National historical myths and bias on AE

Originally posted by Dampier Aw, I thought both Netherlands and Belgium got to keep Flanders history. Ah well. Umm...Gwidje Dampiere was French wasnt he... Uh...There must be one Dutch hero...somewhere...

Maybe Jan Jansz, also known as Murad Rais, who after being enslaved by the (banished andalusians in Sal�) became admiral of their fleet and and scored victories against the Spanish and even raided England and Iceland(a deed never repeated by muslims)

Originally posted by Aelfgifu I always found it ironical that in a movie about American freedom, the main roles were played by Aussies. I suppose that is a nice example of what America is about... Wink

lol!

Originally posted by flyingzone Of course, the idea of the creation of national myths is central to the thesis of Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities". As a matter of fact, it is not simply the homogenization of the curriculum and the teaching of history that helps to create these national myths, hence boosting the idea of a "national identity" that does not really exist. Anderson shrewdly points out three other institutions of power which eventually help to shape the way in which states imagine its dominion - the census, the map, and the museum. These three institutions correspond flawlessly to the nature of the human beings a state rules, the geography of its domain, and the legitimacy of its ancestry.

Another interesting theory. Historical Museums are something that are quite rare in Australia, and when they are here they exclusively talk about early settlement. A few years ago when the National Museum of Australia was built, it took a very wholistic approach to Australian history and included perspectives about settlement from the aboriginies. One display that caught my attention was a map highlighting numerous battles fought between Aboriginies and the English. No-one ever mentions battles during settlement. I had no idea that conflict went further than farmers shooting at aboriginies before this.
Maybe three-four years ago the Prime Minister appointed Keith Windshuttle (who is a revionist "historian" who'd have you believe that Australia was uninhabited before the English came) as a director to the museum for the explicit purpose of shutting down the "Sorry politics" of the museum. The aboriginal perspectives to settlement were removed, and the traditional pro-white line was reintroduced. Freedom of Speech was yet again quashed by the government.

This definitely was an attempt to delegitimise aboriginal claims, and thereby legitimising white claims to Australia.

(As a side note, after Windshuttle was so successful enforcing government line with the museum, he was transfered to the ABC)

Originally posted by BG Turk Ataturk wanted to do away with Islam, so his only option was to unify Turks around the concept of Turkishness and nationalism, and yes Turks are quite nationalistic in generla.

I'm no expert on Ataturk, but I do believe he had the Quran translated into turkish and distributed to every household.

Excellent Post Decebal! You have brought up some issues on AE that I thought gravely needed adressing and have done it in a most excellent manner!

I feel that too many people will approach the complex study of history without first reading anything about Historology (the philosphy of history) or reading any of the first historians who speak a great deal about the aims and the subject of history. People need to understand that history is not just the systematic accumilation of historical fact, but also the application of historical method to that fact. It is that historical method that people need to understand, and nationalism is one of the greatest enemies of this method.

We in England seem, quite suspiciously, to chiefly (at least in GCSE and prior) study non-English areas of history, many of which show the English in a position of moral superiority, NATO against the Warsaw pact or the Allies against the Axis in WWII. This clearly shows some kind of way of avoiding our less than friendly past, as we almost completely leave anything to do with the 1700s-1800s out of the sylabus. We need to confront our past as imperialists in order to understand it and ensure that we can make sure that it is not practiced by my country again

I agree with you, flyingzone. I really do think, however, that pure historical method is actually very rigid and not very changing at all. Of course, new historical method is discovered, but the very practice of history must, fundamentally, be as un-bias as possible. People who practice what I call "Nationalist History" are not historians as they do not seek to find out the historical truth behind events, which is what a historian should attempt to do. A historian's job is to say what happened and how it happened, and not to portray it in any other form apart from that.