eyeball Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 They did not. Weaving back and forth through time...travelling or sifting through it more accurately, in search of a worldview that puts a shine on our actions in the present is a mug's game. I prefer to compare the past to the present in the context of human nature, and whatever it is our allied casualties thought they were dying for, there can be little doubt that the powers-that-be then were just as unaccountable for their actions as any of their ilk in the present are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 They did not. Uhhhh....yes they did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_campaign Weaving back and forth through time...traveling or sifting through it more accurately, in search of a worldview that puts a shine on our actions in the present is a mug's game. No...yours is a mug's game. History is objective...not subjective. Either you know what happened or you don't. I prefer to compare the past to the present in the context of human nature, and whatever it is our allied casualties thought they were dying for, there can be little doubt that the powers-that-be then were just as unaccountable for their actions as any of their ilk in the present are. Allenby fought one of the most brilliant campaigns of WW1 finishing off the Turks. If you recall (hah!), the Arabs...so often pointed out as helping win the war in the area...were PAID IN GOLD to fight for their own independence. Those that actually fought, that is. Plus, like in 1948, they needed British leadership to be effective. When the smoke cleared post WW1, most of these folks got to form their own countries...save the Jews and the Mufti's clan. They would both have to wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 No...yours is a mug's game. History is objective...not subjective. Either you know what happened or you don't. Famous last words I'd say! Allenby fought one of the most brilliant campaigns of WW1 finishing off the Turks. If you recall (hah!), the Arabs...so often pointed out as helping win the war in the area...were PAID IN GOLD to fight for their own independence. The Turks were a colonial power in Arab lands....much like Britain and France, in case your biases make it impossible for you to notice. What happened to England and France when they decided to take the war to Turkish territory? What happened to the Galipoli Campaign? They intended to divide all of the Ottoman Empire between them as the spoils of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 Famous last words I'd say! The Turks were a colonial power in Arab lands....much like Britain and France, in case your biases make it impossible for you to notice. What happened to England and France when they decided to take the war to Turkish territory? What happened to the Galipoli Campaign? They intended to divide all of the Ottoman Empire between them as the spoils of war. I'm well aware of the history of WW1. The Turks were much more than a 'colonial power'. Their history in the area goes back to to the Greek-Persian Wars and that's only because that's when we started writing sheet down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm well aware of the history of WW1. The Turks were much more than a 'colonial power'. Their history in the area goes back to to the Greek-Persian Wars and that's only because that's when we started writing sheet down. Britain and France were competing over who had the right to colonize the world...try again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Both empires were in decline post WW1. Edited November 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 Both empires were in decline post WW1. They were but they didn't know it yet. It really took the Great Depression followed by WW II to put the nail in their coffins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 No...yours is a mug's game. History is objective...not subjective. History is very much interpretivist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 When the smoke cleared post WW1, most of these folks got to form their own countries. No, most of these countries were conjured up for these folks over brandy and cigars in the backrooms of Europe. save the Jews and the Mufti's clan. They would both have to wait. For what, the big powers to finally get their shit together? We're all still waiting for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 History is very much interpretivist. No...history is the absolute part. You're the part that eventually turns into dust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 No, most of these countries were conjured up for these folks over brandy and cigars in the backrooms of Europe. Shows how little you know. I suggest you look up Al-Fatat. For what, the big powers to finally get their shit together? We're all still waiting for that. No...the Arabs to get their sh!t together. Israel is a fact. Muftistan? Arafatistan? Hamasistan? Not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 History is very much interpretivist. That's right, history is not objective, but I didn't feel like arguing such a stupid point! The decision of what are important historical events and WHOSE history is going to be written down and preserved make it very subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 That's right, history is not objective, but I didn't feel like arguing such a stupid point! The decision of what are important historical events and WHOSE history is going to be written down and preserved make it very subjective. History is VERY objective, Historians, however..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 History is about meaning. The meaning actors give to the events in their time; the meaning the historian gives to the events when (s)he writes about them in the present; the meaning that the reader gets from the historical publication. It's about giving meaning to individuals or groups in a broader context or about filling out details of a broader context by elaborating on the individuals' lived experiences. Facts are facts, but what they all mean is very much open to interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Just to give a concrete example: The United States bombed Hiroshima. That's a fact. There's no disputing that this actually happened. But that event has a very different meaning to a Japanese person from that time, a Japanese person today, the American pilots that dropped the bomb at the time, the American executive that made the call, the average American not involved in the war, the engineers that built the bomb, the physicists that made the discoveries that led to the creation of the bomb, the Soviet government, each individual historian that writes about the event, every reader that reads the historian's intepretation of the facts of the event, us on this message board today, etc. etc. etc. The United States dropping the bomb on Hiroshima means something different, sometimes wildly different, to every one of those people/groups. Edited November 26, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Thus...historians...not history...are subjective. Stalingrad happened. Edited November 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Our understanding of history is mediated by historians. Neither you nor I were at Stalingrad. We only understand it through interpretations of the event, interpretations in our contemporary context. Edit: I should add, interpretations that are sometimes re-interpreted by news or media (such as films and books). Most often our understanding of history is an interpretation of an interpretation. As Baudrillard said about hyperreality: the real is more real than the real. Edited November 26, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 Any 'alternate versions' of historical events have the baggage of agenda attached. This is why you don't have conspiracy theories about Midway...but there's about a billion of them trying to explain away Japan's role in Pearl Harbor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 Any 'alternate versions' of historical events have the baggage of agenda attached. This is why you don't have conspiracy theories about Midway...but there's about a billion of them trying to explain away Japan's role in Pearl Harbor. That's not true. There are alternate histories about Southern Reconstruction. There was a paradigmatic shift in the way historians viewed Reconstruction following the 1940s. That doesn't mean Reconstruction didn't happen, happened differently, or that there's some sort of "agenda" attached. It's about meaning and understanding. You cannot write history without creating meaning and that is and always will be a subjective activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 us on this message board today, etc. etc. etc. The United States dropping the bomb on Hiroshima means something different, sometimes wildly different, to every one of those people/groups. Sure...while I bet it even means something different to the Canadians in the Montreal Laboratory (Chalk River), Eldorado Gold Mining Company, Great Bear Lake uranium mine, and other Canadians partcipating in the Manhattan Project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 That's not true. There are alternate histories about Southern Reconstruction. There was a paradigmatic shift in the way historians viewed Reconstruction following the 1940s. That doesn't mean Reconstruction didn't happen, happened differently, or that there's some sort of "agenda" attached. It's about meaning and understanding. You cannot write history without creating meaning and that is and always will be a subjective activity. I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 What conspiracy theories would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 What conspiracy theories would that be? Any unpleasant reality you wish buried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 History is VERY objective, Historians, however..... If some group's perspectives are not included, then it is not objective even at the start, in the data-gathering process. Aside from the obvious ones, like the tendency to consider wars and military campaigns the most important things to write down, and the obvious fact that during those wars, the losers don't get the same chance to make their contributions to history, there are other examples Another good example today would be how to consider the native oral histories from people who did not have written languages until modern times. Euro-centric historians just assumed that oral histories are heresay and would not use them; but psychologists who study illiterate people tell us that someone who does not know how to read or write has much greater wrote memory abilities than literate people, who don't have the same need to remember because they can just refer to written notes. So, at least in recent centuries, oral histories appear to be much more accurate than previously expected, and often more accurate about historical events, including natural disasters, than many of the early written records of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.