National historical myths and bias on AE

......Mentioning Winston Churchill brings me neatly to Point 1 concerning �the creation of great historical national heroes�. Once again, I think this is a valid point and I can relate to this from personal experience. Here I will readily admit that Britain�s �historical heroes� have more often than not, been elevated way beyond the actual truth. (Although once again, historical revisionism of these �heroes� takes place on a regular basis in the UK). For me personally, as a young boy I was taken by the images and exploits of people such as Winston Churchill, Richard the Lionheart, Oliver Cromwell, Elizabeth I, Douglas Bader, Harold Godwinson, and Boudicea, although I was equally taken by such figures as Genghis Khan, Erwin Rommel, Abraham Lincoln, Saladin, and Bonaparte. I remember being greatly influenced by my perceptions of these people, and those perceptions were shaped by pictures and stories presented in book form. I was also lucky enough to be taken on visits to historical sites where I could physically �feel� the presence of history; and it is THIS �feeling� point, I believe, what developed into a my passion for history in general. At secondary school, I cannot, with hand on my heart, remember one thing I was taught in class about history. I actually hated my history lessons, but this did not detract from my extra-curricular historical activities and interest!!! However, although I still retain a good degree of interest in these characters, my historical knowledge concerning them has changed over the years as I have become more aware, more enquiring and more open-minded to other points of view, In particular, after I gained my BA in History. This does not make them any more �lesser� in my eyes, indeed, knowing the full picture actually develops my interest even further. I can still make a good argument why these �heroes� should be notable and positive figures from the past, but I am equally prepared to see that for some, my �heroes� would be vilified.

..........I would like to think I have provided a �case� that relates to what Decebal has been saying, but it is highly subjective and from my own country�s perspective. Ultimately, I really do think that the issues raised in Decebal�s post primarily concerns the provision of education in a particular country at a particular time. I would tend to think that education differs from one country to another and until full freedom of research is available to all, until a reasonable and stable form of �democracy� can be founded everywhere, then such historical bias and distortions will always exist. Of course, I full realise that �true� democracy will probably never be achieved, most likely cannot be achieved, and that this is an ideal vision. However, just like the role of professional and well-educated historical research, the aim should be to reach the best, most-well informed presentation possible, be it politics or a history book.

I could have spent a full month making a comprehensive analysis of every country that I can think of, and then write a post which is so long that no one would read it. Instead I opted for showing 3 quick examples, which as Komnenos noted, I specifically marked as examples. Not only that, but had you read the 3 examples, you would have noted that they are not actually similar. For instance, I remarked that myths in Canadian history are very few due to the particular interests of that country and that the corresponding level of popular interest in history is very low; while Turkey was an example of exactly the opposite. I did not write these examples to assign any "blame", but rather to describe the various ways in which this phenomenon varies around the world. How exactly is this a "pathetic slur"? Is it not possible that your post is precisely an example of the sensitivity that people from a given country, used to a certain kind of national history, have when confronted with different interpretations of the same history? Is it not possible therefore that your post is a confirmation of what I wrote?

Without want to flame the topic and make it one more greco-turkish conflict i would like to add that is not fault of the Greek state today's Turkey nationalism .In Greece nationalism is expelled in the contrary in Turkey is in the apogee, as I can conclude from the international press and opinions of the fellow Turkish forumers.