What Country Has The Most Interesting History?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
I forgot to put a sarcastic wink smilie after my politically-incorrect post.


(I actually agree with your points, by the way)

I don't. The aboriginees are boring. But there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't point to anything wrong with the people or culture. On the contrary, the most "interesting" things in history usually amount to the most horrific. In fact, I'd say there is a direct relationship between how interesting a subject is and how many people died during it.

There's a difference between anthropology and history, and the former is what applies mostly to the aboriginees of Australia, not the latter. There's just not much actual "history" there.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I don't. The aboriginees are boring. But there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't point to anything wrong with the people or culture.

Well to each their own.

On the contrary, the most "interesting" things in history usually amount to the most horrific. In fact, I'd say there is a direct relationship between how interesting a subject is and how many people died during it.

Another interesting thing is the bias that written history tends to have toward the winners of the wars fought.

There's a difference between anthropology and history, and the former is what applies mostly to the aboriginees of Australia, not the latter. There's just not much actual "history" there.

Not much that we know of. There's probably a lot more to the Aborigines than what we do know about them. Only it would have been lost to time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jethro83
Not much that we know of. There's probably a lot more to the Aborigines than what we do know about them. Only it would have been lost to time.

By definition, that's not history, as history is only what we know. You can't cite non-extant history as being interesting any more than you can cite non-extant movies as being entertaining.

[Shi Huangdi]

I'd have to go with England.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


By definition, that's not history, as history is only what we know. You can't cite non-extant history as being interesting any more than you can cite non-extant movies as being entertaining.

History isn't what we know. Its a record of someone's perception of what they know. There are hundreds of Aboriginal tribes in Australia (sadly some of them are now extinct, and in Tasmania, all of them are, at least the full-blooded of them), all of whom have their own stories. The elders of those tribes have a lot to say about their individual tribe's history and culture.

Do you really think most people know what those tribal elders have to say about their people? Most of my fellow white Australians don't even know.

So yes, most people would find their history boring. But no, I'm not one of those people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jethro83
History isn't what we know.

Um, that's precisely what it is. Or rather, it's what we think we know, based on scholarly consensus of the events/times in question. History is a chronicle of events of the past. Without knowledge of events, there's no chronicle, ergo no history.

Its a record of someone's perception of what they know. There are hundreds of Aboriginal tribes in Australia (sadly some of them are now extinct, and in Tasmania, all of them are, at least the full-blooded of them), all of whom have their own stories. The elders of those tribes have a lot to say about their individual tribe's history and culture.

If the elders of these tribes have knowledge of the past, then that's history, certainly. But that's not what you said--you referred to knowledge that was "lost to time." Such things are not a part of history, obviously.

Do you really think most people know what those tribal elders have to say about their people? Most of my fellow white Australians don't even know.

Do you know? If not, then what are you talking about? History that you imagine they would tell, if anyone asked?

If there is some great trove of historical knowledge that the aboriginal elders haven't revealed, you can hardly blame other people for not being interested in the as-yet unrelated history of the aboriginees, now can you?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
By definition, that's not history, as history is only what we know. You can't cite non-extant history as being interesting any more than you can cite non-extant movies as being entertaining.

I frequently find non-extant movies way more entertaining that extant ones.

Jethro, you are using exactly the same definition but with a broader value of "we". History is what is known.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Jethro, you are using exactly the same definition but with a broader value of "we". History is what is known.

Actually, I was using "we" in the broadest sense: everybody. If it's unknown to everybody, it's pretty much a moot point.

[Immortal Wombat]

Fine. He's using a broader definition of "we" than he thought you were using. I think.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes, very little happened historically. They were free of foreign influence for a very long time (tens of thousands of years). In all that time, they lived in perfect balance with nature. To me, the fact that a group of human beings can live in perfect balance with nature is quite interesting in itself.

You've basically summed up their entire history. If your history can be summarized in four sentences, it's not interesting.

Have you ever considered that you might have an extremely ethnocentric view of what history is?

Go look up the Dream Time and other stories of the Dreaming. If you don't find that at least mildly interesting then you must be one boring person.

Me personally, I don't find white men spending massive sums of money to blow themselves up all that interesting anymore... it gets old. There's far more interesting things in this world.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't. The aboriginees are boring. But there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't point to anything wrong with the people or culture. On the contrary, the most "interesting" things in history usually amount to the most horrific. In fact, I'd say there is a direct relationship between how interesting a subject is and how many people died during it.

There's a difference between anthropology and history, and the former is what applies mostly to the aboriginees of Australia, not the latter. There's just not much actual "history" there.

But just because studying the culture of aborigines is not history, but anthropology does not make one type of study more boring.

It's all subjective in what is boring and what is not -- anthropologists would be excited in studying their culture, which I can understand. Meanwhile, my passion is with the written record of human activity/development -- history.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, that's precisely what it is. Or rather, it's what we think we know, based on scholarly consensus of the events/times in question. History is a chronicle of events of the past. Without knowledge of events, there's no chronicle, ergo no history.

If the elders of these tribes have knowledge of the past, then that's history, certainly. But that's not what you said--you referred to knowledge that was "lost to time." Such things are not a part of history, obviously.

Yep, you're right. My mistake.

Do you know? If not, then what are you talking about? History that you imagine they would tell, if anyone asked?

I don't know the history of every individual tribe. And just because I don't know the history they have to tell, it doesn't mean its all in my imagination. Just as I've heard the stories of the tribes in the region around my home city of Newcastle, I can draw the same conclusion about tribes in other areas.

So yes, I am talking about the history they would tell if asked. One of the books I have about the Aborigines is about the size of an encyclopedia, and I know there is much more out there.

If there is some great trove of historical knowledge that the aboriginal elders haven't revealed, you can hardly blame other people for not being interested in the as-yet unrelated history of the aboriginees, now can you?

I never said there was a trove of knowledge the elders haven't revealed. Whether there is or not, I don't know. But if these elders do have untold stories of their people, you can't say its not history just because most people don't know.

But you're right, you can't blame people for lacking interest in any aspects that remain untold, if there are such aspects.

[Bosh]

In all that time, they lived in perfect balance with nature.

That's such bunk. Australian megafauna went extinct in massive numbers soon after humans started showing up there. Same goes for the Americas. You don't see too many North American camels or South American giant ground sloths anymore. Or giant carnivorous kangaroos for that matter.

[MrFun]

I agree with Boshko. There are basically two extreme distortions of indigeneous populations.

One is the racist distortion that indigeneous peoples were savage and were incapable of adapting when they came into contact with new peoples.

Second is this blissful, utopian distortion that indigeneous peoples were advanced ecologists who never fought wars with other indigeneous people.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's all subjective in what is boring and what is not -- anthropologists would be excited in studying their culture, which I can understand. Meanwhile, my passion is with the written record of human activity/development -- history.

See thread title for which is relevant to this thread.