Zinn can't get over the fact that a lot of what happened was morally acceptable then. Irreprehensible now but just fine and dandy then.
Maybe this is why Zinn is a world renowned expert and we are on a message board.
What happened was NOT morally acceptable then, in terms of universal law. Natural universal principles have not changed betweeen now and then. Only our human understanding and interpretation has changed. For example, for the psychological/sociological principle that if you oppress people in a certain way you will get a certain result--such variables and the inevitable consequences to actions are absolute laws. Whether we believe these principles or not, they exist, and they are the "reasons" for much of what happens around us that the average person doesn't understand. Whether we understand such UNIVERSAL, across the board, objective principles or not, whether we recognize them or not, whether we acknowledge them or not, they still exist, independent of our opinions of them. And in terms of history, psychology and sociology are new sciences, only having been developed in the past 100 years or so. As mainstream knowledge catches up to what is known in these avenues for example, we will have to change the way we look at many things.
Just because we hadn't conceived of or invented airplanes in the year 202 BC was independent of the fact that the reality system of that time fully supported the possible advent of airplanes. Such principles existed objectively all around everyone and every place even then. Such are Universal laws.
Usually understanding us such Universal laws is reserved for those who delve into deep study and therefore achieve intense understanding of a subject, and it takes a long while for such knowledge to filter down to the rest of us.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Please answer these questions without contextualizing, just like Zinn does. So a straight yes no answer will suffice.
Is it socially acceptable to shit yourself?
Is killing someone okay?
No matter what your answers are I can spin it afterwards to make you look bad. This is what Zinn does. You approve this as a method of writing "historical" books, I don't.
there's no yes or no answer if all you're willing to look at are yes or no answers. so yes i will but them into context (just like Zinn DOES)
yes, it's acceptable for a baby or toddler. no, it's not for an older child or an adult. you're certainly obsessed with shitting
killing someone is only okay in the case of self-defense. it's not okay otherwise...i don't give a rat's ass how far you've bought into the whole 'pre-emptive strike' bullshit
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.
You're fucking with us, right? When has it ever been okay to steal, rape, murder? Jesus, you've lost your mind.
Comments
Maybe this is why Zinn is a world renowned expert and we are on a message board.
What happened was NOT morally acceptable then, in terms of universal law. Natural universal principles have not changed betweeen now and then. Only our human understanding and interpretation has changed. For example, for the psychological/sociological principle that if you oppress people in a certain way you will get a certain result--such variables and the inevitable consequences to actions are absolute laws. Whether we believe these principles or not, they exist, and they are the "reasons" for much of what happens around us that the average person doesn't understand. Whether we understand such UNIVERSAL, across the board, objective principles or not, whether we recognize them or not, whether we acknowledge them or not, they still exist, independent of our opinions of them. And in terms of history, psychology and sociology are new sciences, only having been developed in the past 100 years or so. As mainstream knowledge catches up to what is known in these avenues for example, we will have to change the way we look at many things.
Just because we hadn't conceived of or invented airplanes in the year 202 BC was independent of the fact that the reality system of that time fully supported the possible advent of airplanes. Such principles existed objectively all around everyone and every place even then. Such are Universal laws.
Usually understanding us such Universal laws is reserved for those who delve into deep study and therefore achieve intense understanding of a subject, and it takes a long while for such knowledge to filter down to the rest of us.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
there's no yes or no answer if all you're willing to look at are yes or no answers. so yes i will but them into context (just like Zinn DOES)
yes, it's acceptable for a baby or toddler. no, it's not for an older child or an adult. you're certainly obsessed with shitting
killing someone is only okay in the case of self-defense. it's not okay otherwise...i don't give a rat's ass how far you've bought into the whole 'pre-emptive strike' bullshit
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~