This topic got me thinking, when discussions around the days of colonisation (apartheid in South Africa) and transforming to be stronger and better nations.
Where do we draw the line between good histor, that we want to keep?
I personally get touched when people speak on renaming ancient monuments or any other infrastructural unit, because they promote the "apartheid" or "racist and colonial" times.
Do we consider the first sailer that arrived in our countries as bad history? Then what is good history, a native that became the first president, even if in his time he made more wrongs, (that tarnished his country's name) then rights?
This arises the question of, how much of the colonial time history do we want to keep, as constructive information that will ensure the new generation not to forget their roots and origins.
Feel free to let me know what you think about these issues. ..
Where do we draw the line between good histor, that we want to keep?
I personally get touched when people speak on renaming ancient monuments or any other infrastructural unit, because they promote the "apartheid" or "racist and colonial" times.
Do we consider the first sailer that arrived in our countries as bad history? Then what is good history, a native that became the first president, even if in his time he made more wrongs, (that tarnished his country's name) then rights?
This arises the question of, how much of the colonial time history do we want to keep, as constructive information that will ensure the new generation not to forget their roots and origins.
Feel free to let me know what you think about these issues. ..
Comments
Post a Comment