History is generally taught through the consideration of two opposing forces; black and white sides. What are the possible impacts and implications of this process of teaching and study history?
“History is written by the Victors,” is how Winston Churchill best described history and it is true (Brainy Quote). For how different would our world history look now if World War I had never happened? Or best yet if the Germans and Japanese had won World War II? However this did come about, for just as Winston said, it was England who was victorious and thus wrote the history. But this of course has a downside to it. For in history it will seem as if the “white” side, the “good” side won. But that is definitely not how the Germans saw it in either World War I or II. From the standpoint of the soldiers and the citizens, from us students nowadays, so far away from the actual events, how should we know which side was good and bad? Ideologies of the victorious side become the good side while the rest are seen as the black side.
But those fighting the war are the same people. When Paul gets stuck in the no man’s land with the dying French soldier, we can see the resemblance. “But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand-grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade.”(Remarque 223)
By splitting two armies into two opposing forces, already we are forgetting the many different reasons, the personal gains and wants which have led this far. To be quite true to history, it is never black and white. As Kropp, a friend of Paul, states, “We are here to protect our fatherland. And the French are over there to protect their fatherland. Now who’s in the right?”(Remarque 203)
That is a perfect reason as to why one cannot see the armies as black and white. Both are acting at the best interests for their land. The French think their in the right just like the Germans. So who can you call black and white here? By making armies black and white it seems as if the victors are trying to justify their wars to the later generations. The effect is that we, studying from our history textbooks learn that what the winning side wants us to see. But what does that tell about us? In a way history can never be seen just from one side. It seems as if Napoleon was right when he said, “What is history but a fable agreed upon?” (Brainy Quote)
Bibliography:
Brainy Quote. 2011. 22 July 2011<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/ history.html>.
Eksteins, Modris. Rites of Spring. New Tork: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989.
Remarque, Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. Trans. A.W. Wheen. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1928.
I strongly agree with this entry, I like how you emphasize on how the history of a war is written by the winning side and how they make themselves look like the good ones while the others are demonized and are made to look bad. I can relate this scenario to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict where the winning side (Israel) can justify all of its wars as acts of self defense against the Arabs."Israel will continue to take action to prevent any and all attempts to perpetrate sabotage within her territory. There will be no immunity for any state which aids or abets such acts." - PM Levi Eshkol speech
ReplyDelete