Revising History

Revising History
Contributed by Heathergems 

"If we don't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it."  But what if the lessons being taught do not reflect the whole story?  If history is only written by the victors- how do we know what is being shared is the full truth?

In some spheres of research and education- the quest for the whole picture is being pursued.  Looking at Columbus Day for example.  Less than 20 years ago the whole view of the Columbus Day landing was painted in only positive colors.  Christopher Columbus is a hero who discovers a new land, who brings Christianity to a savage world and opens up new trade.

While he may have been heralded as a hero in his homeland- the natives have a different view.  From recent studies and discoveries of contemporary excerpts- a fuller picture of the name and times is revealed. The land was not known to the European world- but was truly not newly discovered since it had inhabitants who had an established society- the Arawaks natives.  From different backgrounds and ideologies, it in turn today can be seen as a clash of cultures.  One of image of Columbus viewed as a heroic adventurer claiming the land in the name of God, King, and Country and opening up a new world, but this same name brought enslavement and genocide to a native people, ravaging an already living world.  One should not be presented as the full truth without the other.

This is just one example of revising history.  The term revisionism has different connotations.  It can be applied to those who wish to manipulate facts to fit an agenda.  Giving a "white-washed" and obscured view of the past in denying events.  Such as those who try to rewrite the Holocaust and it's atrocities.  Admittedly rewriting history has been going on since the ancient Egyptians writing over the hieroglyphics of their predecessors to accredit themselves with the deeds. The other side of the coin of revisionist history is the pursue for that entire truth.  To view the event from more than the victors lens, but the full impact of the incident seen from all sides.  

In teaching history to the next generation- the education field must embrace the full aspect of the events.   Educational curriculum should not be as biased as it has been, nor should it paint it in one shade.  Too many times, texts books try to emphasize patriotism and ethnocentrism while trying to give a veneer cover of it's own historical blemishes.  Instead there should be an honest attempt to capture the truth.  Some steps today are trying to incorporate a more intercultural  and diversity exposure to the educational field.  Studies show teachings reflecting these shortfalls have a wider impact. The views taught in school leave impressions in young minds that they then carry out into the much larger and complex world. Demonstrating how they were either educated or misinformed.

There is a short walk from ethnocentrism to prejudice and hate.  It robs these impressionable minds of the reality of diversity and the complexities of human relationships and consequences.  If the wounds of the past are never examined- there can be no healing.  By elevating one's perspective to diminish or conceal the honest truth, there is so much to lose and so little to gain.  

There is more than just the view of Columbus Day.  This happens today in other countries as it has happened in the past.  The Nazi's rewrote the education for their Hitler youth.  The cold war taught us to demonize the other side of the "iron curtain."  Myanmar is currently trying to remove ethnic minorities from recognition entirely.  An ugly trend, an erroneous doomed repetition.  Unless there are those who demand the "whole truth and nothing but the truth."

As parent's, one should examine what is being taught to our children.  Demand from the educational realm- the removal of political and ethnocentric agendas from tainting the lessons being presented.  Education should encourage questioning and exploration- not the memorization of rhetoric and hollow facts.  Critical thinking and conscientious questioning should be stimulated for when one is no longer under the supervisor of the academic realm- it is up to the individual.  One must take responsibility and ownership of the knowledge they possess or lack there of.  It is up to the individual to be either internalize the information presented as the entire truth or explore the curiosity, and delve into wholeheartedly to discover what the past is waiting to teach.  










Want to learn more about this subject and others covered by Alder's Ledge?

Follow us on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Or follow us on Facebook: Alder's Ledge

Source Documents
(note: not all sources listed)

Columbus's Genocide
http://ux.brookdalecc.edu/fac/history/Tangents/ARTICLESFORTANGENTS/Columbus%27s%20Genocide.htm

Princeton
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Historical_revisionism.html

Kings
 http://staff.kings.edu/bapavlac/methods/revision.html

Marmara University
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal9/papers/akinoglu.pdf

Council of Europe- Human Rights educational Resources
http://www.eycb.coe.int/edupack/

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000842/084263eo.pdf

Thomas Teo -York University and Angela Febbraro- Defence R&D Canada- Toronto
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225029271_Ethnocentrism_as_a_Form_of_Intuition_in_Psychology/file/9fcfd4fbbddfdaf5fa.pdf&ei=Zd_FUc2vLIWzywHu6oBQ&sa=X&oi=unauthorizedredirect&ct=targetlink&ust=1371924077729006&usg=AFQjCNFAimJYHZWVGLxpbq8aPVnOlMNbkA

Do You Talk Like A Racist?

Prejudice In Everyday Lingo

Sometimes our words get away from us in anger. Other times we are offensive without even knowing it.  Perhaps it’s ignorance, maybe one’s environment, or lack of exposure, but it paints an image of intolerance and bigotry. 

Many of such unacknowledged offensive words have been so ingrained into the everyday experience.  Words whose connotation is actually an insult or slur to a group of peoples.  It’s not always the word in and of itself that is demeaning, but the application.  Using words that would otherwise be used to describe an individual, versus allotting an individual to the description.  Example:  “He is Jewish” has a distinction from “He is a Jew.”  Application and implication of words that alone are not offensive, but in reference and intent can be damning. 

It’s not about being “PC” (politically correct).  In truth it is about being sensitive to the individual and being accountable with one’s words.  Certain terms and slang in front of someone who identifies with them (by choice or inadvertently) are simply not said.  Some words original creations have morphed and no longer have the same implications in modern slang.  Wouldn’t necessary call it an evolution, just no longer the jargon preferred or applicable in the present setting.  Though the majority may see it that way- the people/person it was once applied to may well remember and feel the wounds and scars these words inflict.  The question then arises, “why even incorporate such terms into one’s vernacular?”  If it is offensive in any circumstance- it should immediately draw one to the conclusion that such lingo should be removed entirely.

Humans are creatures of habit.  Repetition is the key to memorization and training.  Dehumanizing terms can condition the individual/community into “acceptance” and rationalizing the treatment and view of those who they believe are different.

"In dehumanizing others, we exclude them from the circle of moral obligation".  Using demeaning words is just one of the stepping stones to acts of intolerance and hate.

Credence needs to be given to the power of words.  They can instill emotions, cultivate memories, and implant perceptions.  By using racial slurs and demeaning terms, one is participating in dehumanization.  In the stages listed in genocide the importance of words acts as the fuel for the horrific result of human rights violations and death.  History has witnessed how words are manipulated and implanted in Nazi propaganda films equating Jews to rats, Rwanda radio broadcasts calling Tutsis cockroaches, and currently Rohingya being labeled kalar as reference to unclean and dark.  Words can be used to fan the flames of hate and intolerance just as they can be used to quench our need for love and hope. 

So think about how your words have the possibly to destroy or build.  Such phrases as "like a gypsy thief, Jewed them down, or that's retarded/gay" do not build a relationship and/or understanding.   They destroy the right to to be seen as a person; a human with a mind, body, and soul.  We must choose our words carefully.  The potential is there in our inner dialogue which leads to outward utterances, preceding our actions, which govern our everyday interactions and has impact whether one wants to realize it or not.

"The tongue has power over life and death; those who indulge it must eat its fruit." 
Proverbs 18:21

 Resources

1. Psychology today

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/philosophy-dispatches/201112/dehumanization-genocide-and-the-psychology-indifference-0

2. About.com

http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Five-Terms-You-Might-Not-Know-Are-Considered-Racist.htm

3. Beyond Intractability

http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/dehumanization

4. Genocide Watch

http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.htm

5. Peace & Collaborative development network

http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/introduction-to-the#.UbNDcOupYXw