|
 |
History in different languages | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages |  | |
| krog Diglot Senior Member Austria Joined 6049 days ago 146 posts - 152 votes  Speaks: English*, German Studies: French, Latin | Message 17 of 51 27 July 2009 at 8:14pm | IP Logged | |||||
Sounds very interesting. I think I'll add that to my 'want to read' list. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Mert87 Triglot Newbie Joined 5942 days ago 19 posts - 25 votes Speaks: Turkish*, English, German Studies: Latin, Ancient Greek | Message 18 of 51 27 August 2009 at 10:35am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I have a B.A in history from a Turkish university.History is a tricky topic every country plays around it a little bit.Cause history defines who you really are its all about what they gave you in the school its hard to change what you learned when you were a kid.
We studied mostly Turkish history although our field was "generic history" that was such a waste of time.I think they don't teach much about Turks in the european/american schools either.There are still people who can come up with questions like "do you speak arabic,are there any camels in turkey" What I saw in the foreign history books about Turks is quite disappointing.There is a huge gap.it goes like "they came in 1683 we sent them back" and there is nothing else. Some books even teach kids historical debates as facts. ıt's just wrong we believe what our primary school teaches us we believe everything what we see on tv.I don't make up my mind with stuff like that. History's first lesson should be to teach "to doubt" 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| William Camden Hexaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6272 days ago 1936 posts - 2333 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, French | Message 19 of 51 27 August 2009 at 10:41am | IP Logged | |||||
|
A close relative was surprised to be told that the British, Australians etc. lost at Gallipoli. It does not loom large in British history-teaching and general culture. Conversely you can hardly miss it in Turkey's culture and account of history.
There are two sayings about history. There is a Spanish proverb: "history is a field where everyone can make hay." And there is a saying James Joyce put into the mouth of one of his characters: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake". Edited by William Camden on 27 August 2009 at 6:47pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| administrator Hexaglot Forum Admin Switzerland FXcuisine.com Joined 7376 days ago 3094 posts - 2987 votes 12 sounds Speaks: French*, EnglishC2, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian Personal Language Map | Message 20 of 51 02 October 2009 at 9:41pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
It is not so much the language that conditions the viewpoint and values of the history you read than the culture and time in which the author has lived. I just love reading historical accounts of events from minority cultures or remote lands. For instance I have a Soviet-time history schoolbook that tells about how the Russians liberated Central Asia. Or you could find really wildly different accounts of recent Tibetan history in books stemming from liberal English academic circles or conservative nationalist Chinese. More risqué are German nationalist histories of the invasion of the Sudetenland or about Deutsche Gebietsverluste, especially Prussia.
This exercise polarizes small minds who immediately spring up when the history closest to their culture is exposed, and become agitated and downright violent when they hear versions from other people. To me the real point of doing this is to demonstrate the inherent subjectivity of writing history - a tale written by victors. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Leopejo Bilingual Triglot Senior Member Italy Joined 6109 days ago 675 posts - 724 votes Speaks: Italian*, Finnish*, English Studies: French, Russian | Message 21 of 51 02 October 2009 at 10:04pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
The War of 1812 is unheard of in Continental Europe because of its size. No real bias here.
It is easy to see how one dominant language (English) has shaped history, not only because history is written by the winners, but because the language is just so much easier to read worldwide. Ask any laymen around the world who they remember best of the Napoleonic Wars (besides Napoleon, of course). Wellington they'll answer, and they might add Waterloo. A relatively minor player, a relatively minor battle (though, sure, the last battle). Ask them where was WWII decided. Normandy, especially Omaha Beach, comes to their mind. How many people would know that the majority of German divisions were - and were destroyed - on the Eastern Front? This happens also in real historiography. A good example is, again, the Napoleonic Wars. English language together with the French (the only foreign language that anglophone historians often knew) have shaped the histories of this period. Only recently Austrian, German, Russian research are challenging "common knowledge" and stereotypes. Edited by Leopejo on 02 October 2009 at 10:05pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Sennin Senior Member Bulgaria Joined 6034 days ago 1457 posts - 1759 votes 5 sounds | Message 22 of 51 02 October 2009 at 10:45pm | IP Logged | |||||
I thought it's common knowledge the Nazi were defeated by Russian mud ^_^.
Bulgarian history elaborates on this a bit more ;). 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Lemus Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6381 days ago 232 posts - 266 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Japanese, Russian, German | Message 23 of 51 03 October 2009 at 2:03am | IP Logged | |||||
Most American laymen would likely not even connect the Napoleanic Wars with the war of 1812. The general idea we learn is that the 30-year old US single-handedly took on the world's formost powers. France is usually mentioned, but de-emphanized. As to WWII, it seems sometimes as if the war in Russia stoppped after Pearl Harbor and then resumed at the fall of Berlin. Anything beyond Stalingrad is usually a sidenote if at all. This is probably still the legacy of the Cold War lingering in American history textbooks. I doubt any of this is an American problem. Russian textbooks probably treat the American and British contribution as anything more than a distratction to the Germans (though if someone with better knowlege of Russsian textbooks want to correct me, feel free). 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| paparaciii Diglot Senior Member Latvia Joined 6336 days ago 204 posts - 223 votes Speaks: Latvian*, Russian Studies: English | Message 24 of 51 04 October 2009 at 11:30pm | IP Logged | |||||
In Russian information sphere there are no doubts about who were the bad guys. They can't understand why Russia's neighbouring countries didn't appreciate their "liberation" very much. For example, Baltic countries' viewpiont on the history of WW2 in Eastern Europe: two agressive monsters(USSR and Germany) fought against each other and the stronger one won. It is a standpoint which Russia will never accept. They simply don't see themselves as agressors, the only evil agressor in their eyes was Germany. So anybody who fought against Russians was either a betrayer or nazi. Because Russia - good, Germany - bad. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
