What genocide?

According to the Oxford Dictionary genocide has the following meaning:
the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.
Yesterday I read this amazing article by Dr. J. McCarthy, who has almost been removed form his office for denying the Armenian genocide. According to his very clear comparison of the available evidence it is very hard to put the events of 1915 in Armenia next to Hitler's Holocaust. The simply was no genocide. Yes, there was war, ethnic conflict, nationalist movement, imperialistic conquest and allot of murder.

I am glad that the EU has decided to get rid of this issue by working together with the Turks and presenting an honest report of history.

For more information read this article

What about the Armenian Genocide?

Armenia is known as an ancient country with long-during connections with Europe, this may explain the easy way in which Europeans are and were sure of the existence of an Armenian Genocide by the Turks in 1915, and this may explain the passion Europeans have in condemning this genocide.

Armenians, together with Koptic and Syrians, are one of the oldest Christian people.
Armenians have for long been trading with Early Modern Europe and connections have been good. But History gives way for allot of "Genocides". But what is genocide? It is the wipe-out of an entire people, it is mass-slaughter. But re-examining the sources show the armenian genocide lookes more like heavy-duty rebellion, ethnic conflict and plain war. Refound nationalism in Modern time has caused this elsewhere in the world.

So, read this article by James McCarthy and forget the armenian genocide, or remember all slaughter.



What kind are you?

...the kind that sees miracles, or the kind that believes he's just lucky?

That is the question posed by Mel Gibson in Signs (2002 I believe). Off course the movie triumphs when he sees the miracle, makes the connection and mobilises the divine spirit. I think this is too much of a dichotomy. There is luck, there is spirit, and there probably are miracles as well, but there is also chaos in which all this occurs.
Kabbahlistic teachings tell us about the layers of life. This can also be found in other mystic religious groups, but the Kabbalah is pretty clear about this.
chabad.org: The Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), and specifically the branch known as Chassidus, addresses this issue with what is called the "cosmic order," which consists of a series of stepping stones uniting spirit and matter. There are many layers to reality. The material world experience as we know it is just the surface level, within which exist many dimensions of spiritual energy waiting to be released. By appreciating these inner layers, we can learn to make order out of disorder, to gain insight into the unknown forces that determine all movement and behavior. Because all the different creatures and forces of the universe were created by one G-d, disunity on the surface evokes a feeling in us of a unity within, and our souls reach for it.
Anyway, interesting stuff, weird Mel Gibson. :)



History is about "what stories do we tell each other about our surrounding and how that surrounding came into being". In the end it's all a story, BUT science and scientific methods have made people reconsider the stories and search for relative truth. Why study history? To prove everybody is wrong, to be progressive, to show the 'truth' about the past. World History / Big History has a direct competitor in religion, which is basically history with authority. It's the retelling of stories that are considered 'sacred'.

In the end the world is a big fishtank and everybody tries to catch
some fish. History is a good catcher.


Historians need 3D vision as well

Recently I downloaded NASA World Wind, which according to some friends of mine was rediculous. They had already got it 6 months ago. I get an idea that historians are usually not into the stars, but maybe World Historians are. (or should be!)

So in this application from NASA you can basically (free of charge) browse the world in 3D, and take sattelite snaps. Then there are some scientific layers you can apply. But the most interesting for me is the 3D.

To be short now, my bottom line logic tells me 3D is more 'real' than 2D. So now humans can make pictures from space, why not do it? The first objection is: We are dealing with histories of countries. We stick to that perspective. This I think is stupid. For instance the fishercommunities around the North Sea, here in Holland, have throughout history formed a unified quasi-culture, while we describe most of history as "dutch". If the issues we research in World History are dealing with civilisations, we must re-allign some historical maps. Modernists are often claiming Nationalism is a modern thing, while anthropologists, historians of the middle ages and even micro-studies are convinced of "proto-nationalism".

Anyhow, to cut a long story short: Wouldnt it be nice to have an atlas be made filled with 3D-images of the earth, colored offcourse according to history, etc. etc...

In order for World History to work, students can use an atlas to develop different outlook. (critical or conventional)
Here are some of these samples

Here is one about Dutch Trade with Russia, and how exotic it can look in 3D:

3D snap of the Antique world, viewed from its centres. You notice Rome
is not that close, and dont forget Europe is just full of "barbaric

Compared to the previous picture this is the land of the "green people".