View the H-World Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-World home page.
Southwestern Oklahoma State University firstname.lastname@example.org If Yasir finds evidence for particular interpretations of historical events then of course he must argue accordingly! And I agree that materialist interpretations are not adequate to describe many aspects of world history. This is part of why I continue to appeal for the incorporation of the principles of human rights into our definitions, our teaching, and our research. Professor Brown has eloquently outlined particular obstacles we find when we attempt to moralize history. This does not deter me; in fact if he would select one objection or point from which we could proceed, we might discuss this more plainly. Many of the devils he describes in the details continue to play out in our modern world, which makes them all the more important to address in the classroom and in our research. Conflicts occur on legal, national, tribal, and personal levels daily between communities and individuals, traditions and modern institutions, democratic institutions and religious or family institutions, etc. But better to confront these matters, with our students, our readers, and ourselves, than to perpetuate the mythologies of amoral historicism. "Progress", as Professor Yilmaz seems to be arguing, is not always progress. I add civilization is not always civilized, and the victors are not always those who conquer. This must be part of our modern lesson. David