lau> We present our different views and history is alive with our interpretation.
joe>well said.

lau>History was a passion from that stage.
joe>i kind sense that.  but i also sense ur loyalty to history may be limiting it at the same time.

lau>I transport myself to the world at the point of time reading of a particular history. ... This uncanny trait both helps me to live history, and to interpret it.
This ability to transport myself to the events I am reading helps in greatly in my interpretation of the people, what and why they did.
joe>and i see that u urself has turned into quite an accomplished historian, especially in ur writing ability.  but good writing ability does not automatically translate to good interpretation ability. i remember when i took a english-1a class, normally forbidden to engineering students, all my papers got F grade, but the contents part got A. and this is the heritage we have been stuck with, until this internet age, when everybody can offer an interpretation, not just the good writers and victors of conflicts.

joe>nevertheless, u have the unique opportunity of writing down what others could only blab, only if u stop acting like a policeman on the net, guarding the rigid traditions.

lau>There are moments a feeling of what the past reveals in what today has become, and that today must prepare to avoid mistakes of the past.
joe>...provided the past that has been written is accurate.  the mess we have today proves to me it's not.  furthermore, the historians seem to conspire in charting a narrow path for the mass down into the future.  i for one like to insist that we can make whatever future we want to make.  in fact, history should be interpreted to support, not dictating, the future we envision.

lau>great historical moments.
joe>for a chinese, such moment occurs to everyone when he or she finally gets down to the "a person life's big task" of getting married.  everything else is background.

lau>understand the impermanence of this world, and to accept it as part of its evolution.
joe>and wish that we have arrived, or will soon if not already, to have a say.

Joe,

Prof. Edward Said, a Palestinian specialist in English says if one relates a historical account one must offer his or her point of views, otherwise it is just parroting an obvious fact that others can read from history books.

The fact that we both are in agreement with historical facts, each of us is doing what Prof. Said advocates. We present our different views and history is alive with our interpretation.

Ever since I was a sickly child given two history books by a Sikh whose bed was next to mine in a hospital, my thirst for history is insatiable. He taught me the first rudiment of English, and from there I waded though the history books, fascinated by Socrates, Aristotle and Alexander the Great.

History was a passion from that stage.

Something I would like to confess. I transport myself to the world at the point of time reading of a particular history. As I read the exploits of Genghis Khan, I ride along with his army and face the danger and excitement they face. This uncanny trait both helps me to live history, and to interpret it.

This ability to transport myself to the events I am reading helps in greatly in my interpretation of the people, what and why they did. In the tranquil and solitude of the seaside I walk in trance as I live the events of a period.


There are moments a feeling of what the past reveals in what today has become, and that today must prepare to avoid mistakes of the past.

Unless you can become a part of the events you are reading, you can never feel the transformation and ethos of great historical moments.

From this I am able to understand the impermanence of this world, and to accept it as part of its evolution.