Hi, I conducted a study of earth/world history, using Wikipedia as the primary source. The problem is that Wikipedia is fundamentally Eurocentric. I'd like to get important events from China, the Indian subcontinent, Polynesia and Western Hemisphere before the 15th-century. My study is a public resource, and I invite others to collaborate. "Anomalies of History" covers events from 500BC to 1998AD. I'm willing to extend the period forward or backward.
#Others may download the PDF at http://www.psignologic.net/history.html
#To get in contact with me, fill out any comment form on the website and leave a valid email address. I will reply shortly, usually within 24 hours.
#This could form a kernel for Asgardia's unique outlook on world history.

Hi, I wonder what others think of Wikipedia as a source for world history. I suspect many find Wikipedia too Eurocentric. So how can we change that?

@JOQuantaman just read the intro and it sounds fascinating! Would love to talk to you about it further, will leave a comment :)

I think Otavio summarized the problems of a global historical narrative quite well, although I have a more cynical viewpoint on it.

All history is fundamentally local. They are, after all, records of things that happened in a place by certain people. Attempting a global history requires abstraction and generally results in a more shallow coverage. These abstractions are often controversial and with good reason. For example, trying to fit history into a globalization perspective runs into the great controversy over whether globalization is a modern phenomenon, enabled by modern high-speed transport and communication, or whether globalization is as old as civilization. This is not a question that can really be answered, due to a lack of historical evidence.

There are a lot of reasons to think developments in Europe had a significant and near-immediate effect on developments in East Asia and vice versa since at least the bronze age, but these were not directly recorded, perhaps because they are merely coincidences, perhaps because it happened through series of middlemen\merchants. Many simply pre-date the written record and have to be inferred from archaeological evidence. Global climate trends are also a possible culprit behind some of the apparent co-developments. Records on the volume and types of historical trade are especially lacking until the early modern period, when governments for the first time took an active permanent interest in trade policies.

I think it useful to learn history through the perspectives of the people who lived it. This comes with cultural biases, but that's a good thing. People should learn not just what ancient foreigners did, but why they did it and how they thought about the issues. Just as we should learn how our contemporaries from different places and cultures think differently. It is more important to understand the diversity of human experience than it is to artificially unify that diversity into a convenient historical narrative. This also helps us to understand that our particular ancestors are, far enough back, essentially foreign to us.

Sammwich is certainly onto something. Historically (no pun intended), societies have only been as culturally aware as their immediate needs deemed necessary. Trade, after all, began with one person to the next. As a want/need arose that the other couldn't provide, humans began seeking to expand their awareness. Soon tribes were trading with other tribes, villages with other villages, nations with other nations. Globalization began with the "you and I". Because it's taken many thousands of years to get from that beginning until now, history itself largely localized. Even perspectives of history. You'll get very different accounts of Kadesh, between Hattussa and Ramses. We need to remember all sides of history, because the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

However, therein lies my concern with history itself. What we typically have, worldwide, is history recorded by the victor. This, by default, often gives us just the one side of a truly multi-sided account. How do we teach that which we simply do not know because the losing side's histories were destroyed by the victors?

I am glad we all agree on the importance of the subject, but the subject is never presented properly. History has a tendency to be written from one perspective. Plus more is lost than recorded. Now we have a combined history that people can agree on but there will always be events and controversy on what's really the case. It is important to be able to have access to every little detail for further study, but I think humanity would do a lot better if history took more of a philosophical approach. What I mean by this is have history as a  main core tool but let the focus be about human emotion and actions. What we as a species are capable of doing to one another and our environment must be known by all Asgardians. The emotions that trigger positive and negative action and why people feel them. History repeats itself. Why learn one part of the cycle when we can understand why pertinent people took action and for what causes. Our understanding of the use of history will be more beneficial to society if we weren't focused on dates but rather events and how humans interacted among them. Yes it's fun to dive in a specific field of study but we shouldn't require everyone to learn about commonly understood past events. The focus shouldn't be about specific people and events, but why people do the things they did.  Pull case studies that perfectly express every human emotion. Use history to do it. Have several examples, this I think we be more beneficial and more befitting for an educational requirement. This is the true purpose of studying and recording history. 

Now I think another great field of study that will use history to teach would be how a society changes based on public policy. How policies change the inherent nature of the people. 

History is a tool for understanding human experiences. Use this tool to teach core principles. Ones that can help guide us and unite us under common virtues. Plus it is also handy to see how others have succeeded in similar trials when faced with them on a personal and communal level. We can look to our ancestors to see what works.  The righteous path we all must take to create a positive and healthy environment. With it we can remain in good favor with the universe. Something we all must to do succeed. 

I think this touches base with what Sammwich is saying. Hopefully it adds some depth to it. Your thoughts Sammwich and Ken?

World history isn't our history. our history starts when we arrive in Asgardia in space.

I see we are all here on the same page  on how important the history is. Either the entire of human race history or  the the history of the world/earth. I believe the  history lovers  should be the members of Asgardian Think Tank . Let's  take aim  at  that.

I totally disagree on the notion that our history starts   from   ATSN  . The analogy I draw  , is just like Qin Sh Huang ,the Yellow Emperor who built the great wall destroyed all historical facts before him and marked his leadership from ZERO . Polpot the Chairman of the Khmer Rouge genocide his people to start the  year of Zero. We can't afford it to be History Amnesia.

Hello @Ogee Prayogee, I have taken the liberty of removing your duplicate posts, leaving the original within the discussion. 

thank you.

I disagree with the idea of Asgardia's history starting until an habitat is built in space, Asgardia is as new as a baby, to guide her and her citizens, learning from and about Older countries would be way beneficial than creating history with intended gaps, it is only logical we learn as much as we can about the terra firma and the race we are protecting. Humanity and Earth are a little bit complex so we need all information available.

World history must be learn. 

Because it is necessary to learn for will not to make wrong decisions like made earlier.