"Witness" already implies not being involved [as much] as the winning or losing party. Kaya nga witness because they just experience it and not basing on narratives.
"Witness" already implies not being involved [as much] as the winning or losing party. Kaya nga witness because they just experience it and not basing on narratives.
ows? do you believe meron nga talagang hindi naging involved? so bakit ngayon lahat ng stories ng sinasabi mong witnesses cannot be reconciled into one single story? if di nga sila naging involved
ows? do you believe meron nga talagang hindi naging involved? so bakit ngayon lahat ng stories ng sinasabi mong witnesses cannot be reconciled into one single story? if di nga sila naging involved
I dont think naiintindihan mo ang concept of being a witness.
At isa pa, being reconciled into a single story does not necessarily make the story a fact. Everyone has a subjective experience. Picking a single story from the point of view of a single party actually makes it lose its nuances.
At gaya nga ng sabi sa original comment ko.. History is written by the victors.
Ano Ibig sabihin nyan? It implies that history is not grounded in facts, rather it's the winners' interpretation of them that prevails. The victors can force their narrative down on the people.
I dont think naiintindihan mo ang concept of being a witness.
At isa pa, being reconciled into a single story does not necessarily make the story a fact. Everyone has a subjective experience. Picking a single story from the point of view of a single party actually makes it lose its nuances.
At gaya nga ng sabi sa original comment ko.. History is written by the victors.
Yung nasa video SA tingin nyo ba alam na nya lahat Ng kasaysayan Ng pinas Kung makapag salita tong babalu nato inabot nya Yung mga pinag sasabi nya..Kung anti Marcos Ka or GALIT Ka gobyerno...wala Ka man magagawa puro Ka Lang iyak...hehehehehe NADAMAY PAKO SA KAUTOOAN hahahaha..
Kita mo, pinutol mo lang yung sentence ko it already made a difference in meaning.
What more kung pipili ka ng "single story" out of multiple experiences and nuances, edi mas lalo na diba?
Here is exactly what I am trying to say. The popular story that is well accepted as "history" is only one of the subjective experiences of the people. Therefore, to pick one story out of many makes it less factual, specially considering the quote that it is written by the victors of history.
Kita mo, pinutol mo lang yung sentence ko it already made a difference in meaning.
What more kung pipili ka ng "single story" out of multiple experiences and nuances, edi mas lalo na diba?
Here is exactly what I am trying to say. The popular story that is well accepted as "history" is only one of the subjective experiences of the people. Therefore, to pick one story out of many makes it less factual.
Yung nasa video SA tingin nyo ba alam na nya lahat Ng kasaysayan Ng pinas Kung makapag salita tong babalu nato inabot nya Yung mga pinag sasabi nya..Kung anti Marcos Ka or GALIT Ka gobyerno...wala Ka man magagawa puro Ka Lang iyak...hehehehehe NADAMAY PAKO SA KAUTOOAN hahahaha..
di naman history yun e, mga trends at analysis yun at nag draw siya ng conclusion from there, hindi niya isinalaysay yung experience niya during martial law kasi obviously wala siya doon, he only gathers charts, graphs etc. at i-analyze
Correct me if i'm wrong pero diba dati maunlad din ang pinas dahil sa steel mill na malaki mag pasweldo ngunit dahil sa palpak na pamamalakad at ang di pagsuorta ng government ay it ang nagdulot sa libo libong mga unemployment. Add more or Correct me