History - Reflection

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon

What is History? It’s merely a story about the past which has been told to us in various different ways, either through a textbook in school or through our teachers or even through our ancestors. And like any other story which is passed on through time, even history may have different interpretations and varying versions. It is almost always entirely dependent on the teller’s perspective and can change from person to person.

All over the world, history is seen and told from a different point of view. This is something which has been seen through the generations. Nothing in history is a fact, because every aspect can be altered because of the different biases that may exist. Every country most commonly tries to glorify her and glorify her victories, while simultaneously also belittles the victories of any other state. So how can stories like that be called facts? When they are just a series of tales which are added to as the years go by. Just like the fable of the tortoise and the hare, which is told internationally, history acts like just another story told to the world. But in each different society the version of this story is different, it is altered by the story-teller according to his perspective, and each perspective is only driven by the individual’s emotions and reasoning power.

Looking into Indian History and the partition of India and Pakistan, along with the main players involved- Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah amongst other; all are heroes or villains with respect to the two countries. Today, in India M.A. Jinnah is portrayed responsible, while in Pakistan Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru are seen to be entirely responsible for the partition. Which is the truth? What is fact and what is fiction? Who decides?

Recently a senior, respected politician of the BJP, Jaswant Singh wrote a book (Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence.), in which he praises Jinnah, calling him a great man. For this remark, his book was on the verge of being banned and more so he was expelled from the party he helped build. Was he not entitled to his opinion? And who decides whether Jinnah truly was a great man? How can anything be black and white, when so many grey areas prevail?

And therefore, when Napoleon said that, “What is history but a fable agreed upon?” He was entirely correct. Because history is nothing but a story, viewed from different viewpoints and told in different ways.

CIA Article

Past experiences tend to change the perception of an individual for future experiences, or sometimes even give the individual a point of view. In this article, the author discusses just how the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the USA have changed the perceptions of the CIA interrogators. And how their emotions have completely over-powered their sense of reasoning and have made them extremely biased to any form of information that they might receive. The article deals with hypocrisy and could definitely be an eye-opener to many.

A terrorist is just as human as anybody else, and has the same number of rights that any citizen of any country deserves to have. Somebody who has been affected by terrorists is going to have an extremely different perception towards them as compared to somebody who is a terrorist himself. It is exactly this clashing perception which can be seen in the article. The article claims that terrorists are mentally, emotionally as well as physically tortured by the CIA interrogators. Why is this happening? This is because the CIA is willing to go to any extent to be told what they want to hear. They are completely biased towards their evidence, and their emotions do not allow them to reason their actions out. And this evidently shows complete hypocrisy. They have chosen to do exactly the opposite of what they believe in, because they too are driven by emotions. How does this make either of them different from the other? Is torturing another individual, for whatever may be the reason, ethical?

One of the several knowledge issue that the article deals with is the use of torture every ethical? Can what the CIA is doing be justified? Can desperation be a reason to mentally traumatise another individual? Of course, somebody who has been hurt, may often want revenge of some kind. But is becoming exactly like the person you want to harm correct?

Torture is never the answer. It may give the much awaited results, but it can’t be the answer to a situation. As once said by Mahatma Gandhi - “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” This is exactly what the CIA officers are doing. It’s almost like ‘tit for tat’, in the name of peace, they are only giving rise to more trauma, sorrow, hatred and betrayal in the world. This can be seen in the movie Khuda ke Liye, an innocent man is tortured to such an extent that he is forced to confess on being a terrorist even though he is not. That is what the police wanted to here, and that is what they finally got, even though it wasn’t the truth. Their motive was to harm anybody, under the assumption that they were terrorists, only to satisfy their thirst for revenge.

However, the article is very one sided. And it only talks about the trauma that the terrorists are facing. Completely failing to give any importance to the amount of torture the terrorists have put innocent people and families through. It stressed on the hypocrisy of the CIA, without giving it any credit for having gathered so much useful information over time. Whether or not, torturing those who have tortured others is ethical, is something that can be debated over for hours. It all merely depends on the individual’s perception, which more often than not is driven and guided by emotions and personal experiences.

Knowledge at Work - 7

Today, the world is globalising and advancing at an extremely rapid rate; and it is often very difficult to keep up with it. The future looks bleak as the world becomes increasingly commercial and the financial situation reaches its highest point of saturation, or more like its lowest “low”. In a word like this the media, and more importantly the producers and large firms play a crucial role by supporting this rapid growth which can lead to detrimental consequences.
An advertisement is used by almost all companies, brands, firms and various other organizations to adroitly broadcast their products. The main goal of absolutely any advertisement is successful publicizing, and the only way in which they are able to do that is via presentation and language in their advertisements. The varying designs, images and texts are what essentially bring a reader to notice the advertisement and further look into the product shown. A successful advertisement is one that is aesthetically appeasing or different, as well as one which allows the reader to question and to think. That is the only way in which an advertisement can be interesting to a reader.
This is an advertisement that caught my eye in the magazine, ‘Condè Nast Traveller’. Ergo, it succeeded in its primary goal of making a reader spend a few extra minutes looking at it and also thinking about it. The colours used are extremely stark and at first glance the advertisement appears to be rather simplistic, yet it easily catches the eye because of the colours that are used (white, red and black). The language is easy to understand, but at the same time each phrase has an underlying meaning, which forces the reader to ponder on the advertisement longer. The meaning evokes certain emotions and hence each reader is left with a different perception of the identical advertisement.
The colours used in this advertisement can find a similarity that can be traced back all the way until the Second World War. The colours, red and black are the ones used in the Nazi “Swastika” Symbol. The colours represent Adolf Hitler and his rule, the way he in many ways ‘Brain-washed’ the Germans into believing that they belonged to a superior cast and religion. He used words and an amalgamation of emotions such as fear, sorrow, sympathy and pride to convince the Germans of his strategy. In this way, the discussed advertisement projects an extremely monarch like approach to the problem of extensive commercialisation and to the financial crisis which is slowly but definitely taking over the economic balance in the world at present. Similarly, the manner in which Hitler used language accurately, this advertisement also uses language as a medium to ‘Brain-wash’ consumers and readers all over the world.
As the financial crisis worsens, this entire advertisement is the ideal example for any economist, to describe the way any firm would try their best to publicize their products and the way in which individuals are hypnotized by these advertisements. This advertisement is an eye-opener and the essence of this advertisement has its roots in history. And the way in which the message is projected is highly emperor or ruler like and therefore it is similar in a distant way to the times of the kings and also the colonizers present in many countries.
The advertisement reflects an extremely didactic message just like a monarch. It however, successfully envelops all the goals an advertisement tries to achieve. It does this by using language and by the use of the specific colours. Also, the way in which the language is used, gives readers the opportunity to have various views on the issue and at the same time this use of language evokes emotions in an individual.

** The media source is an advertisement for a newly launched magazine, which emphasizes on the ability of an advertisement to influence a consumer’s mind. **

Knowledge at work-6

Shoes by Turkey’s most famous cobbler – Erol Odabaşioğlu

Erol Odabaşioğlu is today one of Turkey’s most famous cobblers, he started sketching shoes from the age of eleven. And use to make his first shoes by hand, however now he has a factory which is in full-bloom and produces hundreds of designs per year. He can tell you the shoe size of any Turkish film star or singer by just her name. The shoe which is seen in the picture is something that is purely a expression or a way in which he has communicated his perception of a particular design and successfully been able to materialise the image that he drew.

Fashion is an art, which evolves with time and varies from individual to individual. However, how can we define Art? Is it the portrayal of a person’s perception and point of view about a situation merely painted onto a canvas? Or can it be looked at from a wider perspective and can it have a larger range in which it can be communicated. Art is ANY form of communication and therefore cannot be defined to just one particular type or structure, it is a way of perception, and as perceptions continually change, so does the expression of art. An artist’s perception is built through his experiences which in turn entail him to reason out his thoughts and then illustrate them in different ways. An artist aim to elaborate his point of view through his work by allowing emotions and feelings to grow within those who see the art as well. In this situation art has been shown through the use of a shoe. Erol Odabaşioğlu has used the symbol of this shoe to condense the entire Turkish system, including its history, societal background, way of life and the traditions and customs. All this is clearly seen through this work of fashion, through this work of art.

The shoe may seem to be an extremely unusual design for most people but it still comes across as highly elegant. The dark, wooden sole and front in addition to the heel which resembles a red chilli adds to the contrast and portrays a way of life and tradition in Turkey. The elegant shoe symbolises the women and men who live a very fast-paced life but at the same time are known to be highly sophisticated and grounded. On the other hand, the chilli is a symbol for their cultures and traditions of which food and drink play a vital role. The food is known for its spices and tongue-tingling flavours.

Looking way back in time, we see that foundation of this idea has come from the artist’s deep rooted religious background. The religion followed in Turkey is largely Islamic. And part of the Islamic culture, from the time of the Mughal’s has been to wear slippers made out of solid wood. Here too, the shoes have been made out of wood, which shows the importance of rooted cultures in Turkey.

This simple shoe perhaps isn’t as simple as it looks. Just like anything else that we see, everyday. It all lies in the perception of the knower and the way he chooses to visualise what he sees. Each perception is backed by a reason from either personal experiences or other forms of knowledge.

Knowledge At Work - 4

Khuda Kay Liye

The time during and after the tragic incident of the bombing of the Twin Towers in America, is shown through different perspectives in the movie ‘Khuda Kay Liye’ or ‘In the Name of God’. One is exposed to orthodox Pakistani, Muslim families which live around the world and the way in which they follow along with going against what they believe in about Islam. On the other hand, we are also shown that part of the society who are willing to do absolutely anything in the name of Islam.

The movie uses the way of emotions immensely, to convey varying messages and to force the viewer to be more open-minded and have a different approach to all the situations which unfold through the plot. Every character is seen to have an individual perspective about common issues and daily events which take place. Therefore, through the use of these specific characters, one is given an insight to the wide range of ideologies which lie behind a solitary incident. And further, the viewer sees shifting points of view in the same culture, which are practically extremes of one another.

Emotion plays a crucial role in the development of characters as it is skilfully used to alter their perception towards their own beliefs. The example of Sarmat shows this clearly. He loves music, it is his true passion but he also believes in Islam and in Allah. However, the Maulana attacks his emotions which lead to a changing of his perception to such an extent that he stops playing any instruments. The impact that he has on Sarmat is so powerful, that it shows how Sarmat changes his personal believes because of an authority, and could be seen as authoritarian worship. However, the movie also throws light upon great levels of hypocrisy and the double standards that exist in almost all the different classes of people. The facial expressions and the body language of the people in each scene clearly illustrates the thoughts, views and emotions that they are feeling at any given point of time about a certain situation.

The role of emotion is so intertwined with all the events in the movie, as it also acts as an obstacle. The attack on the Twin Towers leads to the development of great fear within the Americans and also the development of anger. As the attack was done by Osama Bin Laden, who is Pakistani it leads to a biased perception that made the Americans as well as people all around the world look at Pakistanis in a negative light and with suspicion. In the movie this biased perception causes Mansoor, an innocent Pakistani musician living in the States, to be capture and tortured by the American police. This is an act of fallacious reasoning where the individual gives in to his biased irrational perception. And this form of reasoning only results in the use of emotive language which can completely misguide and is acts like a stereotype. A line from the movie that clearly shows emotive language is when the officer says to Mansoor, “All Pakistanis are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Pakistanis.”

The movie makes one question the authenticity of our beliefs. If they truly were authentic, would they be so easily changed and overpowered by our emotions? The story unravels the disgusting way in which the Maulana so easily manipulates Sarmat’s and thousands of other young men’s thoughts and changes their perception for what he says our his beliefs and what he interprets Allah’s beliefs and desires to be. The movie is an eye-opener which truly keeps the viewer in thought about how people are constantly being wrongly accused and stereotypes are being continuously formed.

Journal Entry - 20/04/2009

Whose intuitions should you trust? Are some people's intuitions better than other?
An intuition is the gut feeling that an individual experiences and it comes true. However, a person’s intuition is extremely personal and is not usually felt with the same amount of intensity by anybody else. The only intuition that I would trust, would be my own, as it is my inner feeling about a situation or event, that I cannot accept anybody else’s intuition on it. Everybody’s intuitions vary according to their own experiences and their perception towards things. One cannot say that somebody’s intuition is better than another person’s intuition, because, as stated earlier, it is a personal feeling and solely depends on the way the individual chooses to think and perceive the entire situation. Therefore, for me, I would not be able to completely trust anybody else’s intuition over my own.

If something is intuitively obvious must everybody agree about it?
No, it is not necessary for everybody to agree upon something that maybe intuitively obvious, because most things are never intuitively obvious to all individuals. What may be extremely intuitively obvious to one person may be completely bizarre to another. For example, the fact that the Earth was believed to be flat, was intuitively obvious to almost everybody, except the few that were able to reason out this stated fact, question what they were told and come to conclusion about how it was truly absurd. And later, proving that the Earth was not flat, in fact it was round. This example shows how what may seem to be intuitively obvious, does not have to be agreed upon by everybody as all intuitions vary from person to person.

Is there anything that everybody agrees about?
There are innumerable facts and truths which have been proven to be correct, which everybody agrees about. Things which have been scientifically proven to be right, such as the evolution of man, or about facts told about from history. But at the same time there are several issues that are still questioned by most people who have shifting beliefs about the same. Things which may be slightly more controversial and have a number of points that could be counter arguments against the issue.

Could you be wrong to think that something is intuitively obvious?
Many a time our gut feelings, or instincts may not be entirely true, and sometimes they may not be true at all. And therefore, it is wrong to think that things are always intuitively obvious, because that might not always be the case. However, by ALWAYS thinking that things cannot be intuitively obvious, one is taking for granted that intuitions do not exist, which in itself is an intuitively obvious statement that individuals should believe in. The gut feeling that we have, is often so strong and so accurate that it would be foolishness to assure yourself that something is not intuitively obvious.

Might you one day come to see that something you thought was intuitively obvious is in fact a deep rooted prejudice?
Very often, things that individuals may feel are intuitively obvious, turn out to be just the opposite and are merely deep rooted prejudices. This is extremely common for almost all individuals. For an individual who feel that it is intuitively obvious to hate all Muslims because they feel that it is intuitively obvious that all Muslims are terrorists. May someday befriend a Muslim and realise that what he thought to be intuitively obvious, was merely a prejudice that he held. And his feelings may change drastically in relation to this situation.

Journal Entry - 15/04/2009

The use of emotions has been proved to be extremely important and very useful. Expressing emotions can lead to varying perceptions of absolutely anything. But the use of emotions can often be faced with obstacles which hinder the knower from thinking straight and lead to biased perception which results in fallacious reasoning whose outcome is emotive language. This shows how closely inter-twined the four ways of knowledge are to one another.

The perfect was to highlight the above theory can be seen in the following example. The issue of India being colonized by the British can support the above statement about emotions. At the time of colonization almost all the Indians were looked down upon and treated in the most inhumane ways possible. This lead to the growth of fear within the Indians and only continued to increase in intensity with the passage of time. This intense fear which was brought about by the British who acted like the external stimulus, lead the Indians to have a biased perception about anything that related in any way to the colonizer. Like the introduction of telegraph poles in India, because of their growing fear they thought that these telegraph poles were built to hang any Indian that tries to defy the British rule in anyway. This perception only resulting in great fallacious reasoning, which was that they chose not to accept the introduction of the telegraph poles positively this would have only helped in the development of the country. Instead they used emotive language and said statements like “the British has only come to exploit and harm the country.” And this only completed the cycle that begins and ends with growing emotions due to external stimuli.

We also looked at the concept of Stoicism which fascinated me because the idea that follows this concept has always appealed to me. A valid co-relation with Stoicism which can be seen in History as well as literature is through Brutus. He was a true stoic who always suppressed his emotions, even when his wife Portia died, he didn’t shed a tear. The suppression of emotions is obviously extremely difficult but at the same time, as emotions are a medium of feelings, passions and moods which when expressed communicate plenty of messages. That is why, suppressing them could lead to varying amounts of miscommunication and misconceptions could be formed.