Who writes history? (Rome, Japanese, France, historical)

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

I am not making excuses for committing atrocities

Sure you are. Virtually every post you've made says essentially the same thing: "Yeah, but America did THIS". And in virtually every case, the scale of the "crime" committed by the US is far off different from that of the Imperial Japanese (or whoever).

Wrong is wrong, but you have wrong and you have WRONG.
Countries do bad things in war-time, ALL countries do - that is the nature of war.

I'm not going to argue about Guantanamo with you. It certainly is a controversial topic even here in America and I suspect it's days as a detention camp are numbered - but is is NOT the same situation as the Japanese-American Internment Camps - who'se internees were American Citizens. There are a lot of Americans who disagree with the way the GWOT is being fought (including the way Guantanamo is being used). But that is a whole separate issue which is NOT really part of this discussion. If you want to start a GWOT discussion, start a new thread - it does not belong here.

Ken

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by LordBalforI am not making excuses for committing atrocities, but the fact is that America still uses the same tactics with their Guantanamo detention camp.
Yes, you have offered your excuse and teach in your history classes that imprisoning American orientals on the basis of their race is a grievous mistake, yet to me Guantanamo is proof that you do not learn from your mistakes in history.

I think you're getting way off topic here, the topic at hand is the recording of history, not Bush or Iraq or Guantanamo.
You have something against americans, that's for sure...that's fine but I suggest the poltical forum in this site is more fitting for what you want this discussion to lead into and you will get the debate you want and all the oppurtunity you want to rave about "hate Bush" and "anti-US imperialims" or whatever it is that bothers you and some of us will be happy to debate a European there.

Now we can talk about Dutch slave trading, Dutch colonization in IndoChina and Africa, Dutch exploitation of it's colonies, the Aboyna massacre by Dutch agents, if you wish - that's all part of history.

[b. frank]

Originally Posted by Trudeyrose

Sometimes it is not Who writes history, but HOW...Norman Cantor, a history writer and professor, wrote a book "Inventing History" where he explains that
Writers can tend to put their own 'spin' on events, depending on their polotics,perspective, and also the era in which they write.

A historian is literally a writer of History. That's what separates historians from "history buffs" - they are working in the industry, and usually teaching at the same time.
Historians don't "tend" to put their spin on on events - it is their job to do so. But they would call it research, not "spin".
History is constantly being written. Historical journals are constantly being published and you can read the current debates about History there.
History is a complex social science. It's not just a chunk of facts for grade-schoolers to rermember.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Dd714

You have something against americans, that's for sure...that's fine but I suggest the poltical forum in this site is more fitting for what you want this discussion to lead into and you will get the debate you want and all the oppurtunity you want to rave about "hate Bush" and "anti-US imperialims" or whatever it is that bothers you and some of us will be happy to debate a European there.

Where have I posted that you should hate Bush or said anything about American imperialism?
If Guatantanamo is not a (historical) fact then sure you can accuse me of bashing America ( except I'm not only bashing America but modern humanity in general, but since most posters here are Americans I doubt they agree with me).
I'm not anti-American I just hate hypocrites and before you accuse me of saying that Americans are hypocrites I am not saying that either.
I'm just of the opinion that you can't offer an excuse for having done something wrong and then just do it again just become you find it convenient. It doesn't matter to me that people who do this are American, Dutch, Chinese or a Martian.

[Mooseketeer]

Historians have often had an agenda , and Churchill IMO is quite right as to the Victor not only the spoils of War but also the way it will be remembered.

From Chroniclers such as Geoffrey of Monmouth , and Froissart to the multitude of Priests who chronicled the Conquest of Central and South America to more recent historians, history has often been a one sided affair in its reporting.

I guess human nature makes it difficult to be unbiased and the truth has often been a casualty. Historians often have an agenda whether it is their own views of a certain period or who their "master" is.

Reading history books to me is not only fascinating for the "facts" it uncovers but often for the way the "facts" are written and reported.

Impartiality can be difficult to find sometimes though hopefully with more scrutiny and more widely available knowledge history chronicling should become a more transparent process.

[Moth]

Sure you are. Virtually every post you've made says essentially the same thing: "Yeah, but America did THIS". And in virtually every case, the scale of the "crime" committed by the US is far off different from that of the Imperial Japanese (or whoever).

You noticed that as well, eh?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Moth

You noticed that as well, eh?

Yes well if America boldly acts as the world police and decides to invade a country on false information, with or without the support of the Nato, you are bound to catch some flack from some people (who probably are not patriotic or American).

[Moth]

who are probably not patriotic or American

I am both and thought Iraq wrong. Not sure how that alters your theories.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Moth

I am both and thought Iraq wrong. Not sure how that alters your theories.

And I am not anti-American, but I somehow I doubt you'll believe me.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Moth Yes well if America boldly acts as the world police and decides to invade a country on false information, with or without the support of the Nato, you are bound to catch some flack from some people (who probably are not patriotic or American).

So, make a post about the Iraq War.
You are certainly not scoring any points by seemingly championing the Japanese in WW II (a situation where they were CLEARLY in the wrong).

Ken