Recovering from Knowledge

Ms. Haiku

Knowledge is good, don't get me wrong. I remember the first time I realized that domestic violence was not caused by the length of the victim's skirt, or that she wasn't home when her husband said she had to be home, but rather by the perpetrator's choice to hurt another person. It was knowledge so sharp it was like a knife slice in skin. After hearing stories and stories like that during my work in the social services, there came a time when I had to recover from it. I had to remove myself from the jobs I did, and try to find semblance of happiness in a city in what for years had been pockets of violent secrets. Out of that recovery I didn't lose sight of the knowledge - that domestic violence, child abuse, and other family violences are choices, but I found the tools needed to ground my perspective if my faith in human nature fell sharply.

I'm reading a book, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress by Howard Zinn, and I'm starting to feel a cautious red flag. I feel an anger, and the people I want to argue with our my family. Why? They didn't force me to buy this book, they don't force me to spill my views. However, I know their views from bits and pieces, and I disagree with it. I disagreed with it before I read the book, I just have written word to back up my arguments.

I agree with Howard Zinn, and can understand why he is respected in his field, and I plan on reading more of his books. I haven't read, A People's History for the very reason I discribed above. I listened to a chapter on Vietnam and it ripped me to shreds. I was sobbing, and I had no one to talk to about it. Who really cared? They would care that I was unhappy, but not necessarily why. Maybe someone in my family did, and I just didn't know it, but there is a fine line I have to tread. I want the knowledge, and I believe Zinn's truth, and the truth of others like him. However, given who surrounds me, if I don't become the diplomatic person I respect in others they could lose respect for my opinions just based on my presentation.

I'm sure it goes both way no matter the political view/social standpoint etc. The time-centered process of integrating knowledge to the point that an opinion is relayed with strength, truth, empathy, and grace.

embrace

I often find when I read any political/social view (the middle mind by curtis white comes to mind) that I get very angry and dissillusioned- not only at my family but the way the things are run and main-stream schools are structured. I also feel that I have no one to have a conversation with as my thoughts are cast off to being "too deep" or the initial topic gets lost because it spawns a conversation on something else that is wrong- like creeks running to rivers to oceans. My reading/quest for knowledge continues because I have found something that it does to me -it makes me strangely elated despite the emotional upheaval at times (you mention crying and anger).

Juberoo

I believe knowledge is power. The more we know, the better prepared we are for life.

Your comments about anger and presentation are very sound. Often it is easy to let the passion about what we believe in pervade the message we are trying to send. Being a naturally emotional person, I am highly guilty of this.

Good discussion!

Bu2

And we have a family, right here.

Eliot Rosewater

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Knowledge is good, don't get me wrong. I remember the first time I realized that domestic violence was not caused by the length of the victim's skirt, or that she wasn't home when her husband said she had to be home, but rather by the perpetrator's choice to hurt another person. It was knowledge so sharp it was like a knife slice in skin. After hearing stories and stories like that during my work in the social services, there came a time when I had to recover from it. I had to remove myself from the jobs I did, and try to find semblance of happiness in a city in what for years had been pockets of violent secrets. Out of that recovery I didn't lose sight of the knowledge - that domestic violence, child abuse, and other family violences are choices, but I found the tools needed to ground my perspective if my faith in human nature fell sharply.

I'm reading a book, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress by Howard Zinn, and I'm starting to feel a cautious red flag. I feel an anger, and the people I want to argue with our my family. Why? They didn't force me to buy this book, they don't force me to spill my views. However, I know their views from bits and pieces, and I disagree with it. I disagreed with it before I read the book, I just have written word to back up my arguments.

I agree with Howard Zinn, and can understand why he is respected in his field, and I plan on reading more of his books. I haven't read, A People's History for the very reason I discribed above. I listened to a chapter on Vietnam and it ripped me to shreds. I was sobbing, and I had no one to talk to about it. Who really cared? They would care that I was unhappy, but not necessarily why. Maybe someone in my family did, and I just didn't know it, but there is a fine line I have to tread. I want the knowledge, and I believe Zinn's truth, and the truth of others like him. However, given who surrounds me, if I don't become the diplomatic person I respect in others they could lose respect for my opinions just based on my presentation.

I'm sure it goes both way no matter the political view/social standpoint etc. The time-centered process of integrating knowledge to the point that an opinion is relayed with strength, truth, empathy, and grace.

I think I know exactly how you feel. I struggle with this often. The truth is so depressing and often discouraging. And on top of that I've been reading Kurt Vonnegut for the past few months. What a brilliant man. And even though his words make me laugh often, the underlying truths in his novels are absolutely heartbreaking. Heartbreaking and mindboggling at the same time. I've loved just about everything I've read from Howard Zinn. A People's History should be required reading for all Americans. That's my immigration policy. Everyone read it or get out. I'm certain many won't want to be here anyway after reading it. I know I struggle with that from time to time.

catefrances

Juberoo wrote:

I believe knowledge is power.

it certainly is. and when we come to the realisation that we know nothing that's when we truly become wise.

Ms. Haiku

I read about this in the Zinn book. I hadn't known of it before. It was definitely in the right place in the book - turned over 200 pages of impossible into possible

http://www.camden28.org/

surferdude

don't gimme no wrote:

I've loved just about everything I've read from Howard Zinn. A People's History should be required reading for all Americans. That's my immigration policy. Everyone read it or get out.

Well, I've read it and think it's a piece of shit. Would I be allowed to stay?

Ms. Haiku

surferdude wrote:

Well, I've read it and think it's a piece of shit.

Well, why? For ease, could you focus on one chapter.

surferdude

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Well, why?

He indulges in revisionist history. He applies todays morals and standards to event happening sometimes centuries ago. He applies his theories in a vacuum that seem to ignore reality. He allots almost no responsibilities to Native Americans and idealizes their existance.

Every government has done things in the name of greed. That's the nature of government. Group thinking never has a positive outcome and this is backed by scientific testing. Government is the epitome of group think but Zinn expects a different behavior. Why???? Oh yeah, I forgot for moment that he works in a vacuum where reality does not come into play.

I'm at work so I can't go into the specifics of a chapter, and I wouldn't want to drag myself through hi sbook again in order to give specifics. I think it's great to try to get as many of the sides of the story as possible but Zinn outdoes Moore at times at idealizing situations that are from from ideal in reality.

Ms. Haiku

surferdude wrote:

He applies todays morals and standards to event happening sometimes centuries ago.

When I read the US History book he wrote I'll keep that in mind. I don't know when I'll read it, it may be years, but I'll post what I think with that in mind on here or somewhere. See if I agree or disagree with you.

surferdude

Ms. Haiku wrote:

When I read the US History book he wrote I'll keep that in mind. I don't know when I'll read it, it may be years, but I'll post what I think with that in mind on here or somewhere. See if I agree or disagree with you.

I truly tried to get with A People's History. But I couldn't. It just screamed bullshit to me.

Abookamongstthemany

Ms. Haiku wrote:

When I read the US History book he wrote I'll keep that in mind. I don't know when I'll read it, it may be years, but I'll post what I think with that in mind on here or somewhere. See if I agree or disagree with you.

I'm a really big Zinn Fan, too. But most of the conservatives here can't stand him.

I started this thread last week just in case you may have missed it...some pretty good clips of Zinn speaking against the concept of war.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=252028

Ms. Haiku

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm a really big Zinn Fan, too. But most of the conservatives here can't stand him.

I started this thread last week just in case you may have missed it...some pretty good clips of Zinn speaking against the concept of war.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=252028

Very cool! Thanks for notifying me of it. I just bought the US History Book by him.

spiral out

surferdude wrote:

Well, I've read it and think it's a piece of shit.

what exactly makes you think it's a piece of shit?

I'm always intrigued by people like you and how you can just sit and dismiss books and writers like that.

surferdude

spiral out wrote:

what exactly makes you think it's a piece of shit?

I'm always intrigued by people like you and how you can just sit and dismiss books and writers like that.

Post #10 outlines why I think it's a piece of shit.

People like me are just as justified to say sit and dismiss books and writers as people like you are to praise and laud them. It's just opinion.

Let's hope you've enjoyed every book, music, movie ever put out or you'd quickly become a person like me.

Ms. Haiku

Regarding books, especially on boards like this or any board, there must be implied ownership of the opinion of the book by the poster. If someone has an opinion how can we not assume that the process to obtain the opinion was completed? Questioning the origin of an opinion is rampant on this board.

For instance, I've seen a few threads in Porch where we as a fanbase are compared to sheep. That's ridiculous. If a fan happens to agree with a position the band holds, it is that fan's responsibility to have the knowledge to back that opinion. That fan also has the ownership of that opinion. It can not be attributed to the band, or society at large.

Can we suppose that when someone expresses an opinion he/she is doing it because he/she has completed the process in evaluating data, and coming to a conclusion? Would it be arrogant of us to suggest that someone did not complete the process to form an opinion when an opinion is written?

surferdude

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Regarding books, especially on boards like this or any board, there must be implied ownership of the opinion of the book by the poster. If someone has an opinion how can we not assume that the process to obtain the opinion was completed? Questioning the origin of an opinion is rampant on this board.

For instance, I've seen a few threads in Porch where we as a fanbase are compared to sheep. That's ridiculous. If a fan happens to agree with a position the band holds, it is that fan's responsibility to have the knowledge to back that opinion. That fan also has the ownership of that opinion. It can not be attributed to the band, or society at large.

Can we suppose that when someone expresses an opinion he/she is doing it because he/she has completed the process in evaluating data, and coming to a conclusion? Would it be arrogant of us to suggest that someone did not complete the process to form an opinion when an opinion is written?

I agree. I had absolutely no problem with you asking me why I didn't like Zinn. If I have an opinion I hope it's based on something. I have no problem if after you read A People's History you go "surferdude I don't agree with your assessment". Perfect, let's raise a glass to independant thinking even if we both think the other's wrong.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

He indulges in revisionist history. He applies todays morals and standards to event happening sometimes centuries ago.

"Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past. In its legitimate form ... it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate. -Wikipedia

surferdude

angelica wrote:

"Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past. In its legitimate form ... it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate. -Wikipedia

More power to people bringing other sides of the story to the table. Though I would debate the notion of "less biased". I didn't think bias came in degrees. I thought it was biased or unbiased. And pretty much every history book is biased one way or another.

Where Zinn and other like him loses me is when he brings today's morals to the table and uses them to pass judgement on yesterday's actions. That's unacceptable in my books.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

More power to people bringing other sides of the story to the table. Though I would debate the notion of "less biased". I didn't think bias came in degrees. I thought it was biased or unbiased. And pretty much every history book is biased one way or another.

What the wikipedia quote means is that revisionism is legitimate when it updates false or biased information, thusly increasing accuracy, which can most certainly happen in degrees as our awareness and understanding evolves. Yes, all history is somewhat biased, so it makes sense to update accuracy when new understanding and/or information comes to light. It would be irresponsible for a historian to do otherwise. I'm not directly referring to Zinn, since I've not read the book. I'm clarifying that the concept of revisionist history, despite the negative slant you used with it also has the flip-side of the coin of being accurate and legitimate when that is the case.

Where Zinn and other like him loses me is when he brings today's morals to the table and uses them to pass judgement on yesterday's actions. That's unacceptable in my books.

As our awareness expands and our current insights allows us to have a more comprehensive, accurate or more realistic understanding of past events, even if it means upsetting the applecart of "traditional knowledge" the only responsible and ethical thing to do is to update our understanding. History is considered to be factual, and yet the "facts" are tied together by "narrative", which is about the person constructing a perspective out of the facts. Time and distance can offer much perspective and objectivity, and when this is the case, great! History is not an objective absolute but is dependent on the teller's view. If "A People's History..." has only brought to the light this concept, shaking us out of the illusory concept of history-as-true, even if it's contributed nothing else, imo, it's brilliant.