5 ms·

Tsar Alexander II was the ruler of the occupying nation, so forgive us for not considering him one of the best rulers in our history. Perhaps if Russia didn't p

by 6d6b73 7y ago

Tsar Alexander II was the ruler of the occupying nation, so forgive us for not considering him one of the best rulers in our history. Perhaps if Russia didn't partition Poland, Kosciuszko would have successfully abolished serfdom long before Russians even thought about doing it, so sorry for not being thankful for his great contributions.

jwieczorek 7y ago
Claims like this are essentially impossible to have a reasonable historical discussion about, because they do not concern history but rather alternative history, and the two are mostly disjoint. One is concerned with facts, the other – with fantasy. And facts are more interesting and meaningful. When it comes to facts, it's worth understanding why Russia took part in the partitions of Poland (hint: as is well-known, Catherine the Great was the most hesitant of all the three rulers to take such an action). To have a better grasp of this highly propagandized (in typically Polish martyrological shades) period of history, I recommend the book The History of Stupidity in Poland by Aleksander Bocheński.
- 6d6b73 7y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely add it to my list . So there is no misunderstanding - I agree with everything you said, however, the problem with facts when looking at history, are that we're really don't know all of them. Just look at the situation today - every country has it's own propaganda machine, trying to spin the truth so they can present their point of view as THE facts. In 200 years the facts will be not what really happened, but what we can piece from the few articles and books that will survive. And who knows how close to the real truth they will be? But the truth usually is somewhere in the middle. The idea behind my original post was to get people to give me some names of the important figures from their countries, so I can learn more about their history, views, and heroes. I don't want not to talk about the complicated history of one nation, but about these ignored (by the western society) heroes of exploration, science, politics that we never talk about because - how many people really know history of Tibet, or Uganda or.. _fill the blanks_. How many people heard about __ who discovered ____ but lived in a _____ so only few people heard about them? But we can't talk about that because someone has to prove why your side is as bad, or worst as my side.. FFS
  - jwieczorek 7y ago
    > But the truth usually is somewhere in the middle. No, it's not.
    - 6d6b73 7y ago
      Yes it is.. I guess that's the end of our discussion.
      - jwieczorek 7y ago
        The truth is where the truth is, not in the middle. :)
chewz 7y ago
Tsar Alexander II had been killed by bomb thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki Polish person and part of Russian Narodnaya Vola conspiracy. Tsars bodyguard had been Polish noble. I think people of XIX century would be laugh your narrow nationalistic schooling.
- 6d6b73 7y ago
  History is complicated, I know. And I've never claimed that Alexander didn't abolish serfdom, or even that he was a bad ruler. All I'm trying to say is nobody should be surprised that his accomplishments are not part of the school curriculum as he was simply an occupier.
  - chewz 7y ago
    That's exactly my point :-) History is complicated and we oversimplify it looking back through our modern lenses.
  - jwieczorek 7y ago
    > he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore are not even close to serve as an objective description of a historical figure. I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an “occupier” at all, much like Donald Trump is not an “occupier” of Native American lands. I think there are grounds to be surprised and dissatisfied when the school curriculum teaches kids shallow, anti-intellectual ressentiments, instead of actual history, with all its shades of gray. And when it does that, it's awful for their future. Indeed, as one great Polish historian once said, false history is a mistress of false politics. Mistress in the old Shakespearean sense. Although the modern alternate meaning of the word gives the saying quite an appropriate twist…
    - 6d6b73 7y ago

by 6d6b73 7y ago

jwieczorek 7y ago

Claims like this are essentially impossible to have a reasonable historical discussion about, because they do not concern history but rather alternative history, and the two are mostly disjoint. One is concerned with facts, the other – with fantasy. And facts are more interesting and meaningful. When it comes to facts, it's worth understanding why Russia took part in the partitions of Poland (hint: as is well-known, Catherine the Great was the most hesitant of all the three rulers to take such an action). To have a better grasp of this highly propagandized (in typically Polish martyrological shades) period of history, I recommend the book The History of Stupidity in Poland by Aleksander Bocheński.

6d6b73 7y ago
Thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely add it to my list . So there is no misunderstanding - I agree with everything you said, however, the problem with facts when looking at history, are that we're really don't know all of them. Just look at the situation today - every country has it's own propaganda machine, trying to spin the truth so they can present their point of view as THE facts. In 200 years the facts will be not what really happened, but what we can piece from the few articles and books that will survive. And who knows how close to the real truth they will be? But the truth usually is somewhere in the middle. The idea behind my original post was to get people to give me some names of the important figures from their countries, so I can learn more about their history, views, and heroes. I don't want not to talk about the complicated history of one nation, but about these ignored (by the western society) heroes of exploration, science, politics that we never talk about because - how many people really know history of Tibet, or Uganda or.. _fill the blanks_. How many people heard about __ who discovered ____ but lived in a _____ so only few people heard about them? But we can't talk about that because someone has to prove why your side is as bad, or worst as my side.. FFS
- jwieczorek 7y ago
  > But the truth usually is somewhere in the middle. No, it's not.
  - 6d6b73 7y ago
    Yes it is.. I guess that's the end of our discussion.
    - jwieczorek 7y ago
      The truth is where the truth is, not in the middle. :)

chewz 7y ago

Tsar Alexander II had been killed by bomb thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki Polish person and part of Russian Narodnaya Vola conspiracy. Tsars bodyguard had been Polish noble. I think people of XIX century would be laugh your narrow nationalistic schooling.

6d6b73 7y ago
History is complicated, I know. And I've never claimed that Alexander didn't abolish serfdom, or even that he was a bad ruler. All I'm trying to say is nobody should be surprised that his accomplishments are not part of the school curriculum as he was simply an occupier.
- chewz 7y ago
  That's exactly my point :-) History is complicated and we oversimplify it looking back through our modern lenses.
- jwieczorek 7y ago
  > he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore are not even close to serve as an objective description of a historical figure. I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an “occupier” at all, much like Donald Trump is not an “occupier” of Native American lands. I think there are grounds to be surprised and dissatisfied when the school curriculum teaches kids shallow, anti-intellectual ressentiments, instead of actual history, with all its shades of gray. And when it does that, it's awful for their future. Indeed, as one great Polish historian once said, false history is a mistress of false politics. Mistress in the old Shakespearean sense. Although the modern alternate meaning of the word gives the saying quite an appropriate twist…
  - 6d6b73 7y ago