History is written by the winners so the saying goes.
I waited for months to get my hands on Crescent and Star: Turkey between two worlds. I read about it months ago and decided it would be interesting to read a foreigner’s perspective of my homeland. I downloaded the first chapter from the New York Times and found him to be interesting enough to be worth my time.
As I read book, I often find myself struggling to remember the versions of history I was taught. For as long as I can remember, I’ve hated history with a passion. Part of that might be attributed to having grown up in a country with history that practically dates back to the beginning of time. Another part could have something to do with my awful teachers. History translates to hours of memorization when you go to my school and maybe that’s got something to do with my despising it, too. I’ve never been good at memorizing anything.
Anyhow, let’s get back to my topic. Reading about the history of the Ottoman Empire, I noticed a few discrepancies. Some were minor, like the story of how someone got their nickname. Others were more drastic and made me ponder how history is taught. Every nation has its own version of what happened, who was right and why things turned out how they did. One nation’s hero is another nation’s traitor.
In my training class at work, I met a girl from Iran who became one of my close friends. I remember chatting with her one day, in the subway on the way home. I can’t recall how the conversation came up but I was telling her how glad I was that Ataturk did all that he did for Turkey and how if it weren’t for him, I don’t know where we would live. She looked at me in the eye and told me that they considered him a traitor. I was flabbergasted. Honestly. If you ever visit Turkey and see how adored and cherished this man is, the idea of anyone, anywhere not thinking he’s amazing hadn’t occurred to me. I mean, there are special history classes solely based on him and his movements for goodness’ sake.
Reading this book makes me wonder what it takes to get an honest account of history. What actually happened? I am not so concerned with who’s right and who’s wrong. I do understand that’s opinion based. But I am interested in a straightforward order of events. Just to be informed. Just to learn without bias.
Do I need to read books from all the countries involved and string the pieces together? Is it even possible to get an accurate understanding of what happened? Is history always deceiving? Is the only way to know what happened to have been there?
People say that those to don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Yet they never say anything about how difficult it is to simply get the facts.
Previously? Anticipation.
What’s that other saying? Every story has at least three points of view?
I’ve sat here for a really long time trying to answer your question and I don’t even know how to begin.
I don’t think that reading the history books in all the different countries will get you far–the conflict exisits within countries too. For instance, my brother (who went to different schools than I) was taught that Columbus was a great man for discovering the Americas and bringing all these unknown things to Spain. I was taught that he was selfish and dishonorable for his treatment of Malinche, telling Queen Isabella that those lands were ripe with precious metals and slaves, and beginning a tradition of imperialism that lasted for three centuries.
He never heard of Malinche until I told him; I never knew that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifices or slavery until he told me. And we, both off whom love history, were both taught in American public schools. My brother went on to major in American history and I’m considering a minor in history myself. Who’s right, and who’s wrong?
I don’t have any answers, but unlike many, I was never taught that there was one correct version of history. All the accounts that you read are each a voice telling their outlook on events; I suppose you just have to listen to the one you find the most infomed, and the most convincing.
There was nothing particularly insightful about this post, but I figured I’d share anway.
Yes it does look like there can be various narrations about and various views to the same set of events, based on who is writing about it.
I originally hail from India, but have lived in the UK for a good few years until I recently loved to USA.
i was discussing the much controversial topic of Indian Independence, with some of my British colleagues one day, and i was startled to hear from them that they have never heard of an event called Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, in north India during the pre-independence days, where thousands of innocent civilians attending a meeting one night had been shot dead by the British officers under the command of General Dyer. not a single indian was reported to have left the grounds alive. This had been a particularly significant topic covered in our primary schools, and it surprised me to hear that my colleagues never even knew it had happened!
Then it dawned on me! If what we had studied really happened the way it was taught to us, how would someone who had committed such an act, want to even proudly talk about it in their country? esp as part of a school curriculum, to their future generations??!!!
This got me thinking. And I too now wonder at times as to whether many accounts of similar nature that we have heard, have ever happened at all !?! How and will we be ever able to know what REALLY happened !?!