Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
I don't think that one can talk meaningfully of historical facts only because we are humans and tend to pick a side. Like in my IRL 23 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10219391.stm,) the news reporter’s only place the blame on the Israeli's when it's a historical fact that the activists attacked the Israeli's once boarding the ship. Also holding a personal grudged or bias on a side when commenting on historical fact that involves two sides, such as my IRL 20 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8650468.stm), it was one sided by BBC which may be due to the past difficulties between Nasser and the British and France during the Cold War. I think that we and I can speak with certainty about the past during to the extent of where we've grown up and what we believe from our culture.
For example my IRL 22 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6570903.stm) shows the Israeli's and the Palestinians' arguing and not being able to negotiate America is in the middle of this and trying to help be a peace maker, though this will probably never happen because the extent to which we can speak certainty depends on our cooperation with the opposing side that the past historical fact relates too, since in this case for IRL 22 all three sides will have opposing views which deteriorates the validity of the historical argument.
Truly I don’t know how far one can speak with certainty about anything in the past, by not being there one must judge the validity of all historical facts since depending on cultures will mostly be one sided. In my IRL 19 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7381364.stm) we see the historical fact of did Israel justify the 6 Day War, or not though both sides even including American will give different answers, do to their certainty on what they believe is truth and myth. So for someone to speak with that level of certainty I think it takes a lot of belief in something since one honestly doesn’t know the truth about a fact in some cases, like the fact of Israel’s strike on Egyptian airfields.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
IRL 23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10219391.stm
New Story
BBC
It connects to what we are doing in class because it is a, recent event, that involed the Israelis and other nations in the crisis with Gaza. Which once again we see a more recent time where Israeli is defending their actions on attacking.
It ehnances because we see 60 years later the crisis in Gaza is still high and, Israel is worried that the terrorism in Gaza is to high, and that the Israeli once again went out and became offensive not truly knowning what was happening just like in the 6 Day War. Where Israeli went into international waters to handle the activists.
Limitaions of the document seem one sided only blaming Israel for the attack though in most recent web videos surfacing we see the activist's attacking the Israeli troops as they board the ship.
New Story
BBC
It connects to what we are doing in class because it is a, recent event, that involed the Israelis and other nations in the crisis with Gaza. Which once again we see a more recent time where Israeli is defending their actions on attacking.
It ehnances because we see 60 years later the crisis in Gaza is still high and, Israel is worried that the terrorism in Gaza is to high, and that the Israeli once again went out and became offensive not truly knowning what was happening just like in the 6 Day War. Where Israeli went into international waters to handle the activists.
Limitaions of the document seem one sided only blaming Israel for the attack though in most recent web videos surfacing we see the activist's attacking the Israeli troops as they board the ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)