Is history the same thing as change?

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Is history the same as change?

Yes
3
23%
No
6
46%
Who cares?
0
No votes
Im not sure
4
31%
 
Total votes : 13

Is history the same thing as change?

Postby bucsfan47 » Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:59 pm

Philosophical question for you guys. One that has me stumped.

Reading a book about Native Americans before columbus. The author asserts that

"For almost a decade the image of the crying indian appeared around the world. Yet though indians here were playing a heroic role, the advertisement still embodied Holmbergs Mistake, for it implicitly depicted indians as people who never changed their environment from its original wild state. Because history is change, they were people without a history"


Im still not sure if i agree with the statement in bold. So I ask you guys.

Is history the same as change?
Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!
bucsfan47
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby Mr.Yankees » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:06 pm

Well, it kind of make sense in a philosophical sense. The only reason we keep records is because things change. If everything was exactly the same all the time, why should we bother telling the story of it, right? There is no logical explanation for people to make an account of a never changing system.

So, I have to agree with it. History is change.
Fighting for the people, supported by the people.
User avatar
Mr.Yankees
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby JuliaAJA » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:17 pm

Yankees is right, but I disagree, History is not change. History is what has happened, Change is change.
Image
Joined Particracy on: December 18, 2008
Click here for my versions of Siggon's spreadsheets.
User avatar
JuliaAJA
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Cildania

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby GreekIdiot » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:56 pm

This is confusing. Haven't there been periods of stagnancy recorded throughout history?
The Terran Times
Also being that guy who's pretending to be this guy.
GreekIdiot
 
Posts: 4031
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:46 pm
Location: Beiteynu

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby Darvian » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:19 pm

bfmvivi wrote:
Im still not sure if i agree with the statement in bold. So I ask you guys.

Is history the same as change?


Well, I hope I get my earnings for selling Mr. Mann's book... ;)

I'm sure you and I can talk this one out online sometime.
Darvian
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:43 pm
Location: In your dreams.

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby JuliaAJA » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:33 pm

George S.K wrote:This is confusing. Haven't there been periods of stagnancy recorded throughout history?


There have been.
Image
Joined Particracy on: December 18, 2008
Click here for my versions of Siggon's spreadsheets.
User avatar
JuliaAJA
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Cildania

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby Amazeroth » Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:30 am

Jessaveryja wrote:
George S.K wrote:This is confusing. Haven't there been periods of stagnancy recorded throughout history?


There have been.



Not really. There were periods when most of the things didn't change, but their never was complete absence of change.

But more on the topic: no, history is not the same as change. Change is something that lies in the very nature of everything: nothing stays the same, there are always some things that are changing, be that growth or aging, ideas and ideologies, relations, nature or art, everything does.
Is change history? No, history is, at least as one way to look at it, a chronological record of changes. Can there be history without changes? No, because change is omnipresent.

To the text at the beginning of this thread: Apparently the writer doesn't equal history with change per se, he equals history with changing environment from its wild state. So the question must be: is history, and by that he probably means the history of human civilisation(s) the same as the process of changing the environment from its wild state? I think he probably means that people are only acknowledged historically if they have created some kind of civilisation, and, as he equals that to civilising the environment, the more civilised the environment is the greater the civilisation. But I'm really reading a lot into this quote, and without knowing the specific context, I could be quite wrong.
Eines Tages traf Karl der Große eine alte Frau.
"Guten Tag, alte Frau", sagte Karl der Große.
"Guten Tag, Karl der Große", sagte die alte Frau.
Solche und ähnliche Geschichten erzählt man sich über die Leutseligkeit Karls des Großen.
User avatar
Amazeroth
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Location: Central Europe

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby Mr.Yankees » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:54 am

George S.K wrote:This is confusing. Haven't there been periods of stagnancy recorded throughout history?


Isn't the reason we record that said period of stagnancy because it was different than before and after?
Amazeroth wrote:
Jessaveryja wrote:
George S.K wrote:This is confusing. Haven't there been periods of stagnancy recorded throughout history?


There have been.



Not really. There were periods when most of the things didn't change, but their never was complete absence of change.

But more on the topic: no, history is not the same as change. Change is something that lies in the very nature of everything: nothing stays the same, there are always some things that are changing, be that growth or aging, ideas and ideologies, relations, nature or art, everything does.
Is change history? No, history is, at least as one way to look at it, a chronological record of changes. Can there be history without changes? No, because change is omnipresent.

To the text at the beginning of this thread: Apparently the writer doesn't equal history with change per se, he equals history with changing environment from its wild state. So the question must be: is history, and by that he probably means the history of human civilisation(s) the same as the process of changing the environment from its wild state? I think he probably means that people are only acknowledged historically if they have created some kind of civilisation, and, as he equals that to civilising the environment, the more civilised the environment is the greater the civilisation. But I'm really reading a lot into this quote, and without knowing the specific context, I could be quite wrong.


Amazeroth, you make a very good argument, sir.
Fighting for the people, supported by the people.
User avatar
Mr.Yankees
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby Darvian » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:56 am

The book bfmvivi is reading is an excellent one. Well excellent enough of a review from me to cause him to go buy it anyway. And the question brought up is in the beginning of the book and the context may help but, it is a good question nonetheless.
Darvian
 
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:43 pm
Location: In your dreams.

Re: Is history the same thing as change?

Postby Sam » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:08 pm

George S.K wrote:This is confusing. Haven't there been periods of stagnancy recorded throughout history?

Having things stop changing is a change, since previously things were changing and after it started they weren't changing.
"The FSB finally caught him for talking shit about replacing Putin with this "Saiser" character. I'm guessing they're up to his seventh toenail by now."
- Dynastia on jethro
User avatar
Sam
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: Чахтице, Делтария

Next

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron