StarGateWars Forums

**Filtered** positivism.

Ignoring crimes by the Allies just because oh-my-god-they-were-so-nice-and-we-can-thank-them-for-our-liberty is a disgrace to the science and art of history.
Like I said. Their actions are to be documented, not judged. Leave that to politicians. True historians do not do this.

Julietta Putina wrote:**Filtered** positivism.

Ignoring crimes by the Allies just because oh-my-god-they-were-so-nice-and-we-can-thank-them-for-our-liberty is a disgrace to the science and art of history.
Like I said. Their actions are to be documented, not judged. Leave that to politicians. True historians do not do this.

Well, I also am a "politician" (well, I am not apolitical and I have a biased view of history, considering I am involved into university politics), that probably explains my focus on some things over others lol.

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:Throughout its rather long recorded and provable recorded history (Which is one of the longest) the UK has commited genocide

The Boxers episode for example? (sorry if I'm mistaken, not really a master of English history)

If I focus on Algerians being thieves and conveniently ignore French criminality to point out how evil they are, does that not make me a racist? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Similarly, if I focus on the war crimes of Nazis and Communists and conveniently ignore Allied war crimes, does that not make me a historical hypocrite? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Julietta Putina wrote:If I focus on Algerians being thieves and conveniently ignore French criminality to point out how evil they are, does that not make me a racist? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Similarly, if I focus on the war crimes of Nazis and Communists and conveniently ignore Allied war crimes, does that not make me a historical hypocrite? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Well uh...I didn't answer anything to these two questions...

I will refrain from answering/commenting the first and the second rhetorical (?) questions...

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote:If I focus on Algerians being thieves and conveniently ignore French criminality to point out how evil they are, does that not make me a racist? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Similarly, if I focus on the war crimes of Nazis and Communists and conveniently ignore Allied war crimes, does that not make me a historical hypocrite? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Well uh...I didn't answer anything to these two questions...

Of course not. There is no answer you can give that would allow you to continue on the path you took before.

Julietta Putina wrote:Like I said. Their actions are to be documented, not judged. Leave that to politicians. True historians do not do this.

The documentation of those actions is often a judgement in itself

Julietta Putina wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote:If I focus on Algerians being thieves and conveniently ignore French criminality to point out how evil they are, does that not make me a racist? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Similarly, if I focus on the war crimes of Nazis and Communists and conveniently ignore Allied war crimes, does that not make me a historical hypocrite? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Well uh...I didn't answer anything to these two questions...

Of course not. There is no answer you can give that would allow you to continue on the path you took before.

The problem you see is that proportionally talking, the minorities are over represented (statistically talking) compared to their amount versus the French (non immigrants) in criminality (talking about all ranges of criminality). That's why I didn't want to answer, because it was more complex than a yes/no answer. It's relative, Allies aren't complete angels, just as French criminality exists too but according to statistics, it's less criminalized % wise.

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote:If I focus on Algerians being thieves and conveniently ignore French criminality to point out how evil they are, does that not make me a racist? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Similarly, if I focus on the war crimes of Nazis and Communists and conveniently ignore Allied war crimes, does that not make me a historical hypocrite? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Well uh...I didn't answer anything to these two questions...

Of course not. There is no answer you can give that would allow you to continue on the path you took before.

The problem you see is that proportionally talking, the minorities are over represented (statistically talking) compared to their amount versus the French (non immigrants) in criminality (talking about all ranges of criminality). That's why I didn't want to answer, because it was more complex than a yes/no answer. It's relative, Allies aren't complete angels, just as French criminality exists too but according to statistics, it's less criminalized % wise.

You realise that compared to the Algerians, French criminality is disproportionate. My point being, the French being 'the victors' compared to the Algerians, they are able to suppress the news of French criminality, disproportionately illuminating Algerian criminality.

Read Allies and Nazis for the French and Algerians.

Julietta Putina wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote:If I focus on Algerians being thieves and conveniently ignore French criminality to point out how evil they are, does that not make me a racist? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Similarly, if I focus on the war crimes of Nazis and Communists and conveniently ignore Allied war crimes, does that not make me a historical hypocrite? Why yes, Juliette, it does.

Well uh...I didn't answer anything to these two questions...

Of course not. There is no answer you can give that would allow you to continue on the path you took before.

The problem you see is that proportionally talking, the minorities are over represented (statistically talking) compared to their amount versus the French (non immigrants) in criminality (talking about all ranges of criminality). That's why I didn't want to answer, because it was more complex than a yes/no answer. It's relative, Allies aren't complete angels, just as French criminality exists too but according to statistics, it's less criminalized % wise.

You realise that compared to the Algerians, French criminality is disproportionate. My point being, the French being 'the victors' compared to the Algerians, they are able to suppress the news of French criminality, disproportionately illuminating Algerian criminality.

Read Allies and Nazis for the French and Algerians.

Oh it's not only the "news", but also stats about people being judged and/or incarcerated. It's not numbers in absolute, but relatively compared to each community amount of people, thus relative numbers. And before anyone screams lenience towards the non immigrants and stubbornness against immigrants, in France you have these factors like having a "difficult childhood", "being unaware of your acts", "coming from a poor background and being bullied by society" and whatever else the attorneys use to minimize the judgement...which often works as arguments. The immigrants aren't always the most severely punished, it's a misconception based on both the past and prejudices, for my country at least, I add.

So we are agreed. Good. Your 'history' is political, and as such, not 'true history'.

Well, I will second RepliMagni's point, that's one of the things I had time to learn in between strikes, that so called "objective" history is usually also a judgement, even though one doesn't realize it as the judgement is less ideological/cultural/political but still a bit nonetheless.

RepliMagni wrote:

Julietta Putina wrote: Like I said. Their actions are to be documented, not judged. Leave that to politicians. True historians do not do this.

The documentation of those actions is often a judgement in itself

The selection is, the documentation could not possibly be. Unless you define selection as part of the process of documentation.

I would say "real history" would be like a self-revolving debate based on different sources used, to avoid choosing one thing and leaving aside another. That's the view I have out of it, if something tried to be objective it would have to take most if not all into account, which means differing sources, meaning sort of a revolving debate. Because sources themselves are subjective (people who wrote the texts were mostly not objective), not only the interpretations...thus my mention of a self-revolving debate, a debate between the original authors of sources.