A user nicked “spy” that opens an account here to raise a 8 or 9 years old thread to post what he posted… I think he is deadly serious…. deadly serious…You're joking right?
In history class, I learned bias is fine and natural, the term sounds awful though. Every historian will have a bias, that bias is probably what leads them to examine the past in the a certain way in the first place. As long as they don't use the bias as motivation to see things that aren't there everything's fine. Bias is fine the issue is whether the bias leads to incorrect history. But no history will be unbiased. Bias though in the eyes of each person who holds it is justified.Do we have biases when we study history? By that I mean, when we look at a conflict involving two countries or peoples, do we tend to think of one side as "the bad guy," and the other as "the good guy."
Everyone knows WWII.
UK US are the good guys and Germany and Japan are the bad guys.Right?
But the UK had a huge chunk of the world conquered prior to WWII. They came out of WWI with more conquests than before, when Germany is often thought as the conquerer.
Japan was brutal and conquered a lot of Asia but most of the conquests were places that were just conquests of white peoples. Dutch East Indies, Phillipines, Indo-China, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia. I'm not saying WW I and II shouldn't have been fought. I'm talking about the perception of our minds on good guy bad guy.
Persia vs Greece. Persia is the bad guy, but Greece is the good guy.
Alexander the Great is seen as some great guy conquering Persia. But then we have Ghengis Khan the conquerer. He's usually seen as some asiatic barbarian. Alexander brings light to the Middle East, but the Ottomans taking over Byzantium and moving toward Vienna are The Enemy At The Gate.
Cowboys and Indians is another classic. The Indians are the bad guys. They are savage and scalp people, and the murderous Cowboys and American Calvary committing genocide are the brave good guys.
The Islamic Empire. The Muslims come into France but are stopped by the brave Charles The Hammer Martel. Whew! He saved France from the barbarians. Meanwhile Cordova in Islamic Spain becomes the jewel of Europe. And Baghdad is the center of the world's learning.
Brave Richard the LionHeart leads the Crusade against the Muslims, who see the Europeans the same way the Europeans see the vikings. A bunch of barbarians bringing nothing but death.
Brave Israel is beseiged by the Arabs. (This is one that I was seriously mistaken about for a very long time ). Meanwhile the Palestinians are stuck in a network of prison walls and getting pulverized by Israel's firepower and determination to wipe them out.
Then there's the Yellow Menace of the early 1900's. However it was the Europeans who tried carving China up.
As Historians should we be fighting against these biases? Should we talk about history is a more neutral way?
The Spanish weren't trying to make colonies. In the US the settlement of the new world is taught as some sort of race as if everyone had the same goal. The Aztec and Incan empires were conquered by accident/in direct contradiction of orders and just ended up with two conquered empires. The English, Portuguese and French didn't have this unplanned situation and settled the new world for settlement and/or trade. They were not ruling over the Natives, the Natives remained foreign opponents/allies/entities.I think contemporary conflicts are seen as good v bad - this is necessary in order to drum up support and feeling for the war. By the time these conflicts have passed into history, however, this ceases to be the case. Rarely in any study of WWII will you read historians describing Hitler in terms of good and evil - it is left to the layman to use such terms who maybe wants to make an appeal to emotions. No serious study of past conflicts ever presents it in terms of good and bad.
As for the colonisation of America, it is simply a matter of perception. Because the United States and Canada are seen to be more successful than the South American or Latin American nations, people have mistakenly assumed that the British were better colonizers than the Spanish. The reputation of the Conquistadors has probably contributed to this perception, but their notereity has as much to do with time and place as it has with nationality. In other words, had it been British adventurers forging their way through the South American hinterland in the 16th century we may just as easily have been reading about their atrocities and greed. British colonialism didnt really take off until the late 18th century, by which time enlightenment values had begun to permeate through society - hence the perception that the British were more moderate colonizers.
Some people I'm sure will see these examples ass "necessary" to winning the War, I'm certain that if the axis powers had come out victorious they would also claim that the holocaust and Nanking were "necessary".
Screw you mate, you didn't even mention Russia. Don't mention the UK and US, they did nothing in comparison to Russia. Compare how many Russian soldiers fought in the war to how many black people did you Russiaphobe! You should be embarrassed of yourself
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Any ancient/medieval movie in the last decade with decent historical accuracy?||Movies / Television|
|How should historical conflicts and territorial disputes be settled?||General History|
|Are there any historical biases/misconceptions that your country has?||General History|
|Historical People with Phobias||General History|