-
Established History Or Controversial History?
Hello sir
– What is right history and what is true history.
– should we teach people history by being neutral about it or by interpreting it and injecting our own propagandas in them?
– I am asking this because we find so many different extreme opinions about same individual or incident of history. One community will glorify it while another will degrade it.
– For example, British rule is considered as a bad dream in subcontinent. We teach how they exploited us while they teach their students how they developed subcontinent 😂
– Another prime example is of Aurangzeb. I find two clear different opinions about him as if it feels their were two Aurangzebs 😂
One of muslims, who was saint, who was so pious and practising muslim etc etc
Second of non muslims, who was cruel , who demolished worship places of other religions, exploited other peoples etc.
So how do you filter what is good and bad or right or wrong history?
-
2 Replies
-
Established History Or Controversial History?
updated 1 year, 7 months ago
3 Members
·
2
Replies
-
It’s not really a religion-related question but I don’t see why you want to look at history in black and white.
I was taught in my O level classes that British rule both developed the subcontinent and exploited the natives.
I was also taught that Aurangzeb was a practicising pious Muslim that would pray before a battle but also a poor ruler that spent more time fighting over the throne and failed many campaigns.Then I was taught by my books and teachers to verify the evidence and pick a point of view of history that is most supported by evidence. Doesn’t matter if your view is absolutely true or not, as long as you have the arguments, you are allowed to keep that view while respectfully accept alternative opinion exists based on the alternative arguments and you would elaborate why you didn’t accept the alternative opinion. It’s no different in case of other fields as well.
-
You should also differentiate established facts of history from reportings of history which rely on individual reportings or reportings of few, and are more prone to amalgamation of perspectives and bias. The former can be used for making concrete opinions while the latter is a matter of continued academic research and may lead one to form some sort of opinion, but this opinion can change with time, depending on new research on the matter.
Videos in the following response/thread are really helpful in understanding this differentiation:
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
