History, from what I have learned, is a record of events that happened in the past. However, some of the information obtained from the sources back in the time periods can be unreliable. What if the person who witnessed what really happened wanted to give his or her perspective on what the situation was? What if he or she wanted people to believe a tragic event was just a nonsensical excuse to try and get revenge?
I usually thought about that when I studied about Medieval times. For example, people back in the time period recorded what the King Edwards of England had done in their rule of the country. Some Kings were regarded worse than others, but when historians researched about the kings, it seemed that some kings were not what they were actually said to be.
I studied about the Rwandan Genocide, and many sources indicated that the Bahutu were the mass murderers, but the RPF on another source indicated that the RPF members killed more people:
"After more than 14 years of systematic disinformation about Rwanda there exists a collective ignorance about what really happened in Rwanda and who is responsible. The so-called 'Rwanda Genocide' is one of the most widely misunderstood events in contemporary history, and not because the evidence is lacking or because the truth is obscured by butchery."
"Within Rwanda, legislation prevents anyone from questioning the official historical record."
"The real story seems to be that the RPF were the killers to a far greater extent, the majority of the victims were Hutus, and the numbers of dead during those 100 days were far less. The final insult to truth comes in the upside-down assertion that the RPF 'stopped the genocide by winning the war.' Also, the RPF typically killed everyone in its path: Major General Paul Kagame did not trust any Tutsis who stayed in Rwanda after pogroms that created the Tutsi exile community prior to the Habyarimana government (1973-1994) and Tutsis were also targeted by the RPF."
These quotes were obtained from the website: http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2009/...e-and-its.html
The point isn't whether or not the Hutus or the RPF killed more than the other, but that people have different views on past events. However, this was a relatively recent event which took place in 1994, lasting about 100 days, so sources such as magazines and periodicals can probably be more reliable than those of much earlier time periods.
Another interesting thought I have come up with is that some people probably don't want to reveal the reality of a situation. In history class, I watched a scene of a group of college students that joined the military in the time of the World Wars that had their very first trip at a trench/battlefield.
However, before these college students made a decision that changed their lives, their professor had convinced them to join the military. The professor stated that there would be very few losses, and nothing to worry about. However, in the end of the World Wars, millions of people were killed. The professor failed to mention that there would be massive killings, and that even close friends of yours can die or be severely injured.
Did the professor purposely remove the reality of war from his speech so the college students didn't become frightened?
I also watched a National Geographic video on Global Warming as well. This page has some of the facts mentioned in the documentary:
"Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface."
The video explained how daily activities poured gases that become trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. However, there was one factor I didn't catch in the video. You know how driving a car releases gases to the air surrounding you? Well, population was not mentioned in the video at all. If more people come to the United States, then chances are highly likely that more harmful gases will be released that will cause glaciers and icebergs to melt and cause rising in sea levels.
Let's say a country has a population of 5 million. If 4 million people leave, 1 million people will be left (obviously). Considering there's less people in the area, there's going to be less energy used for daily necessities. It just seems like common sense, but do the directors of the film purposely leave that fact out, or do they not want people to know too much about global warming?
SUMMARY:
The main point of my post is that sometimes, people may alter the actual truth to "brainwash" people. Do you think that telling people less is necessary? Do you think that some information should be revealed earlier than what is usually expected at a certain age? (Discussions with parents about dating and sexual acts can be an example) Do you think that most sources can be reliable?
I usually thought about that when I studied about Medieval times. For example, people back in the time period recorded what the King Edwards of England had done in their rule of the country. Some Kings were regarded worse than others, but when historians researched about the kings, it seemed that some kings were not what they were actually said to be.
I studied about the Rwandan Genocide, and many sources indicated that the Bahutu were the mass murderers, but the RPF on another source indicated that the RPF members killed more people:
"After more than 14 years of systematic disinformation about Rwanda there exists a collective ignorance about what really happened in Rwanda and who is responsible. The so-called 'Rwanda Genocide' is one of the most widely misunderstood events in contemporary history, and not because the evidence is lacking or because the truth is obscured by butchery."
"Within Rwanda, legislation prevents anyone from questioning the official historical record."
"The real story seems to be that the RPF were the killers to a far greater extent, the majority of the victims were Hutus, and the numbers of dead during those 100 days were far less. The final insult to truth comes in the upside-down assertion that the RPF 'stopped the genocide by winning the war.' Also, the RPF typically killed everyone in its path: Major General Paul Kagame did not trust any Tutsis who stayed in Rwanda after pogroms that created the Tutsi exile community prior to the Habyarimana government (1973-1994) and Tutsis were also targeted by the RPF."
These quotes were obtained from the website: http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2009/...e-and-its.html
The point isn't whether or not the Hutus or the RPF killed more than the other, but that people have different views on past events. However, this was a relatively recent event which took place in 1994, lasting about 100 days, so sources such as magazines and periodicals can probably be more reliable than those of much earlier time periods.
Another interesting thought I have come up with is that some people probably don't want to reveal the reality of a situation. In history class, I watched a scene of a group of college students that joined the military in the time of the World Wars that had their very first trip at a trench/battlefield.
However, before these college students made a decision that changed their lives, their professor had convinced them to join the military. The professor stated that there would be very few losses, and nothing to worry about. However, in the end of the World Wars, millions of people were killed. The professor failed to mention that there would be massive killings, and that even close friends of yours can die or be severely injured.
Did the professor purposely remove the reality of war from his speech so the college students didn't become frightened?
I also watched a National Geographic video on Global Warming as well. This page has some of the facts mentioned in the documentary:
"Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface."
The video explained how daily activities poured gases that become trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. However, there was one factor I didn't catch in the video. You know how driving a car releases gases to the air surrounding you? Well, population was not mentioned in the video at all. If more people come to the United States, then chances are highly likely that more harmful gases will be released that will cause glaciers and icebergs to melt and cause rising in sea levels.
Let's say a country has a population of 5 million. If 4 million people leave, 1 million people will be left (obviously). Considering there's less people in the area, there's going to be less energy used for daily necessities. It just seems like common sense, but do the directors of the film purposely leave that fact out, or do they not want people to know too much about global warming?
SUMMARY:
The main point of my post is that sometimes, people may alter the actual truth to "brainwash" people. Do you think that telling people less is necessary? Do you think that some information should be revealed earlier than what is usually expected at a certain age? (Discussions with parents about dating and sexual acts can be an example) Do you think that most sources can be reliable?
Comment