Studying history is pointless

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="GreenPatchSky"]

.

Hey I have not been a member nearly as long as you but I did learn how to quote text day one. If you need help PM me and I can teach you how to do it.

[QUOTE="GreenPatchSky"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Sounds like a personal problem.BranKetra

Hey I have not been a member nearly as long as you but I did learn how to quote text day one. If you need help PM me and I can teach you how to do it.

You can never keep the conversation on yourself. You never responded to the quote earlier because you had no valid response, you were proven wrong. Now you screw up quotting and you again turn it on me. I mean I am sure you were the kid thats comeback was "I know you are but what am I". You told me to be more open to criticism and now I am telling you the same. I just thought you would know how to quote after 19000 posts, I was wrong and offered some support. Now I am done with you, I know you will respond but I will not read. If you want to chat I will be in my Kobe thread. Good day.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="GreenPatchSky"]

Hey I have not been a member nearly as long as you but I did learn how to quote text day one. If you need help PM me and I can teach you how to do it.

GreenPatchSky

You can never keep the conversation on yourself. I can't?You never responded to the quote earlier because you had no valid response, you were proven wrong.I was?Now you screw up quotting and you again turn it on me.I screwed up quoting?I mean I am sure you were the kid thats comeback was "I know you are but what am I". You told me to be more open to criticism and now I am telling you the same. I just thought you would know how to quote after 19000 posts, I was wrong and offered some support. You are wrong about a lot more than that.

Now I am done with you, I know you will respond but I will not read. If you want to chat I will be in my Kobe thread. Good day. I thought I wasn't given your permission to post in there anymore.

It's inevitable for history to be tainted with bias. If the event in question involved your country or culture it will naturally be written and therefore taught from that perspective. If the event in question did not involve your country or culture chances are it was written by the victor or majority at that time and will be remembered from their perspective.

HINT: the key word is "perspective"

History is very important to people. It gives people a place of reference and a way to see themselves in the world. However the truth of history isn't important past it's usefulness for those that express that notion of history. The truth of history is only significant if it becomes more useful to the people than their own notion of history. Interpretation of events is always critical in establishing reason and motivation for human behavior. I can't imagine what the world would be like if history was filled with absolute truth. I think that it would be unimaginably frightening and lonely for many people. Who would find little to believe in without those weighted historical identities.

History is told by the winners...

Unless the losers are still around and your best friends

Isn't it more useful to study the present?Nicksonman

[QUOTE="Nicksonman"]Isn't it more useful to study the present?SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"][QUOTE="Nicksonman"]Isn't it more useful to study the present?Nicksonman

It's pointless if you don't like to study it. Pretty much as simple as that.

history is exactly that, his story-DirtySanchez-

Well played, well played.

if youre not looking at source documents youre looking at something, at best, as reliable as the bible

Being able to study different perspectives is one of the things that makes history fun.Baranga

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Of course they can.thegerg

EDIT: Hell, even the examples you provided don't contradict oneanother. "George Washington rebelled against British taxes" and "George Washington rebelled against British taxes and sold tea" can both be true.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

butteman12

Monarchies and dictators also killed anyone that wispered their name in vein. History in its own entirity is sugar coated, fabricated, skewed and bias.

History tends to change depending on who's hand it was written by. The scary and depressing part of history is that we know by studying it that humans are a very violent specie and if there ever was a "utopia" or a rich beautiful civilization chances are it was raped for its wealth and all history of it was wiped clean by the victors.

That's why it is important to learn about the people's history instead of countries. People's stories are more important because we are people and not countries. I only know of one because I was encouraged to read it and I'm glad I did. The Twentieth Century: A People's History by Howard Zinn

That's why it is important to learn about the people's history instead of countries. People's stories are more important because we are people and not countries. I only know of one because I was encouraged to read it and I'm glad I did. The Twentieth Century: A People's History by Howard Zinn

LOXO7

I don't know about that. A persons opinion is a persons point of view, a singular point of view is always bias.

• A person looking at a scene from one angle see's something different than someone standing at another.
• A woman watching a couple argue from a distance has a different opinion to what the arguement is about to that of a mans.
• A white male witnessing a fight between a black mand and a white man may have a different answer to a white male on who started the fight.

Trusting one persons opinion is no different to trusting a countries writings of its past.

If mathematics, history, and science are but tools to help support a meaningless existence.

Then yes, they are all pointless.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

That's why it is important to learn about the people's history instead of countries. People's stories are more important because we are people and not countries. I only know of one because I was encouraged to read it and I'm glad I did. The Twentieth Century: A People's History by Howard Zinn

Grey_Eyed_Elf

I don't know about that. A persons opinion is a persons point of view, a singular point of view is always bias.

• A person looking at a scene from one angle see's something different than someone standing at another.
• A woman watching a couple argue from a distance has a different opinion to what the arguement is about to that of a mans.
• A white male witnessing a fight between a black mand and a white man may have a different answer to a white male on who started the fight.

Trusting one persons opinion is no different to trusting a countries writings of its past.

[QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

That's why it is important to learn about the people's history instead of countries. People's stories are more important because we are people and not countries. I only know of one because I was encouraged to read it and I'm glad I did. The Twentieth Century: A People's History by Howard Zinn

LOXO7

I don't know about that. A persons opinion is a persons point of view, a singular point of view is always bias.

• A person looking at a scene from one angle see's something different than someone standing at another.
• A woman watching a couple argue from a distance has a different opinion to what the arguement is about to that of a mans.
• A white male witnessing a fight between a black mand and a white man may have a different answer to a white male on who started the fight.

Trusting one persons opinion is no different to trusting a countries writings of its past.

The history of people. A book... written by ONE man. Is that clear enough for you?... no offence. I'm just want to make sure you know what I'm getting at here.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"]

I don't know about that. A persons opinion is a persons point of view, a singular point of view is always bias.

• A person looking at a scene from one angle see's something different than someone standing at another.
• A woman watching a couple argue from a distance has a different opinion to what the arguement is about to that of a mans.
• A white male witnessing a fight between a black mand and a white man may have a different answer to a white male on who started the fight.

Trusting one persons opinion is no different to trusting a countries writings of its past.

Grey_Eyed_Elf

The history of people. A book... written by ONE man. Is that clear enough for you?... no offence. I'm just want to make sure you know what I'm getting at here.

King George III (of the Hanover; German king) needed money. His central banksters needed taxation to fuel the war efforts to divert the people away from the financial woes of the state.

The colonies were producing plenty of trading goods (profit). The King (a big spender), decided to continue his usury. The colonials knew the ruse and declared war on the King, because of the usury. King George III was even more keen, he knew that people never fought their banks; so with the Bank of England, King George III decided to create a trust toward the United States of America, as a corporation, to continue siphoning profits and tax. The United States became a corporation during 1789, which the constitution. King George III was laughing at the stratagem he had place.

The principle of Unum Sactum is more powerful than the King of England; for this reason, this Roman despotic creation by the Roman Catholic Church (kirk; enterprise of Cons), have the ownership already, since the the US was a trust, and King George III a trustee.

There was no war of Independence because the business deal was done in fine print. The banks to this day, in England (a cesspool of corporate greed), prevails.

I loved history. I guess from a practical point its pointless other than getting involved in preserving history, but in other ways its very meaningful.

Ilovegames1992

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

I loved history. I guess from a practical point its pointless other than getting involved in preserving history, but in other ways its very meaningful.

aaronmullan

I think you're taking a very cynical view of history as well. Certainly grade school history tends to be light and more about national chest beating. However, once you get into the higher levels such as high school and above, you get more critical analysis of it. My teachings on the american revolution weren't about how the british were evil. In fact, the americans had a lot of sympathisizers in England just as England had the Tories in the US. The causes of the revolution were multipe and in fact the colonists actually got some concessions right before the war - almost everything they wanted. But by then, it was too late. The fire had been lit.