facts or otherwise known as stats to make it in favour of them. Of course the romans will say they crushed the other army in example as stated above. However we do not actually know what happens, and even stats will be scewed to bias, ( what we don't know about above battle is that, 40 000 romans were injured.)
Basically nothing can go without bias, i guess like what BM said.
|
|
|
History
Jan 26, 2010 11:31:10 GMT -5
Post by NexsusX (Fury) on Jan 26, 2010 11:31:10 GMT -5
i should have worded it in a way that it got someone pissed off -_- kinda like saying that Lincoln never intended to free the slaves or the US didn't come to save Europe in WW2 cause of the holocaust. ( I know there are more reasons why they entered WW2 and I don't need a list of em either lol. that was only an example of what to say to agitate someone into debating)
|
|
|
History
Jan 31, 2010 14:36:02 GMT -5
Post by czrk147 on Jan 31, 2010 14:36:02 GMT -5
History is displayed by the eyes of the victors so i ask this question can we confide in what history we are told or rather raised up by nex did you get that from mw2? oh, and did you know i never heard of the crimean war until last year because American school systems dont teach you about Russians.
|
|
|
History
Feb 2, 2010 11:33:36 GMT -5
Post by NexsusX (Fury) on Feb 2, 2010 11:33:36 GMT -5
Na its a common ideology which is prevelant in any society. though i wish i did have MW2 but currently I want to buy FF13 and GoW3. And its true most schools in any country wont teach you how inhumanly they treated other countries just cause they dont want to come across looking like the bad guy. They want to inspire patriotism and pride in ones country.
|
|
|
History
Feb 2, 2010 20:30:43 GMT -5
Post by czrk147 on Feb 2, 2010 20:30:43 GMT -5
ah, yea ive heard it just reminds me of the campaign for mw2, and i believe that gen. sheperd is gonna come back for mw3 with an eyepatch. really just blame it on the media.
|
|