Search results

Considering that, except for the initial period of the Emergency, Malaysia as a country attracted far less attention internationally than most of the other countries in Southeast Asia, it is somewhat surprising to find that many foreign historians did not hesitate to make Malaysian history the subject of their scholarly works. L.A. Mills wrote in 1924, 1942, and again in 1958; Rupert Emerson in 1937. In 1935, a Ph.D. thesis was completed by M.I. Knowles in the University of Wisconsin. In 1943, Virginia Thomson wrotePostmortem on Malaya. The post-1950 situation was even more exciting. Numerous theses on Malaysia were written in various universities in the world — among them SOAS, ANU, Hong Kong, California, Columbia, and Duke. Of course, by far the greatest volume of work was done in the University of Malaya (Singapore) itself where, between 1951 and 1961, more than a hundred theses were completed at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Understandably, in the mid-sixties, there was a growing feeling that the field was being exhausted.

In 1961, when the Union of South Africa became a republic, I wrote in 'Interpretations and Trends in South African Historical Writing': 'The Afrikaner had won the constitutional struggle against the Briton but at the very moment that he was about to reap the rewards of his victory in a new Republic, he stood confronted with the challenge of a non-white majority, threatening to deprive him of his gains […] A national myth has already become established - that South Africa is an innocent nation and the victim of attack in an evil world, and that attempts to solve the racial problem by territorial divisions or separate development are "misunderstood".'

Nadrabin dr Simon Guttmann u članku o jevrejskoj istoriografiji analizira sadržaj i metode ove, za jevrejski narod, važne oblasti. Iako su počeci jevrejske istorije sadržani u Tori, jevrejski narod je i pre njenog nastanka imao istorijske beleške u pojedinim knjigama kao npr. "Sefer hajašar"' (Knjiga o pravednosti). Njihovom analizom može se utvrditi da je stara jevrejska istoriografija imala drugačije metode od onih kojima se služi Tora. Autor postavlja pitanje zašto su u Tori preuređene istorijske zabeleške i zašto ta dela koja su nestala i kojima danas znamo samo imena, nisu odgovarala svrsi Tore? Ako se analizira metoda kojom se u Tora opisuje istorija, na prvi pogled se opaža da u Tori nije reč o istoriji jevrejskog naroda nego o istoriji koju stvara Bog. Jevrejski narod igra skoro pasivnu ulogu. Ne govori se o tome šta je učinio jevrejski narod, nego šta je učinio Bog. U Tori se ne bori jevrejski narod nego Bog ratuje za Izrael. Junak istorije u Tori nije Izrael, već sam Bog. U Tori nije prikazana istorija jevrejskog naroda, nego i istorija Judaizma. Tora pomoću istorije jevrejskog naroda služi centralnoj ideji Judaizma - religiji i moralu. To potvrđuje i činjenica da su istoričari novijeg vremena pišući o istoriji jevrejskog naroda morali da rekonstruišu istoriju iz Tore i da istorijske elemente razdvoje od zakonskih. Zbog toga Tora nije samo istorijsko ili literarno štivo. Ona je kombinacija zakona i istorije koji, postavljeni paralelno i u sadejstvu, čine jedinstven stil Tore i daju specifični karakter jevrejskoj istoriografiji i jevrejskom zakonodavstvu. ; Senior rabbi Dr. Simon Guttmann, in an article on Jewish historiography, analyzes the content and methods of this, for the Jewish people, important area. Although the beginnings of Jewish history are contained in the Torah, the Jewish people even before its creation had historical notes in certain books, such as "Sefer hajashar" (A book about justice). Their analysis shows that ancient Jewish historiography had different methods than those used by the Torah. The author asks the question of why the historical notes were rearranged in the Torah and why those works that disappeared and for which we only know the names today, did not correspond to the purpose of the Torah? If we analyze the method by which the Torah describes the history, at first glance, we notice that the Torah is not about the history of the Jewish people, but about the history created by God. The Jewish people play an almost passive role. It is not about what the Jewish people did, but about what God did. The Jewish people are not fighting in the Torah, but God is fighting for Israel. The hero of history in the Torah is not Israel, but God himself. The Torah does not show the history of the Jewish people, but also the history of Judaism. The Torah, with the help of the history of the Jewish people, serves the central idea of Judaism - religion, and morality. This is confirmed by the fact that historians of recent times, writing about the history of the Jewish people, had to reconstruct the history of the Torah and separate the historical elements from the legal ones. That is why the Torah is not just a historical or literary reading. It is a combination of law and history which, placed in parallel and in cooperation, form a unique style of the Torah and give a specific character to Jewish historiography and Jewish legislation.

This book is intended for the highly intelligent reader, who is interested in considering the difficulties, problems, and challenges of understanding and writing about the human past. It is popularly enough written, hopefully, to be a joy to read, and scholarly enough to be seriously instructive. The book has two major purposes, first, to give a reader an extensive, detailed overview of the field as it currently exists, and, second, to considerably enlarge the field itself, as it is the first book in the area to consider not only the epistemology of the field, but, in detail, its logic and sem

Appealing for more serious scholarship on this country and its history, takes a theme of mythology to explore how such history may be created/recreated, invoking the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front and the international community. Important questions about nationalism arise from the way recent publications use such mythology. LAB