Jean Baudrillard's article on postmodernism really got me thinking. As a undergrad who will receive a BA history major in less then three months, the thought that history no longer exists is troubling to me. I have dedicated four plus years to study something that is not even happening anymore. I guess I understand where Baudrillard is coming from. History is never history, is is always subjective. The writer or whomever that is telling it is always biased, whether they know it or not. We like to think of history as simply the facts, but we are so wrong. This got me thinking about a film I recently watched, entitled Ararat. It talks about the genocide of the Armenian people in Turkey in 1914(?). A real event that actually took place. I have studied middle eastern history and was not aware of this, because the people who were telling me the story choose not to include this part. Subjective.
So when Baudrillard tells me that history is vanishing because there is no such thing as reality, I buy it.
The war in Afghanistan, a historical event, right. But who tells the story. CNN, edited. GW Bush, glorified. My best friend Steve who is stationed in Kandahar, terrified. A member of the Taliban, angry. The same reality, viewed through different eyes means a different story... Who's story is right? I and we will never get the whole story, never get the reality. Reality does not exist, it is always seen and told through some one's subjective eyes. Baudrillard says "right at the heart of the news, history threatens to disappear". In twenty years will a BA in history not exist? Will text books be replaced by CNN podcasts? Will I know be replaced by I think I know? Will nothing be authentic, Benjamin does not think so...
I think I need a drink, my head hurts...
ERIN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I feel like I always have more questions than answers, but that's the beauty of a blog, isn't it? I have had to try to answer countless "Why do we have to learn stuff that happened 200 years ago?" laments. And I have not come up with a decent answer. The classic "so we can learn from our mistakes" is okay, but has holes. HAVE we learned from our mistakes? Not very quickly, that's for sure. Will we ever?
I also wanted to comment on Marta's final thought about "discovering the original." This takes a lot of effort, which many people may not be willing to put in. Does this result in an uninformed society then? Is knowing NO side better than knowing one side? Even if you know it's not the only side? Will it ever help me to know that Napoleon's favourite battlefield meal was potatoes and onions? (maybe not, but don't I seem smart?)
Lukey
Post a Comment