History: "A chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history

Is this is an overly simplistic teaching of history? Yes.

This type of teaching has been very limiting as a result and has encouraged nationalism, leading to ongoing division between communities and individuals.

Encouragement though of others to consider the history of origin, in terms of positions put by others is rarely taken into consideration. I though believe it is important. Such teaching and study encourages people to step outside their realm of confidence and learn about alternative positions put forward by others about origin, living, history and discovery.

Don't forget the most important bias, history is written by the winners.

Also something is fishy when laws are enacted to stop any negative discussion of events.

History shouldn't become just opinion though. Whike alternative perspectives of history is a good thing, it should still be held accountable to what actually happened as opposed to how differing people view it.

One subject of history that I liked was a history of technology. From Middle Ages to modern ages. That kind of history doesn't need a narrative of battles and wars told by the winners. And conversely the topic of settlement and local history and local growth is great for just the opposite reason. It's full of narrative and sheds more light on how things were then a collection of battles by different armies. (Though that's worth knowing too.)

It concerns me that many want to rewrite history, not the put things right type but pretend it never happened re write,little chance exists we will ever not get slanted views but in the end we know we can learn from our past current efforts to wipe Cpt Cook from ours is in the end quite silly

Much rewritten history now places the looser as the good guys. Though today many of the World leaders want to take civilization back from the technological development of the last 200 years as there is they believe not enough energy to give everyone an expected standard of living. Their view of history is the dark ages kept the people quiet.

http://www.bigthink.com/paul-ratner/time-to-get-medieval-why-some-conservative-thinkers-love-the-middle-ages
http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/9873/what-event-could-push-the-entire-human-race-into-medieval-times

Well, I'll be heading to Cooktown this weekend for the Discovery festival. Apparently, last year some academic git wit complained when people laughed when the Marines fired their rifles & the Aboriginals darted into the bushes (all part of the act). This idiot apparently wrote somewhere how demeaning this act was to the Indigenous & it shouldn't be part of the display. will be interesting how they'll do it on sunday. I for one can't imagine a PC historical reenactment of Cook's stay on the Endeavour River.

The technology since the early days has changed. Yet
the moral position remains the same. One can rid the
world of atrocities only by refusing to take part in
them.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn once wrote about an old
Russian proverb that stated:

"No, don't! Don't dig up the past!
Dwell on the past and you'll lose an eye!"

But the proverb goes on to say:

"Forget the past and
You'll lose both eyes!"

We must learn the truth about our past and learn
from our mistakes and tragedies to try to prevent them
from happening again.

However, there are many people who insist that there is
no such thing as "objective history."

The historian can establish that an act took place on a certain
day. However when a historian begins to look critically at
motivation, circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations, the product becomes unacceptable for one or
another camp of readers.

Continued stereotyping of any nation can encourage "counter-stereotyping" and the result is usually a complete breakdown
in communication.

Many people are often reluctant to modify their judgements.
Therefore it is crucial to try to deal constructively with
whatever major questions may challenge a nation. History
should stimulate discussion and debate.

Many years ago I was the only witness to an incident in which a vessel was lost. Several weeks later I happened to be in a Bar having a quiet drink when the group next to me brought up that incident & one started to explain how it happened. Of course this was too much for me to hold back on & I remarked that I had actually witnessed it all & explained how it all unfolded while I was watching. Well, the chap who had explained earlier went on the defensive & argued that there was no way it happened as I witnessed it.
I imagine that the recording of history does at times happen along the same lines.

Dear Nathan,

«History: "A chronological record of significant events"»

Now who is to decide which events were significant? Significant for whom?

Most history books record events that were significant for nations, but are you a nation? Otherwise why waste your time?

If you care for your spirit, then the best history to read that could be significant for your own spiritual progress, is about the lives of saints.

<<Now who is to decide which events were significant? Significant for whom?>>

There are plenty of examples and I can list some. For example, Teachers, University lecturers, Schools, history groups, representative bodies, parents, Parliaments, Politicians etc.

When one looks at history, it can and does have many perspectives to it, which some do not recognise. For example one cannot get this variation of understanding through various sectors that exist (all with vested interests), as one is forced to accept what they offer.

The worst examples tend to be Schools and Universities. I was forced to go to school and if I wish to study further, I may need to consider University.

There is a very set system to follow and if I don't go by the book, my work will generally be marked with an F.

Other elements of society take history into a different perspective. One example can be Buddhism. Buddhism has many takes on history, in many ways more that a history book I may be forced to read at a school can provide. I would rather have the opportunity to learn from the perspectives of others - but schools generally won't provide that.

Instead, at most schools, people are forced to undertake hours of homework, when I would really like to see more people learn and gain from others, regarding their position on history and see it spread to a broader cross section of people, seeing better understanding of the positions of others and hopefully leading to a more open minded and better educated community.

//I was forced to go to school and if I wish to study further, I may need to consider University.//

Oh, you poor little snowflake! Of all the horrible deprivations that mankind has ever dreamt up! Being forced, against your will, to gain an education. What a shame it isn't the 19th century, when you could have been down the coalmine or up the chimney or in the gutter crapping yourself to death of dysentery instead. Oh woe, oh misery, oh calamity.

//Instead, at most schools, people are forced to undertake hours of homework, when I would really like to see more people learn and gain from others//

OK, how old are you? And do your parents know you use this website? Have you discussed your use of this website with them? I don't think it's necessarily bad that you're on here, it's not a porn website or anything. But we do discuss adult topics, and the debate can get pretty ugly sometimes... I think it I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I knew your parents were closely supervising your use of this website. And only after you've done ALL your homework. And cleaned your room, young man (joke).

Look, I know it sucks, but it's there for a reason. School is to teach you how to think, not what to think, and doing homework helps. And then after that... well, you don't have to go to uni. There's no shame in doing a TAFE course and being an armchair historian. Whatever gets you a job. Being an armchair historian is more fun anyway. Real historians have to read tons of boring documents, ask Joe (Loudmouth) about it if he pops his head up on this discussion.

If you watch NITV you will be shown the glories of living primitive. There are those that believe we should return to the bush as they got it right! The technological developments of recent history are destroying the Planet and humanity.
Those that have not learnt from history are bound to repeat the past evils. We decry Hitler, Pol Pot etc but we Australians murder 50 to 70 thousand healthy unborn each year and make no complaint about it. Secretly some are at war with unplanned pregnancy killing their children.

Dominant ideologies rise in a Nation with a few followers and change history because there is complacent resistance. Currently we have radical Marxist and Islamic extremism pushing their agenda in the United Nations and taught at elite University Levels as the New World Order.

//Currently we have radical Marxist and Islamic extremism pushing their agenda in the United Nations and taught at elite University Levels as the New World Order.//

O...kay.

Just ignore the crazy man, folks. He's only talking to himself anyway.

Dear Toni,

«Being forced, against your will, to gain an education.»

What's school to do with education?

I was well educated before going to school, I was reading heaps of books on every possible subject and my parents taught me everything else, also sent me to private tutors.

But when I turned 6 I had to go to school regardless, because I knew that if I didn't then my parents would be sent to jail. No child wants their dear parents to go to jail, right? So I sacrificed it all for them, I didn't learn anything in school (I remember when the year-1 teacher asked: "What minus what gives 11", where I answered, 1000000-999989), it was a complete waste of time, but I was regularly beaten and stoned by the other kids there - well what wouldn't you have done for your parents?!

TL: Just ignore the crazy man, folks. He's only talking to himself anyway

Not this time Tony, not this time.

Dear Foxy,

>>The historian can establish that an act took place on a certain
day. However when a historian begins to look critically at
motivation, circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations, [i.e. interprets the facts - added GV] the product becomes unacceptable for one or another camp of readers.<<

I agree, nevertheless, the theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg warns,

<< As [the Cambridge historian Herbert] Butterfield explained … [in the Whig Interpretation of History, NY 1951, p. 75], the Wig historian seems to believe that there is an unfolding logic in history. … [He] went to attack … the archetypal Whig historian, Lord Acton for his view of history as a means of passing moral judgements on the past. … Butterfield went on to say that “if history can do anything it is to remind us of those complications that undermine our certainties, and to show us that all our judgements are only relative to time and circumstance. … We can never assert that history has proven any man right in the long term. We can never say that the ultimate issue, the succeeding course of events or the lapse of time have proved that [e.g.] Luther was right against the Pope, [etc] … .

This is the point, where the historian of science and the historian of politics [and social issues] must part. [For instance], the passage of time has shown that Darwin was right against Lamarck, [etc.] … Present scientific knowledge has the potentiality of being relevant in the history of science in a way that present moral and political judgements may not be relevant in political or social history. >>
(The one Culture?, ed. J.A.Labinger & H. Collins, UCP 2001, p. 119).

Dearest Foxy,

""No, don't! Don't dig up the past!
Dwell on the past and you'll lose an eye!"

But the proverb goes on to say:

"Forget the past and
You'll lose both eyes!""

Brilliant ! Yes, indeed, we have to try to understand our past, warts and all. I've got enough convicts in my ancestry, some of them probably total bastards, and i wish i knew more about all of them.

I'm all in favour of a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation commission in relation to Indigenous people here and our own history. We can only move forward by grappling with ALL the truth. I'm still grappling with the implications that, here in SA, the grandly named Aborigines Department had one employee, the Protector whose main task was to oversee provision to up to seventy ration depots all over the Colony/State, wherever Aboriginal people were. If they moved, so did the ration depot. If they moved back, so did the ration depot.

Aboriginal people had explicit rights to use the land as they always had done (and that's still the law here). So maybe nobody was ever pushed off their land; nobody was ever herded onto Missions, which also were often one-man shows with, if anything, the missionary gambling about too many people wanting to come and live there.

Anyhow, I've typed up the 9,000 letters of the Protector here, from 1837 up to 1912, and other key documents, all on: www.firstsources.info

Let the truth ALWAYS prevail.

Joe

Let the truth ALWAYS prevail.
Loudmouth,
I'm with you on that one. What we need to come up with is a strategy to infiltrate Australia with people of integrity. Any ideas ?

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/scotland-neolithic-cairn-destroyed-bird-watchers-0010274

I wonder how many sites are destroyed in this way here in Australia but not reported because it would be anti PC ?

Hi Individual,

For a start, investigate every outrageous claim: a massacre ? Where ? Investigate it, otherwise bugger off.

Stolen Generation ? Show us your files. My wife had one, so why not other Indigenous people who came to the attention of welfare authorities ?

Stolen Wages ? Check the accounts: did those blokes' families get rations while they were away shearing ? If so, why not deduct the cost - or do people want BOTH rations AND full wages ? Full wages ? Certainly people got full wages down here in SA, so why not elsewhere ? Shearers were and are paid by there hundred anyway, and I can't imagine some dirty deal in which Aboriginal shearers got less per hundred than other shearers - the union wouldn't have stood for it.

People herded onto missions ? Where ? By whom ? Missions usually had skeleton staffs, one or two or a mere handful. Did any mission ever have a human-proof fence around it ? Rubbish.

People pushed off their land ? Where ? Isn't it even more likely that people simply moved from A to B ? Down here in SA, when they did that, the Protector (the one-man 'Department')shifted the ration depot to suit them.

People had no land rights ? Of course they did, more than they realised - i.e. the right to use land as they always had done. In fact, Indigenous people have generally had more rights than they realised -voting rights, etc. And they still do, at least here in SA.

Counted in the Censuses ? Well, there wasn't an 'Indigenous box' until 1971, so how could anybody have been prevented from filling out the Census form ?

And how come nobody mentions the free medical services, at least down here in SA, from there earliest days - almost unique in the world ? Not PC ?

Christ, i get sick of the lies. Bring on a Truth Commission, for god's sake.

Joe