User:Negush

I dont understand why Wikipedia and many world respected scientists, specially that in EU and USA, write the history not like the history was, but depens on the political power in the world and how much one state is integrated in the world comunity of power?! So, if one state is more old or if it is more organised with his propaganda machinery (scientists, journalists, politicians, diaspora and scientists from the diaspora) in that case the wiews of that country are more accepted no matter of the other scientific historical sources (proofs) what give different picture of the reality and history (the international comunity support only that proofs what are more useful for his older member or with the member with which they have better relations and more support). The other thing is that the many world scientists look on the historic events very superficial (shallow)and only from the formal aspect, formally. They (except some) do not lood deeply and with considering what was the reason of that acting of the people, specially when it is contradictional proofs what can make us to bring different conclusions. But even if there is no contradictions, they look formaly and di not give explanations when they use terms, specially modern terms for the past times.