Re: blah blah blahhapticJuly 19 2005, 07:17:47 UTC
"History is all about the conflict of different ideologies"
History can be an ambiguous word because of the many contexts it can be placed in: world history, medical history, family history are only a few examples. Furthermore, it is uniquely viewed as simultaneously immutable - the past can only be what had [has?] happened - and open to personal interpretation. However, history, in its simplest sense, must be recorded in order to be transmitted to the future. A common feature of all genres and all [people]’s history is then that [it] is a documentation of change[comma] for [delete comma] people would have little reason to document those circumstances that have remain unchanged. Indeed, one could even posit that history, to be “history” must be viewed as describing an environment different from the present [del. comma] or the ideology of the viewer. Thus, The very act of labeling some artifact or event as “historical” automatically delineates a conflict, or at least a division between the ideologies of its time period and those of
( ... )
this is getting tedioushapticJuly 19 2005, 07:18:16 UTC
Of course, change often happens without such head-on collisions of viewpoints. Inventions and discoveries (theoretical, scientific, geographical, etc.) can lead to profound upheavals in the global paradigm, thus leading to a note in the annals of history. Yet many of these did not involve a conflict between different people. Indeed, they can even be the result of united purpose, such as the “manifest destiny” mantra that seized frontiersmen and led to the expansion of US borders into what it is [they are] today. Many important inventions, as well, are the result of a shared need, rather than any conflicts of interest. Everyone agreed to the efforts toward eliminating smallpox (all but the virus, of course). [eliminating smallpox is a good example but it’s not an “invention,” the vaccine was, but not the entire process. I think you should keep the example but be clearer about what exactly you are referring to. Actually, now that I think of it, “manifest destiny” wasn’t really a “discovery” either, since the western states had already
( ... )
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
History can be an ambiguous word because of the many contexts it can be placed in: world history, medical history, family history are only a few examples. Furthermore, it is uniquely viewed as simultaneously immutable - the past can only be what had [has?] happened - and open to personal interpretation. However, history, in its simplest sense, must be recorded in order to be transmitted to the future. A common feature of all genres and all [people]’s history is then that [it] is a documentation of change[comma] for [delete comma] people would have little reason to document those circumstances that have remain unchanged. Indeed, one could even posit that history, to be “history” must be viewed as describing an environment different from the present [del. comma] or the ideology of the viewer. Thus, The very act of labeling some artifact or event as “historical” automatically delineates a conflict, or at least a division between the ideologies of its time period and those of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment