How does the language used to describe the past change history? Does something similar occur when different terms are used to describe natural phenomena or human behaviour?

What do you guys think about this?
Different incidents that change history are like revolts, wars, massacres, etc. Do you think discussing these things change history?

Each country usually tries to glorify and justify their role in a certain conflict. For example, when Hitler was chancellor he tried to essentially rewrite German history by burning all jewish books and influence on their society from non-Aryan people. Although eventually this culture was somewhat restored, throughout the period Hitler was in control the eliminatino of language in the forms of books, eliminated the acceptance to this culture.
But then again, this is just one example..

I agree with Juliette.
Language can be used in different ways to describe the past to change history. As far as I know, this created conflict between Korea and Japan in the past as well as today. I believe it was conflict about Japan invasion of Korea in 20th centuries, but Japan explain the invasion in their history textbook as the Korean was enemy while Japan was innocent within their invasion. It explains as because defeat of WWII, they were forced to allow Korea to be independent when it was part of them. On the other hand, Korea explains just the opposite in their history book, which creates conflict within Japanese and Korean students.

In current days, the issue arise again as they both claim for the East sea that is in between Korea and Japan. This includes little island called Dokkdo which has become controversial issue of who actually owns the island as it is in between Korean and Japan.

It is very interesting reading the history books from both countries as the same time as they counterclaim each other's claims.

Because we didn't live to see and feel what happened at the time, our knowledge on history is limited to what we're told, and some concrete evidences like photographts and etc, however, all these can be biased and are biased in most cases ( not saying it wouldn't be biased if we're there to see it happen as a person ) but because the photographs and the stories we are told can have bias from OTHERS that we're told from, it can often be misleading, which is why I would say language used to describe the past changed the history we know about.

Yes our knowledge of history is almost always limited to language as a way of knowing. Unless we have a relative or a primary source, we pretty much have to believe what we learn in books and at school. I fear that a lot of information has been lost over the years, by books being burnt and however else. We could be missing huge parts of history!

We've been talking about whole countries initiatives a lot, but I thought it would be interesting to take a look at this on a personal and individual level. In class we did the activity of providing the real account of the truth as well as the account that we might share. This doesn't change what ACTUALLY happened in the past, but it does change how that event of the past changes future events. For example a well known quote is ' we learn from our mistakes' however, we also learn from others. And either someone could emebelish a story to make a mistake they made seem very minor or terrible which might change our future actions given the same situation.

This is language's role as language is our main means of conveying a message (be it 'truthful' or skewed)
So In my opinion language affects history in both a broader ' history book' style way and also in a personal manner.

So somewhat like Juliette said, the consequences and actions of history will never change, but rather our perception of said actions. Perhaps a better way to state this is that language changes the future as we are influenced by the past.

<sub>There is a type of euphemism that occurs in many textbooks. This is one of the reasons why there are hardly any books on the genocide or holocaust. Many of the people feel as if the younger generation have no need to remember the horrible times that they had faced (Of course, we do have the choice of whether we actually want to learn about these topics). Glara has stated an excellent example of the opposing viewpoints in textbooks from different cultures. Another thing about textbooks is that although the editors attempt to be unbiased it is extremely difficult to not include some personal or cultural bias. This is where primary sources are significant to developing an idea as to what the events really looked like from the perspective of one who had experienced it; however this does not mean that the source is completely pure of bias, as Arthur has stated.

Later on, when we are considered historic, the events that had occurred within our lifetime, for example 9/11 or the war in Afghanistan, may be altered due to people with different opinions all contributing their ideas which could in the end lead to a complete misunderstanding of the entire happening.

The telephone game is an example of one way history can be changed by the misunderstanding of language. If there is one mishap of words in the middle of the telephone line the whole message can be misinterpreted and the outcome could be completely off. As stories of ancestors are passed on throughout generations of families they also may be changed (unless written down like a fairy tale book and read to an audience) and we will never really know the true story of what happened.</sub>

------------

whoever who said that quote? i think it was Arthur that was really good! And not only do I believe that the way we told about history will change it when we were not there, but also the situations that we were in will change to us.
For example, if I really enjoyed a concert and had an overall good feeling about it, and then someone told me that the concert was terrible and pointed out a bunch of things that were bad, I might also pick up on them and change my opinion.

There is saying "History is Fiction" THis means that because the history is so biased that it is almost not ture. Unfortunately, I do agree with most people's saying. Some countries, such as Japan, did rewrite their history and in their text book, many violent acts they did, were not even mentioned or underestimated which is causing conflict between Japan and neighbouring countries. For example, in Japanese textbook, they describe Nanking Genocide as "an incident that occurred to defend an extreme Chinese rebellion and we only killed Few of them to defend ourselves" But as we all know, this is not true. Japanese killed over 200,000 people and most of fatalites came from the civilians who had nothing to do with "rebellion" I am not saying Japanese are the only ones who are wrong. If we look at any history in any nations, most of them, as Juliette stated above, tries to glorify and raise the countries reputations. History of many nations, such as Korea, shows that they are chosen by gods and their nations were built by sons of gods. In Korean elementary textbook, when they are talking about the myths of creation of Korean nation, Kochosun, they tell exact year (2333 B.C.) which tries to show that these may be true. Also, since we have limited information about the past since there are not any people who are that old, we often try to guess based on the evidence which is sometimes are not accurate.

I think that as soon as history is written down for example in a textbook, it already changes something. When students read these textbooks, they will create their opinion based only on what was explained in the text. Even if that certain textbook that you are reading isn't biased at all, your opinion would still not be 100% created from that whole historical event. This is because events can never be explained exactly how they were - in textbooks especially, the author just sumarizes the event, not including detail. And to make a judgement on events, you have to be there so that you can take into account everything that is happening.
Even photos that are 'primary sources' can give the wrong image of what was really happening at that time. When we see a picture that is meant to describe an event, we assume that it is a summary of the overall event. However, it could've just been a picture taken at a certain part/place/time of the event, and the rest of it could've been very different.

I would argue that while language does affect history. Our perception is most skewed by the terms we use. As has been stated before, the main purpose of language is to convey a message. But as we looked at in class, many different words hold different connotations. It is this quality that does the most damage to factual integrity, and yet is often regarded as the most prevailing feature of language.
In past events and historical recollection, the most feature of language that leaves the alsting impression is simply that of whch word is used. I would say that while our biases are significant, it is in fact he language that we use that defines how our bias is perceived. If i regard the incident in Jonestown as one of the greatest tragedies of our time, one connotation is perceived. If i state it was a historical event, a different one is created.
It is these minor terms that differentiate our perceptions, even more so, i believe, than our own bias.

It is impossible to not be subjected to the bias all around us. Every thing we read, hear, see or learn has a bias and it is up to us as learners to be aware and assess the bias in our lives. History may be very bias as historical events can be passed down very great vagueness or ambiguity in order to spin the story and put on a bias to one side. Even through primary sources there may be bias on past events as i assume that everyone will have their own opinions on the events. But i believe that the bias is what makes history interesting, yes there can be facts that cannot be changed but the bias on the recounting of history still allows for personal interpretation.

History is almost always told differently, depending mainly on who's telling it, obviously. The way we perceive history, is completely dependent on how it has been presented towards us. Example, your own parents compared to a history professor. Your parents would strive to inform you as much as possible of your heritage and your history, as well as events in history they themselves have addressed in their own perception of ethics, of which they now transfer to you, swaying your own perception. Through their telling, there is a guarantee that it will be hinted with personal bias of certain cultures, and your own culture, further swaying your view of history. History told to you by your parents is a mix of fact, emotion and perception of ethics that effect the audience. On the other hand, a history teacher must be very, very careful, for obvious reasons. They must stick to fact and fact only, despite their own views, as well as the views of the general public, in order to avoid unintentionally affecting a student's view of history. Through this, I agree very much, that history, the past changes for each of us depending on our sources.

I definitely think that the way something is said has a great impact on the way that people think about it. Language plays a huge role in our society and it can really dig into people's emotions and mess with their minds as well. For instance, Hitler during the time when he was in power, he would use language to manipulate people's minds into believing that what he was saying and doing was in fact a positive thing, even though it resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians. Depending on who is telling you the history, and the experience that they had with it, you can walk away with a very positive or negative thought on the subject matter.