Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall fell. This was a momentous event in Europe with repercussions around the whole world. It is hard for me to think of this as history because I was there living in Germany at the time, and the excitement is still fresh for me.
But by twenty years after an event, historians are indeed already buzzing around it looking for fresh explanations based on the new insights that the passage of time can bring. Many books are being published about this event. Some say that communism was flawed from the start and it was inevitable that it would collapse one day. Others say that it was America that bankrupted communism through an arms race the the Soviet Union and its allies couldn't sustain. Others again look to the actions of influential individuals for explanation - what the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev did since assuming office in 1985, or what the East German leader Erich Honecker didn't do before he was replaced in 1989, or the knock-on effects of the earlier revolt in Poland led by Lech Walesa in 1980, or the fact that a Polish Pope was installed in 1978. Yet others invoke the will of the people - the mass protests and occupations of embassies throughout the memorable year of 1989.
We will spend some quality time thinking about the nature of history next semester, but, in general, what do you think about the causes of historical events? Should we look for explanations more to the grand structural forces or to individuals who can command these forces and bend them to their own ends?
I know some of you will answer "both", but if you had to make a choice...
i honnestly do not think i understand the question to the fullest but i think people effect the forces which affect the society but the society only notices the part of the force that affects them however i think both of them are equally important in this situation.
ReplyDeleteWell if I had to make a choice, I would go with structural forces because I believe that if they are large forces, they will be effected whether or not they need an individual personality for this to happen. Lech Walesa did fight for a less communist Poland, but he was not an important person from the beginning. He was just one of several Poles who felt that certain aspects of communism had to go. Also he could not have achieved so much without the massive support he had within Poland, so that piece of history was not just written by his actions.
ReplyDeleteThen again I know this from possibly biased western education.
Thanks for the responses.
ReplyDeleteOne way to clarify the task is to play the "game" of hypothetical or counter-factual history.
Would it have made a difference if Gorbachev had never been Soviet leader? Would it have made any difference if the Italian Pope John Paul I had not suddenly died a month into his papacy and thus created the conditions for Pope John Paul II from Poland to succeed him?
You may say that we can never know because these events unfolded in the way they did and not in any other alternative way. But this is perhaps the closest that history can get to being a science - comparing scenarios while keeping the other variables constant. This is the basis of experimentation in science, and historians can al least play out "experiments" in their heads.
In the light of my questions above, now do you have a clearer opinion on what is important in explanations in history? And do you think that thinking through hypothetical counter-factual possibilities is a useful technique?
Although I think structural forces and systems are terribly huge driving forces for actions, individuals for me to a larger extent control events that happen.
ReplyDeleteHumans create these "structural forces" by their actions. A less demanding leader = less oppression. Gorbachev was a man who was not as forceful as other leaders before him. In-fact he weakened soviet dominance on all countries in the soviet sphere making it possible for riots and people like Lech Walesa to come up and still be alive. (Previously, under the leadership of earlier Soviet Union leaders, Walesa would probably have been killed.)
Hypothetical counter-factual possibilities are quite useful because they attempt to show what may have happened in relation to what we already know about a personality or an issue. (For example if Stalin was Russian leader would the wall have collapsed?)
However the flaw in this is since what we already know is based on earlier knowledge which has been already analised, it is very likely that there will be some amount of bias in what we are taught and this could affect our conclusions in the hypothetical counter-factual.
As we all know history often repeats itself. Yes not necessarily with the same people or exactly with the same events but nevertheless it does repeat. Therefore I believe that when looking at the causes we must consider the larger, general forces at work rather than the individuals.
ReplyDeleteHow is it possible that two groups of people seperate by not only location but years tend to have the same idea. Take for example the Nazis and the Hutus of Rwanda both deciding to mercilessly kill as many of their "enemies" as possible. Yes there probably were individuals in the group but at the end of the day they were mainly playing roles that have been played throughout history no matter their different principles or mindsets.
Hi Chelsea,
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment. If you are right, does that imply that there are core constants in human nature? Or perhaps that the constants in human nature are more important than the differences between us as individuals?
This would broaden our discussion by including the human sciences, for which the whole concept of "human nature" is central.
Seeing that the original topic here was the fall of communism, it might also be interesting to note that Karl Marx believed that "human nature" had been distorted by capitalism, and only by freeing people from the oppression of that system could they realize their true selves.
So here we have the claim that one of these grand structural force (capitalism) isn't just responsible for historical events but for actually distorting human nature itself.
Hi Deborah,
ReplyDeleteActually, Walesa came to prominence in 1980 as the leader of the shipyard workers in Gdansk, and that was when Brezhnev was still alive and in power in the Soviet Union. This was at the height of the Cold War, so maybe it's a bit more complex. But I take your point and it's a very respectable position to take.
I would say that history is more often than not shaped by huge societal forces and not by the efforts of important men at the time. These men, for instance Gorbachev may stimulate the change, but they cannot sustain it without the will of the the people.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the people are not happy, revolutions will occur to bring change.
in many ways i believe more in structural forces than in the individuals controlling these forces...the 1st world war and the second world war had the same underlining ideologies but different leaders,a structure presented itself twice and was made use of twice...after the 1st world war due to the state the world had been left in the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George said,"we shall have to fight another war in 25 years" the second world war was fought 20 years later...I also believe that the structural forces make an individual rather than the other way around....would Hitler have become a dictator if conditions in Germany had been better??? would the Germans have actually allowed such a man to become their leader if they were not so embittered by the state if their country after the 1st world war.... in so many ways i think that the hypothetical counter-factual however useful cannot actually be a legit way of knowing.... this is because it rules out the emergence of other forces and individuals....and also because if there the use of hindsight most certainly a bias will present itself...
ReplyDeleteI think that in most cases the larger structural forces have a more important part to play because if you look at the cold war in itself, and the way in which US-Soviet Relations deteriorated and for which reasons we realize that no particular individual had a hand in it. The tension has been deemed by majority of the world's historians as pre-destined or inevitable regardless of the way either government handled the issue as they were the only two countries that emerged from the war as superpowers and they held such vastly different politicaal values and operated under such different systems. I think that if people were to be held accountable rather than structural forces then a person's cultural background, upbringing, perspective and way of life would have an effect on their actions and it would therefore make it impossible for two groups of people such as the Hutsus and the Nazis in Chelsea's example to hold the same belief and act in the same way therefore making, for want of a better word, "similar"history.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I cannot not say I know too much about the history of the collapse of the berlin wall but I do believe that, as has been the case with several events in recent history, it is more often than not an exceptional individual, with a vision and drive far ahead of anyone within the same time frame, that initiates the baseline for change. An individual ahead of his time. A visionary. A deep thinker.
It is this one individual with his/her revolutionary ideas who becomes the driving force behind an entire rebellion to the extent that it begs the question "What would have been if this individual was never brought forth into this world?" This is an example of a hypothetical counter-factual possibility that helps us understand to a greater extent the real impact a single individual could have on a society.
In history when big changes are made it is usually a single influencial individual that is remembered by most and not his/her helpers. This should tell us the great effect they had. There have been many such individuals such as the famous Hilter,Mahatma Ghandi,Martin Luther King and currently people might even mention Obama as one of such people.
At first i thought it could only be structural forces, because for obvious reasons that, very important things that happen in this world do not require people to make them news. Take for eg. the terrorist attack on the world trade centre , i also agree with chelsea that history repeats itself without the same people...However, i think they go hand in hand and that what determines history has to do with something that happened that is relevant to a person. For eg. the death of a very dear person might be history to someone, the same way the collapse of the world trade center may have not have been historical for another person. Well, all in all , i think they go hand in hand , and almost every thing repeats itself(law of karma).
ReplyDeleteOk, after reading through my post a couple of times i realize the world trade center was historical to some people both for the fact that one of the most important buildings collapsed and also that it was by Osama Bin Laden, which i think goes to support my latter comment that they go hand in hand. Although, i might just think the structural forces determine history more to some extent.
ReplyDeletewell to me its a combination of sturctural forces and individual decisions. were soveit leaders bad leaders? was soviet propaganda a contributor? what about the many nations like ukraine that russia took under its wing again, that were itching to break free? a structure may exist, but whether or not it succeeds depends on how individuals, both leaders and followers alike, react to it? did the arms race make people worse off? probably. communism was flawed, i believe that, but so is capitalism. we have westernised education so to most of us capitalism is put on some high pedestal, yet we fail to realise that whereas capitalism has failed twice, communism failed once and fizzled out. not neccessarily because it was a poor ideology( if there can ever be such a thing). the question we ought to ask is what did communism fail to do for the people that made it collapse. in my opinion, it shoved altruism down their throats, and pretended that humans were not innately selfish. capitalism does the opposite: recognises selfishness and encourages us to pursue our interests, and our intersts alone. in my opinion, communism failed in spite of its strong points because it attempted to alter fundamental human nature, to suppress or eradicate certain feelings or emotions humans have, and for that, whether it was in russia or poland or wherever, it was bound to fail.
ReplyDeletei seriously think that the causes of these numerous historical events are incomperehendable because all of them could have been prevented in one way or the other. Take The 2nd world war for example, when Hitler came to power, even his aims were obvious that in the end there will be chaos. However all the powers that be only watched him and developed a policy known as "The Policy of Appeasement". by this he demanded things which were forbidden but they were granted him. this made him more and more aggressive, and the result was massive disorder.
ReplyDeletei do also agree with Chelsea that History does repeats itself, but i think that it is the duty of everyone to prevent it from repeating but History is "very dirty."
Esther
I strongly believe that all historical events boil down to both the individuals in society and the grand structural forces. I say this because individuals with unrivalled power(position in society) and influence Can bend others to his will for as long as he is able to maintain his power and influence. On the other hand, the collective power of individuals with equal ideologies unimaginable.Though the two groups discussed may wield incredible power, I believe that the grand structural forces take the day because if we take these structural forces to be the public, and the individuals to be the leaders, there will be no leaders if there is no public, ie, if there is no one for leaders to lead.But on the other hand, if there are no leaders, the public will still exist.
ReplyDeletei believe it is the structural forces surrounding an individual that drives the individual to make decisions to solve the situation around and not the individuals.communism from the start was very questionable becuase it existed in areas where there was poverty. to make it worse all communist leaders perceived communism in their own ways as Lenins practices were different from Gorbachev's "communism with a human face". However these perceptions were as a result of the varying situations at the time.whether Gobachev did what he did or not a revolution was bound to occur because the people being the force at the time wanted a change.hypothetical counter-factaul is important because it is from our experinces that we take both present and future decions.i think it was on this grounds that Gorbachev, Honeker and every one at the time stood for the occurrence of the collapse of the Berlin wall. Though it is biased we learn each day to think in a differnt way. we must not forget that the pressing force at the time was the fact that the super powers like USA and his allies practised capitalism while Russia and East Germany were communists and most importantly, the desire of the people.so from this i stick to the fact that it is the structural force that determines the end of events rather than individuals.
ReplyDeleteTimah
Hi….
ReplyDeleteBefore I start, I would like to say that I do not agree with Esther when she says history is “very dirty”. Some history is, some isn’t, and therefore such a statement is quite harsh.
So on to other issues, in my opinion the commencement of these historical events- positive and negative, is a response to the impact certain structural forces had on the people at that particular point in time and not the influence of one individual. Hitler of course had a strong influence on the way things turned out, but we fail to see that he acted the way he did because these structural forces, such as religious forces, cultural beliefs and societal influence in one way or the other had an effect on his actions.
I absolutely agree with Chelsea that history indeed repeats itself. Which leads me to this conclusion that the continuity of the race and its events are all dependent on the people/ individuals that make it up. My point is that, like Mr.Kitching said, there is perhaps a core constant, a characteristic inherent in some of us that lead us commit such acts or share certain beliefs or ideologies as with people of centuries before us. For example, (excuse me) racism....There are still racists that exist as there are still communists and terrorists as of today.
ReplyDeleteBack to the main point, so basically i would say that the investigations surrounding the causes of some historical events should begin from the individuals involved. Behind every concept exists a brain. And before every dream becomes a reality there must be someone to put it in action.I'm sure there were many Germans who did not exactly like the Jews back then but with a charismatic, passionate leader like Hitler( who by the way wasn't even German!!!) they managed to get rid of quite a number of them.....(sorry that i have to keep bringing up sensitive topics)....
I believe that unless it was a natural disaster like the tsunami then there must have been someone or a group of people driven by some force to act.
From Nelson Mandela, the Ku Klux Klan, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden to Rosa Parks,Idi Amin,Pharaoh and scientists from the past are all testimonies to the fact that without an equally historical and exceptional personality to enact these structural sytems and forces.....without these people a large percentage of history could not have been written.
Dionne Wilson (ps. Im DiDi)
sorry for all the grammatical errors..... =D
ReplyDeleteDionne I understand what you are saying you see, but when you read Chealsea's comment, she says that history repeating itself is as a result of THE CONSTANT STRUCTURAL FORCES which are present. Your stance is correct though but only that now, this point does not take a side because it supports both ends...just pointing that out.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is the structural forces surrounding an individual that drives the individual to make decisions to solve the situation around and not the individuals. communism from the start was very questionable because it existed in areas where there was poverty. to make it worse all communist leaders perceived communism in their own ways as Lenin’s practices were different from Gorbachev's "communism with a human face". However these perceptions were as a result of the varying situations at the time .whether Gobachev did what he did or not a revolution was bound to occur because the people being the force at the time wanted a change. Hypothetical counter-factual is important because it is from our experiences that we take both present and future decisions. i think it was on this grounds that Gorbachev, Honeker and every one at the time stood for the occurrence of the collapse of the Berlin wall. Though it is biased we learn each day to think in a different way. we must not forget that the pressing force at the time was the fact that the super powers like USA and his allies practised capitalism while Russia and East Germany were communists and most importantly, the desire of the people. So from this I stick to the fact that it is the structural force that determines the end of events rather than individuals.
ReplyDeleteTimah
I am also of the view that we should depend more on structural forces rather than individuals
ReplyDeleteThis is because I believe that it is these forces that create the ways for the individuals, who take advantage of the situation
I am sure everyone has heard too much about Hitler but really what happened in Germany is a typical example. Hitler saw the state in which the people of Germany were in and took advantage of that to become their leader. Had such conditions not prevailed (the structural forces)
Hitler would Not have come to power. I say this strongly because the first time Hitler tried to take control of Germany he failed, because the atmosphere was peaceful.
But I guess that historians, in order to get a good understanding of what really happened, consider both sources.
Yasmin Evans-Totoe
i believe we Should we look for explanations more to the grand structural forces than depend on historians.Historians conclusions i can say are most of the time driven by their emotions and where they come from(community).i got some testimonys of people who lived in different parts of the world.one was Carola.Carola was 18 in 1989 and lived in the Eastern side of the wall.she said, "we were aware that life was different in the west".
ReplyDelete"We couldn't travel and I think that was one of the main things because when you're young you want to see the world - that and freedom of speech," she said.She explained that despite this life in Communist Europe was not as bad for her as it is often pictured. She described it as "living in a secure system" where, in her experience every one had jobs, education and healthcare.
Mr G.Shnidjer,an economist from West Germany said,"After the fall of the wall, everything got more liberal, crime too became more difficult to control. The economy changed; society changed; the poor got poorer, and the rich got richer.sometimes i feel that it shouldn't have been done like that."
this, i presume is evident to the fact that historians are emotionally controlled when giving out important conclusions.IT'S YOUR CHOICE ON WHO TO BELIEVE!!
Good contributions, Alpha. It would be helpful to see some references for the people you represent here - this would make their testimony more convincing.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, seemingly in the context of historians you say "it's your choice on who to believe", but the people you mention here are presumably not historians. Isn't it the historian's job to decide what to do with the testimony of others? For example, the historian could claim that whereas many people from the former East Germany have embraced the freedom that western society has made available to them, there are still others who lament the passing of some of the certainties of life under communism (availability of free education, health care, etc.). Wouldn't this be a coherent statement for a historian to make?
Personally if faced with this question my answer would be both,
ReplyDeleteBut since we have to choose one and most of you guys seem to be going for structural, I’ll argue for the less popular option:
To some extent historical events ARE shaped by key individuals.
As John F. Kennedy once said 'One person can make a difference and every person should try.'
True, a desire may exist amongst a group of people but it takes just one person to make them act. As human beings, we usually wait for that one person to go first, to act, and then as if on cue, we all follow.
Many people were against communism at the time but couldn't act against it for fear of the repercussions (remember the repressive governments of the time???)
Therefore people like Lech Walesa tested the waters, and when nothing happened to them, others also had confidence to speak out.
Without him, they may have kept their oppositions to themselves as they had for so long.
People like Mikhail Gorbachev, who tolerated such criticisms of communism also played a part.
We all know that during Brezhnev's rule solidarity died down a bit but when Gorbi was in control it came alive again. Doesn't that tell us anything???
In effect:
‘A leader takes people where they want to go’ (Rosalynn Smith Carter)
People might want to do something but will hesitate. In the past as always people need that one person (or more) to motivate and inspire them.
Think of this:
Think how many times you have heard a fantastic speech and been moved to your core. You hold your two hands up: just centimeters from each other and wait…for that one clapping sound and as soon as it is heard you and the whole room burst into roaring applause.
Yes, you wait. You wanted to clap… but still you waited.
If the will of the people and social structures had not been in place the wall and communism may not have collapsed (i.e. if you didn’t even like the speech in the first place you may not follow even after the first clap)
But then again if leaders like Gorbi and Walesa had not made the first move the Wall might still stand regardless of the people’s feelings. (You’d hold your hands up, but after a couple seconds of silence they’d most likely fall back down. you still wouldn’t clap)
Hi Nnenna Onuoha,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking something like the devil's advocate position in challenging the general consensus!
Now let's look at the details (are they "details"? - what do we mean by a "detail"?) of what happened that night in Berlin.
At a press conference on that evening, senior East German politburo member Gunther Schabowski announced that East German citizens would be allowed to travel to the West, according to certain regulations. However, he was reading from a document written by other high-ranking officials and had not read it carefully himself beforehand, so when he was pressed on the timing of these changes, he said they would take effect immediately (rather than the next morning, which was what was intended). As this was a press conference, the news was quickly relayed around the city and beyond, with the effect of triggering mass movements of people towards the Wall. The border guards were unprepared and had not been briefed, and eventually just opened the barriers. In a way, the media caused the fall of the Wall by announcing it before it had actually happened!
So the Wall "fell" whereas it was supposed to be "opened" in a controlled manner. This was the result of not much more than a careless comment. Does this matter? It would at least have permitted the East German authorities to claim that THEY decided what would happen, rather than allowing the PEOPLE to become the agent of change. Would they have been able to rescue some credibility from this, and turn events around? If clear instructions had been passed to the border guards that passage was to be prevented, might this have resulted in bloodshed rather than the peaceful and euphoric scenes we can see in the archives?
Historians are well aware of something called "hindsight bias" - this is the tendency for historians (and others), when looking back, to imagine that the way things turned out was more likely than it actually was. From the perspective of 2009, it can look inevitable that the Wall would come down, and much less likely that other scenarios would eventuate. Maybe the Wall would indeed have come down anyway, but when and how such an event plays out might have significant condequences.
I think the history of our world has more to do with the decisions of individuals and their ability to influence the larger forces around them. lets take Adolf Hitler for one individual. He was able to get soo many people to join his army, not because they accepted his ideas, but due to the fact that he used force. All boys of a certain age had to join the army, so by the time he was ready to go to war he actually had a huge army to back him up. Anyway that's beside the point, i agree with Nnenna when she says that we just find ourselves following the norm even if we are against it, due to fear. When a leader of such caliber makes a decision you wouldn;t dare go against it. At that time everything was done due to the fear of the ideologies you found your side of Germany in. There was nothing you could do about it. Moving on to Lech Walesa, the fact that he was the first to stand up against the leaders, when he demanded trade unions it did not trigger the response everybody expected, which was immediate persecution. This is another example of how individuals actually affect the forces around them to make a change i.e. create history.
ReplyDeletei've been thinking about this thread for sometime and it dawned on me that in physics a force must cause a change and in my opinion without the force the event loses it's point therefore we should concentrate on the structural forces.
ReplyDeleteI believe is both structural and individual . in all this cases our emotions like alpha said are one of the contributing factors to some of the events that occur in history. for instance if the leaders of various countries did not want to feel extremely superior, then nothing like arms race would occur.Also looking at some of the actions made by the leaders, their actions were met by reactions that facilitated the emerging of powerful dictators. Germany can be used in this case in that by signing the treaty of versailles the people felt betrayed by their leaders and so thair actions caused alot of chaos with the uprising of the leftwing and the spartacist who brough alot of damage to the economy as a whole.
ReplyDeleteDictators like Hitler came up with propaganda as a tool in which he used to get people's attention and due to the emotions that affected their thinking based on the treaty of versailles He decided to go against all of it leading to world war 2.
if i had to make a choice it will be the grand structural forces who are influenced greatly by individuals.
I understand perfectly well the fact that changes are effected by individuals and groups of individuals but the fact remains that there is always reason behind their actions, or at least there should be. People don't just wake up in the morning and decide to run for presidency or declare war, there must have been a force that pushed them to do it, their reason for taking the actions that made history. Since Hitler seems to be everyone's example of choice I'm going to start with him. Without the larger forces of economic and social dissatisfaction in Germany and dissatisfaction with the results of the war for Germany as well as the desire for the creation of a Super race, there is no way that Hitler would have taking some of the actions that he took before his rise to Fuhrer and during his rule, note that it was these actions and nothing else that make Hitler a historical figure.
ReplyDeleteTake Martin Luther King, a man regarded by most historians and the majority of laymen as the father of the Black Rights movements in the USA, he would not have acted if the larger structural forces of racism and discrimination against African-Americans had not existed, there would have been nothing to fight for if these forces had not existed.
Structural forces are the things that cause people to think of ways in which we solve the problems of the world and ultimately to act, after all, from the major historical decisions taken by the leaders of the world and key historical figures to simple decisions that we take in everyday life, one will generally be judged as having acted stupidly if they decided to act without any just cause or logical reasoning behind their actions.
I was mainly fascinated by these very questions, “what do I think about the causes of historical events?” Should we look for explanations more to the grand structural forces or to individuals who can command these forces and bend them to their own ends?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that individual’s with power in society have a great influence in any historical event and are responsible to what happens in history. This can be justified by the way individuals in past historical events have acted, and as a result have impacted the lives of their people in these societies, negatively or positively. Taking for instance the, Jewish Genocide. Was it an individual who caused or was responsible for that particular atrocious massacre or what? Clearly, from hindsight one can come to the realization that Hitler (a powerful individual) successfully managed to manipulate the Germans to carry out the Jewish Genocide, which today is generally referred to as the, “Holocaust.” Basically, Hitler managed to achieve this extermination (of the Jews) by painting a gloomy picture of the Jewish people, by manipulating the Media handled by Dr Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Enlightenment and Propaganda. Even the youths were educated on the cruel nature of the Jews. Hitler blamed the Jews for the problems in Germany, at that time. “The Jews are aliens in Germany. In 1993 there were 66,060,000 inhabitants of the German Reich of whom 499, 862 were Jews. What is the percentage of aliens in Germany?” This phrase proves the extent to which the Jews were painted black by the work of propaganda in Germany. All these scheming of propaganda were meant to brainwash the Germans into total hatred for the Jews. This led to Hitler’s’ success of the Final Solution (killing of the Jews.)
Even though the German people knew for themselves the inhuman nature of this massacre, where driven by their commander Hitler, at that time and his ideas, which were anti-Jewish. The Germans were merely abiding to the Fuhrer’s (Hitler’s) commands.
On the other hand, I do not condemn Hitler for his harsh actions, as an individual. I believe that his hatred for other people (in this case the Jews) was built from some other factors that Hitler despised, which in this case can be referred to as a “structural force.” This draws us back to the Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1918. This Treaty drawn by the Victors at the end of the First World War was considered by many Germans as being harsh and was also seen as a “diktat.” This was due to the fact that Germany did not see why Germany was to accept total blame for the war, whilst other nations, for example Britain and many others, had all contributed to World War 1. Thus, Hitler built his actions on revenge for the humility that Germany suffered in accepting the Treaty of Versailles.
Thus, in conclusion, I personally believe that individuals (leaders) play a crucial role in causes of historical events, and I hope most of us are convinced that individuals have a great influence in historical events, and hence explanations lie beneath these leaders, although there are some driving factors that lead these personalities into taking certain actions. The ball is in these leader’s hands.
i believe the individual perception and analysis is the most important if i was to chose between the two this is due to the fact that we can actually find out the different feelings and emotion people felt to a certain situation so that we can emphathise with them to actually see why they have a negativity or positivity of the event and so Testimonial justification actually justifies the feelings and helps you picture the event even more clearly according to their testimony.
ReplyDeleteGood day! just a short comment.
ReplyDeleteLast time we had our TOK presentations, a group which did a presentation on certainties made an interesting comment about history not being certain.
So far as I can remember, it was about the existence of the biblical character, Moses. According to the Egyptian records however, there weren't any body named Moses. And this, triggered the group to think that history is uncertain to a large extent.
However, in modern history where technology is playing a major role to keep solid evidence of historical events, it is still an issue to whether this one is right or this thing is wrong.
So conclusively to me, the grand structural forces are more acceptable since in my opinion, emotions, bias and any individual's mind will be eliminated in this case.
Thank you.