France Upholds Law That Smooths History

[kumquatq3]

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Commissar]

Oh, okay that was a lame joke. On topic: I agree with what Azarkon said about history education, that it should be only the cold hard facts and not coated with different flavours to change what it actually is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any history major will tell you that history itself is rarely, if ever, about cold hard facts.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Any history major will tell you that history itself is rarely, if ever, about cold hard facts.

(dutifully): History is rarely, if ever, about cold hard facts. The history taught in schools in the UK focuses more on analysing and interpreting sources, and of course, very controversially, 'empathy'.

 

It can be a problem if you go abroad to a country that your own country has messed around and you don't know about it. Local people may take offense. Former/current colonial powers have this problem more than most.

[Blank]

Oh, okay that was a lame joke. On topic: I agree with what Azarkon said about history education, that it should be only the cold hard facts and not coated with different flavours to change what it actually is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any history major will tell you that history itself is rarely, if ever, about cold hard facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But ideally... hence the words "should be".

unless you were just noting that it is not that way and it would be difficult to get it to be that way...

Edited December 1, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It can be a problem if you go abroad to a country that your own country has messed around and you don't know about it.  Local people may take offense.  Former/current colonial powers have this problem more than most.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These people need to grow up and stop trying to blame others for their own failures.

[SteveThaiBinh]

But ideally... hence the words "should be"

I don't agree that it ever could be. You can't make history completely neutral and fact-based. Someone has to select which facts to include in the curriculum, and which to exclude, and that person has his own agenda. So the biases are still there, only they're hidden, and the students don't learn the skills to deal with the biases.

[Commissar]

But ideally... hence the words "should be".

unless you were just noting that it is not that way and it would be difficult to get it to be that way...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ideally? I don't think so. My college years would have been much easier, and my BA in History even more worthless, if history exams had consisted of simply reciting learned facts.

[Blank]

But ideally... hence the words "should be"

I don't agree that it ever could be. You can't make history completely neutral and fact-based. Someone has to select which facts to include in the curriculum, and which to exclude, and that person has his own agenda. So the biases are still there, only they're hidden, and the students don't learn the skills to deal with the biases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't agree that it ever could be too.

however, the someone who selects which facts to include in the curriculum, and which to exclude, could have an agenda to just present the cold-hard facts. and they could also say that. and they could also have a section to teach about bias and tell kids they are dumb if they take it at face value.

[Walsingham]

I think it is worth noting that the French do have a record of officially vetting things we wouldn't. The Academie Francaise authorises words for use, and prosecutes people who stray outside on TV and so on. Given this, vetting history _may_ be ill-advised, but not inconsistent.

 

What about german legislation that says one may not deny the holocaust? Is this wrong?

[Blank]

I think it is worth noting that the French do have a record of officially vetting things we wouldn't. The Academie Francaise authorises words for use, and prosecutes people who stray outside on TV and so on. Given this, vetting history _may_ be ill-advised, but not inconsistent.

 

What about german legislation that says one may not deny the holocaust? Is this wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assume you are asking for our personal opinions. I believe because the holocaust occurred, to deny it would make one a kind of co-conspirator for the whole ordeal. I think it is a good law, i think its reason for existing is because the German's want others to see how they repent and will not forget the mistakes they have made.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I assume you are asking for our personal opinions. I believe because the holocaust occurred, to deny it would make one a kind of co-conspirator for the whole ordeal. I think it is a good law, i think its reason for existing is because the German's want others to see how they repent and will not forget the mistakes they have made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is crap for two reasons. First those people were not even around at the time. They have nothing to feel guilty for or appologise for. Second, holocausts occur through history. There was a mini one in the balklands not so long ago. Why should this particular one be singled out for special attention ? Thats not the job of the historian.

[Azarkon]

You make an interesting case, Azarkon. I certainly have no hesitation in agreeing that one should accept your nation's history without blinkers on. However, it is my perception that many kids today learn only the bad about their nation's history. You could say some redress is needed. The first black bishop in the church of England, recently throned, said as much in his inaugural comments. Although he is from Uganda, and proud of it, he also said British People should be proud of the many good things the Empire did, as well as repenting the bad.

 

Hence, a focus on cold, hard facts would absolve both sides: the evils will have to be taken in hand with the goods, and people can learn to decide for themselves.

 

I also note you say history should not be a means of indoctrination, and particularly indoctrination of morality. A devil's advocate might say that public morality can ill afford to turn away any assistance whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If by public morality, you mean a public indoctrinated into the service of ethnocentric nationalism (which is all that is truly imbued by the kind of education we're talking about), then I say down with it.

 

These people need to grow up and stop trying to blame others for their own failures.

 

Isn't this a classic case of blaming the victim for the misdeeds of the aggressor? I wouldn't say that the age of imperialism is quite at an end, yet...

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[Blank]

I also note you say history should not be a means of indoctrination, and particularly indoctrination of morality. A devil's advocate might say that public morality can ill afford to turn away any assistance whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If by public morality, you mean a public indoctrinated into the service of ethnocentric nationalism (which is all that is truly imbued by the kind of education we're talking about), then I say down with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but if you went down with all the public indoctrination of morality then you would start seeing anarchical type attitudes from people. i think the public does need help, because left to their own devices, it gets ugly quick.

 

Which is crap for two reasons. First those people were not even around at the time. They have nothing to feel guilty for or appologise for. Second, holocausts occur through history. There was a mini one in the balklands not so long ago. Why should this particular one be singled out for special attention ? Thats not the job of the historian.

 

i agree that they shouldn't feel guilty for what they didn't do, but that doesn't excuse the fact that in reality other people judge them just the same. to not apologize would just look bad because other countries attribute Germany's choices in history to modern-day Germany.

 

It shouldn't necessarily be singled out for attention, but it might as well be. it was a bad one. there are other bad ones. but they don't single those out. Why not? i don't know. i am not a history book writer. sorry that i can't change it.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Blank

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

These people need to grow up and stop trying to blame others for their own failures.

 

Isn't this a classic case of blaming the victim for the misdeeds of the aggressor? I wouldn't say that the age of imperialism is quite at an end, yet...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No more like a case of not trying to blame people who had nothing to do with the events in question.

 

There is no victim, that is history. Should I blame the Normans for the invasion of Britain ? Yeah lets blame them for that. Oh what the hell lets blame the Romans (italians) and those annoying bloody danes while we are it

 

Holding a nation responsible for the actions of individuals that long ago is just pointless.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

i agree that they shouldn't feel guilty for what they didn't do, but that doesn't excuse the fact that in reality other people judge them just the same. to not apologize would just look bad because other countries attribute Germany's choices in history to modern-day Germany.

 

It shouldn't necessarily be singled out for attention, but it might as well be. it was a bad one. there are other bad ones. but they don't single those out. Why not? i don't know. i am not a history book writer. sorry that i can't change it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you normally appologise for the actions of others ?

 

The answer is political.

[Blank]

It shouldn't necessarily be singled out for attention, but it might as well be. it was a bad one. there are other bad ones. but they don't single those out. Why not? i don't know. i am not a history book writer. sorry that i can't change it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you normally appologise for the actions of others ?

 

The answer is political.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol. i didn't notice myself do that. it is partially political, but i guess i naturally sympathize and regret reporting to you that i cannot change something which i would like to change.

 

<afterthought>

although, i could if i really wanted to, but i guess i don't really want to. i can sift through the history books as they are, with bias and all. the only disturbing thing is that one must wonder if they are getting the whole truth, even with bias it is okay, but when stuff is left out we can't do anything to get it, neh?

Edited December 1, 2005 by Blank

[Azarkon]

No more like a case of not trying to blame people who had nothing to do with the events in question.

 

There is no victim, that is history. Should I blame the Normans for the invasion of Britain ? Yeah lets blame them for that. Oh what the hell lets blame the Romans (italians) and those annoying bloody danes while we are it 

 

Holding a nation responsible for the actions of individuals that long ago is just pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but that is the classic excuse of nationalism: don't blame us, blame the people who were responsible for the decisions. Nevermind that we supported them. Nevermind that our culture and society still operates under the same principles that allowed such extremist doctrines to cloud our judgment in the first place.

 

And therein is the greatest trick of the devil, so to speak: the exoneration of the masses through the scapegoating of the few, of the dead. The delegation of responsibility to top government officials, which ignores both the cultural and political conditions responsible for their rise to power. Would the world be a better place without Hitler? Certainly. But he was not the only one preaching death to the Jews, and if he didn't exist, another would've taken his place sooner or later in making the same mistakes.

 

The problem is simple: if a man murders another man in cold blood, we hold that man responsible and all the blame we heap onto him is justice. But how do you hold a nation responsible for its actions? What is justice with regards to a nation? Is it merely the persecution of its leaders? They certainly made the decisions, but did they not do it at the behest of the nation, and were they not merely the most obvious representations of the national attitude? Let's not forget that Hitler rose to power through the German people - he was elected, and not one time in his regime did he lose the popular support of his people. Even to the end, the majority believed that he was a savior.

 

And that is exactly the same issue with separating a generation from its descendants. If we blame a nation's crimes on the generation that committed them we are ignoring the propagation of values from generation to generation, especially in a nation. Anti-semitism in Germany and ultra-militarism in Japan are not inventions of fascism; they were continuations of these two countries' nationals cultures up to that point. And unless that culture changes, the same mistakes will be repeated again and again.

 

In the end, the truth of the matter is this: a nation's crimes are not the crimes of a few top leaders. They are not even the crimes of a singular generation, present or past. Rather, they are the crimes of a system: political, economic, social, and ideological. The blame, therefore, must not rest with people as much as it must rest with the system in which these people are raised to uphold.

 

In this respect, blame and guilt, when raised at the level of national critique, is always viable so long as said system continues to edxist. Of course, the world disagrees as to when such a system no longer exists, and it's necessarily the case that the victims would have a longer memory than the aggressors. So it is that many Jews still do not trust the Germans. So it is that many Asians still blame the Japanese for their modern attitudes of superiority. But are they justified in their criticisms? The answer is not a point-blank "no" that supposes the current generations blameless for the actions of their ancestors and leaders. Instead, it must come from a evaluation of the criticized nation's political, economic, social, and ideological differences from the times of its notoriety. In short, they must demonstrate that they've really changed.

 

Btw, there are always victims, especially in history.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ah, but that is the classic excuse of nationalism: don't blame us, blame the people who were responsible for the decisions.  Nevermind that we supported them.  Nevermind that our culture and society still operates under the same principles that allowed such extremist doctrines to cloud our judgment in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And the classic excuse of failures is to blame someone else.

[Azarkon]

And the classic excuse of failures is to blame someone else.

 

Works both ways. The aggressor blames others for his own aggression (ie the government made me do it, my ancestors did it, etc.) just as the victim blames him. Sometimes the aggressor even blames the victim for his weakness. Except that, at least in real life, we don't prosecute the victim for his weakness. We prosecute the aggressor. Unless your idea of justice is that it's okay for me to murder people because it's their failure to stop me, I don't think it's relevant at all in this situation.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Works both ways.  The aggressor blames others for his own aggression (ie the government made me do it, my ancestors did it, etc.) just as the victim blames him.  Sometimes the aggressor even blames the victim for his weakness.  Except that, at least in real life, we don't prosecute the victim for his weakness.  We prosecute the aggressor.  Unless your idea of justice is that it's okay for me to murder people because it's their failure to stop me, I don't think it's relevant at all in this situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you were not even around at the time how could you have even been an aggresor ? It makes no sense.

 

If the events are current thats a different matter, but your taking about accusing people of being an aggresor when they were not even born. Now I'm pretty sure that no court would convict you of a crime that occured before you were even born.

 

When it comes to nations, since every nation has at some point been the aggressor in something or other there are no victims only other aggressors who lost.

[Azarkon]

If you were not even around at the time how could you have even been an aggresor ? It makes no sense.

 

If the events are current thats a different matter, but your taking about accusing people of being an aggresor when they were not even born. Now I'm pretty sure that no court would convict you of a crime that occured before you were even born. 

 

When it comes to nations, since every nation has at some point been the aggressor in something or other there are no victims only other aggressors who lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If your country is an aggressor and you're born under that country and, more importantly, a patriot of that country, then that makes you a potential aggressor. As I said, when a nation commits a crime, it's not only the leaders / current generation that must be held responsible. The entire system of the nation must be held responsible. So long as the system that brought about the aggression remains, the nation remains guilty of its previous crimes. This is equivalent to real life where we judge a criminal's ability to re-integrate into society by how much he's changed from his criminal ways.

 

The nation, like an organism, must be judged as a whole. It's true that historically, every nation has been aggressive at some time or another. But that simply means every nation is guilty until they've changed from their conquistidor ways. I wouldn't blame modern Italy for, say, the crimes of the Roman Empire because modern Italy is nothing like the Roman Empire. But I do have reason to blame Japan, for instance, for the crimes of historical Japan because in many aspects nothing has changed about the country's attitudes towards its neighbors. Same for the US, which has never renounced its imperialist ways and is still seeking a reenactment of Vietnam: hence Iraq.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[Rosbjerg]

a good post Azarkon ... but it still doesn't account for the fact that, say the now living German population, is any way responsible for the actions of those who came before them!

if they still allowed the said doctrines and political views to be present in their modern society they would be guilty of ignorance and stupidity! but never the consequences of a former regime..

 

It's not my responsibility or fault if my grandfather was a massmurderer, but it's my fault if I fall down a similar path, or allow my brother or other living relative to do the same (if I knew they where about too)!

 

it's the responsibilty of a modern nation, and it's inhabitans, not to make the same mistakes as their ancestors!

Edited December 1, 2005 by Rosbjerg

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If your country is an aggressor and you're born under that country and, more importantly, a patriot of that country, then that makes you a potential aggressor.  As I said, when a nation commits a crime, it's not only the leaders / current generation that must be held responsible.  The entire system of the nation must be held responsible.  So long as the system that brought about the aggression remains, the nation remains guilty of its previous crimes.  This is equivalent to real life where we judge a criminal's ability to re-integrate into society by how much he's changed from his criminal ways. 

 

The nation, like an organism, must be judged as a whole.  It's true that historically, every nation has been aggressive at some time or another.  But that simply means every nation is guilty until they've changed from their conquistidor ways.  I wouldn't blame modern Italy for, say, the crimes of the Roman Empire because modern Italy is nothing like the Roman Empire.  But I do have reason to blame Japan, for instance, for the crimes of historical Japan because in many aspects nothing has changed about the country's attitudes towards its neighbors.  Same for the US, which has never renounced its imperialist ways and is still seeking a reenactment of Vietnam: hence Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So everyone on the planet is a potential aggressor ,hardly what I would call news.

 

Well you can blame the people who purpatrated those crimes. Otherwise your guilty of racism. See your the one in the wrong here, because your expecting others to atone for crimes they had no part in. And that isnt justice in anyones book.

 

See a lead on from that would be well so and so murdered someone but he's dead so lets charge his son with murder. See where your logic leads ?

[Azarkon]

You're never guilty, personally, of your ancestors' crimes. But you're never guilty, personally, of anything with regards to the crimes of a nation unless you were the one calling the shots. Still, your *nation* is guilty, and if you choose to be a patriot of said nation, then you are by implication guilty. You *inherit* the guilt of a nation by virtue of your proclamation of being a citizen of said nation. The nation's guilt remains as long as it remains unrepentent, as long as it fails to change in a fundamental way from its earlier attitudes.

 

Hence, if a Japanese person told me that he was not personally guilty of Japan's war crimes, I'd agree with him. But if he tells me that his country is not guilty, then I have a problem with that assertion. If he tells me that Japan's modern society should not be blamed for its past, I have a problem. And my problem remains as long as I perceive a continuation of the kind of society that led to Japan's aggression in WW2. Once that ends, the country's guilt is absolved.

 

This is not racism because I don't judge a person by his race. I judge a person by his nation, and I only enact such a judgment if said person proclaims himself a nationalist of said nation. Since he/she chose to be a nationalist, then I must therefore judge him/her by the nation. That is only logical.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You're never guilty, personally, of your ancestors' crimes.  But you're never guilty, personally, of anything with regards to the crimes of a nation unless you were the one calling the shots.  Still, your *nation* is guilty, and if you choose to be a patriot of said nation, then you are by implication guilty.  You *inherit* the guilt of a nation by virtue of your proclamation of being a citizen of said nation.  The nation's guilt remains as long as it remains unrepentent, as long as it fails to change in a fundamental way from its earlier attitudes.

 

Hence, if a Japanese person told me that he was not personally guilty of Japan's war crimes, I'd agree with him.  But if he tells me that his country is not guilty, then I have a problem with that assertion.  If he tells me that Japan's modern society should not be blamed for its past, I have a problem.  And my problem remains as long as I perceive a continuation of the kind of society that led to Japan's aggression in WW2.  Once that ends, the country's guilt is absolved.

 

This is not racism because I don't judge a person by his race.  I judge a person by his nation, and I only enact such a judgment if said person proclaims himself a nationalist of said nation.  Since he/she chose to be a nationalist, then I must therefore judge him/her by the nation.  That is only logical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well the Japanese did rather horrible things to my Grandfathers brother in WWII. But the only people I hold responsible are those who were responsible for those acts. I certainly dont hold 21st C Japan responsible. Or random Japanse people.

 

Actually I brought that up for a reason. When I started to date Yuki seriously my parents were appaled. But she's no more responsible for what happened , than someone who who lives in France or Germany.

 

It's still racism by the definition of the word. Your judging someone by thier "race" rather than as an individual.