Are all discussions in human history equal?

Are all discussions equal?

No. Even historians provide different analysis of what happened at certain events in history.
There are a whole slew of articles on why historians disagree.
I just typed: why historians disagree.

Is a discussion about the equality of discussions equal to any discussion about European history?

As a topic, equality of discussions, it still falls into the category of subjective choice. Discussions like books may be equal in quality, but not necessarily in the area of popularity.

Come on now Tom, again, for your Average Dumbo (me), how can discussions be equal

Yea Bob me too

General or Special Theory

Tom grats for your persistence if not your reasoning

Forgive

They are not equal I guess, because human history are fragments and uneven duration of human knowledge expressed in cultures. Human history can or may subjugate other micro-historical delineations about a particular or specific places or other elements of history but it cannot I concede unify the collectivity of historical reality. Equality among these elements necessitates a rigorous pursuit of examinations,investigations and training.

So what you're saying is that truth means the know reality inside out to the point that history wouldn't be possible.
My own take is that this very thread being equal to any other discussion means the inability to equate in the first place, because why should discussions about invading another country or which policy on tax rates to support exist when either require the non-existence of this discussion?

The equality of discussions is relevant to the truth surrounding pattern.

Tom, thanks, if you say so

No offense, keep at it

History at large, I mean to deal with it in a broad sense; the examinations, investigations, and training ushers the conceptual analysis of human history up to the extent of reconstructing cultures through linguistic and cognitive process. I would like to offer a view on human history not as a linear movement of existence/duration but a kind of fragmented,artifacts, and evidences that could possibly give the completion of human history[truth], and this attempt I guess does not deny the possibility of history in a particular place or event. I'm afraid I am in the theory-centered claim. Discussions of history being not equal happen because of the variety of optics on how to view them [the historical fragments] through archaeological digging or genealogical threads. I hope I am on the right track, pardon for intervention.

I see human history that's rife with contradictions on ethnicities and religion. We don't need to go back to genealogical and artifact history, because **** happened during our life time and not too long before that. Russia and China have killed millions of their own, and even America has killed tens of thousands of our own. The civil war had cost over 1 million casualties and 620,000 lives. The holocaust took the lives of over 4 million Jews.
Chinese civil war, 1917: 8 million
Russian civil war, 1917: 5 to 9 million
WWII casualties is estimated at 40 to 60 million.

How would you compare these two discussions with respect to value:
two friends using Myspace, talking about the weekend, and an economics professor discussing different theories to his students.

Statistical data is a part of our social sciences that could offer us the casualties or effects of war. but I presume a question, what causes war? Religion as I read it here, as we physically knows it. Is it because of our belief, and stands, because of its vigour. But what causes religion?
Yet human history might be scrutinise under the investigation of how religion [that cause war] begin. I agree that we cannot fly over the effects of what is happening today because of humanities standpoint of dreaming about emancipation or salvation. But then war itself creates a vast impact on religion generally. We are in this current of this circumlocution, a cycle, for what? There is no need of returning to our very nature where we do not know each other and being the happiest man in the world because of the discovery of fire from the piece of stone. Human History might be likened to return 'back to the things in themselves'. History would become a fragment because of these individuality and subjectivity. Can we explin history at large that way?

Capitalism perhaps, and value- theory of Marx. Economy brings power to our society and government and because of that power people create revolutionary movements for the reason that we care for our labour. Theories offers glimpses of possibilities. For a child, who cares? we are under the history of human consumption.

Is communication dependent on economy? If so how should people evaluate the value of discussions that are about ending capitalism?

Capitalism is another system of our economic structure. Yet, claiming communication being dependent on it, will grab all the discussions of communication itself. I am not really convinced that communication rests on economy, perhaps in technological means today yes. Communication lies within many strands of our society. " modernity" I guess talks about this one. It doesn't mean to end capitalism is to end economy in this point as i look at it. I suggest to read with regards "Postmodernism and modernism" by Fredric Jameson or political /social hermeneutics. I hope i am on your line of expectations.

Capitalism also means freedoms. Communication is important in capitalism. That's the reason why all capitalistic countries require the necessary infrastructure in transportation and communication for it to survive and grow.

Yes, I agree. Communication supports capitalistic countries to survive "today". Is there any form of communication aside from technological machinery/means? a Contract something like that? Capitalism is good as long as it supported the particular country/government and I hope those individuals in that place. I think I am misled by saying capitalism during the 17th-18th century in Europe [the three classes in society, the absolute monarchy,..etc.] . Industrial development I guess is embracing this kind of economy . I am still looking capitalism as a historical event, as a phenomenon that is effective during the time of Karl Marx and others.

I think, I am not able to bite an apple with "capitalism also means freedom" in this way.