 While there may be more than one
side to a story, it is rare to see
an objective characterization of
the conflict, even if other
information exists elsewhere. What
one reads in textbooks about
conflicts is most often the work of
those who arose victorious from
them, as seen through their lense
and worldview. |
 08 Apr 2008 14:41
|
|
Textbooks are written by powerful
publishers with their own agendas,
sometimes hidden. |
07 Apr 2008 18:34
by  Guest |
|
|
|
 I am for and against. History is
what we get from the witnesses or
those involved in the 'Stories' we
get from the past. They are written
from the perspective of the writer.
The guy who actually wrote
something down, will become the
historian of the moment. If all we
have is his version, we have one
eye witness account. The victors
are more likely to write about
their experiences than the losers.
So sometimes that is very true. |
16 Apr 2008 13:09
|
|
Both side write the text books,
just different versions. Normally
if you read both sides the truth is
somewhere in between. The Victor
will put a spin on it to show they
were right and the cause just, the
Vanquished will put the spin on
that the victors fought dirty to
win and how they are now 2nd class
citizens in their own country (or
similar). You also have to be wary
these day of some of the more
'creative' versions of current or
historical events told through the
media, not sure who it was but the
phrase "never let the truth get in
the way of a good story" comes to
mind, its all about selling papers,
tv programmes and films now isn't
it. |
08 Apr 2008 00:39
|
|
|
|
