How do historic films help or hinder
the understanding of historical events?
Historic films are good because they
give a visual and exiting story about what happened. The problem with this is
that sometimes in order to be more appealing, some events might be exaggerated.
The other big problem is bias, it all depends on who is holding the camera. A
movie about the Vietnam war looks very different from the US perspective than
from the Vietnams perspective.
1.
What connections you can find
between language and history?
·
The language we use is influenced by the history
period we are in ex. Shakespeare
History always has a purpose, a motive so that’s
how they tell it for it to fill it
2.
Do you agree with the critic that
history books ignore the actions of the “normal people”, the workers?
Yes,
we often hear about the great wars or structures and the leaders but not the
people that actually fought or worked. Hitler was in command of the SWW but
still there were tons of soldiers who agreed to this. I think it is important
to study the normal people. Because the leader is just one person and we can
get much more from many others than from only one.
The book talks about Bolivar and we get first got to New
Granada, yet it fails to mention all the other people that made this trip
possible. Colon as well is often the hero of discovering America, yet the hard
work of sailing across hard waters was made by the Sailors.
When talking about the French revolution, although it mentions some of
the leaders, it also talks about the French people and their unconformities and
how they fought, making it noticeable that the whole people had to go thorough
work in order to get their rights.
I think history is always biased. Since it was a long time ago, it is very hard to get acurate information, and most of the time it is from pieces of information that someone puts togather, but still youa re getting one bit out of a whole stack of information so you can never know all the real facts. Even if you are lucky enough to have someone that actually was there, History is still very biased. It is like a camara, it all depends where you point it, and that caused us to think who is the goor or the bad. For example the Vietnam vs. US war, a Vietnamese would say that they were right, but an American would defend the US. Just because it is unreliable like this dosent mean we should studie it, as long as we are on the look for this bias, history is very important and can help us understand the past and with that, improve the future.
The clearest example I can think of history bias is how in American history they teach that the United States fought Mexico for the territories like Texas, and then won and took the land. In Mexico they teach that the Mexican president was corrupt, and sold the land to the Americans at a low price, getting money for himself as well. This shows how every country has its different ways of analyzing history.
I think history is always biased. Since it was a long time ago, it is very hard to get acurate information, and most of the time it is from pieces of information that someone puts togather, but still youa re getting one bit out of a whole stack of information so you can never know all the real facts. Even if you are lucky enough to have someone that actually was there, History is still very biased. It is like a camara, it all depends where you point it, and that caused us to think who is the goor or the bad. For example the Vietnam vs. US war, a Vietnamese would say that they were right, but an American would defend the US. Just because it is unreliable like this dosent mean we should studie it, as long as we are on the look for this bias, history is very important and can help us understand the past and with that, improve the future.
The clearest example I can think of history bias is how in American history they teach that the United States fought Mexico for the territories like Texas, and then won and took the land. In Mexico they teach that the Mexican president was corrupt, and sold the land to the Americans at a low price, getting money for himself as well. This shows how every country has its different ways of analyzing history.
No comments:
Post a Comment