Recovering from Knowledge

surferdude

angelica wrote:

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.

I'd have no problem if Zinn were to call his book or pass it off as A Contemporary Review of Historical Events. But Zinn isn't truthful enough to do this.

If Zinn did a biography of your life he might possibly sum it up as "angelica would just shit herself and then cry until someone changed her". That may be one way to look at your life and focusing on your first year of life. But to pass judgement on you based on this behavior without contextualizing it by saying this is normal for the everyone's first year of life is to not only do a dis-service to you but to every reader. It's a very intential form of dishonesty on his part.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

I'd have no problem if Zinn were to call his book or pass it off as A Contemporary Review of Historical Events. But Zinn isn't truthful enough to do this.

I support Zinn writing his book for his own purposes, based on his own expertise as an American historian. Your opinion of his intentions is independent of his intentions, themselves.

If Zinn did a biography of your life he might possibly sum it up as "angelica would just shit herself and then cry until someone changed her". That may be one way to look at your life and focusing on your first year of life. But to pass judgement on you based on this behavior without contextualizing it by saying this is normal for the everyone's first year of life is to not only do a dis-service to you but to every reader. It's a very intential form of dishonesty on his part.

I will gladly address what Zinn actually does and is therefore accountable for, and at the same time I have no interest in discussing an imaginary "staw-man-Zinn".

surferdude wrote:

If I have an opinion I hope it's based on something.

It looks like your Zinn straw-man (complete with imagined dishonest intent) is creating your opinion. I'm not seeing where it's based on anything. Which is not to say it is not...however, there is no point in debating opinion and perception. That point carries over to Zinn as well--he's as entitled to weave together a view as any historian.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

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.

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.

Awesome post!

prism

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.

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.

how dare Zinn think that in the past history of the US that things such as genocide, oppression and slavery were anything other than reprehensible? not that he comes right out and say that they were; he doesn't have to by telling a side of the story that is never found in tradional US history books. it's disturbing that you find that those things were somehow at any point in time morally acceptable.

Abookamongstthemany

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.

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 absolutely have to judge past events with todays morals, that's how we learn from experience...especially when past events are constantly being brought up in an attempt to justify the actions of today.

Abookamongstthemany

prism wrote:

how dare Zinn think that in the past history of the US that things such as genocide, oppression and slavery were anything other than reprehensible? not that he comes right out and say that they were; he doesn't have to by telling a side of the story that is never found in tradional US history books. it's disturbing that you find that those things were somehow at any point in time morally acceptable.

Exactly! They were always wrong and it's time we stopped glorifying them and admit our mistakes in our history books.

chadwick

catefrances wrote:

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

well said cate-ster.
we can learn many things on this earth/in this life.
we know zero/squat compared to all eternity/infinity in all universes.
is this true or just something silly i just made up?

surferdude

prism wrote:

how dare Zinn think that in the past history of the US that things such as genocide, oppression and slavery were anything other than reprehensible? not that he comes right out and say that they were; he doesn't have to by telling a side of the story that is never found in tradional US history books. it's disturbing that you find that those things were somehow at any point in time morally acceptable.

Yes, those actions were wrong by today's standards. Just like shitting in your diaper would be wrong by your standards for yourself today. But it would be wrong of me to jump all over you for shitting in your diaper when you were six months old.

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. The moral of the day was Indians were noble savages. That's right, savages. The noble part is just a big a myth as the savage part. Those were the morals of the day. Zinn just excludes facts that he does not like. He has an agenda and he's not about to let the truth get in the way.

He's much better when he's commenting on current events. At least then the morals he's using as a reference point actually exist while the events are taking place.

He gives a contemporary take on history while telling you it's just history. You can accept that behavior as above board, I don't. My opinion on that behavior is every bit as valid as yours.

surferdude

prism wrote:

it's disturbing that you find that those things were somehow at any point in time morally acceptable.

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.

prism

surferdude wrote:

Yes, those actions were wrong by today's standards. Just like shitting in your diaper would be wrong by your standards for yourself today. But it would be wrong of me to jump all over you for shitting in your diaper when you were six months old.

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. The moral of the day was Indians were noble savages. That's right, savages. The noble part is just a big a myth as the savage part. Those were the morals of the day. Zinn just excludes facts that he does not like. He has an agenda and he's not about to let the truth get in the way.

He's much better when he's commenting on current events. At least then the morals he's using as a reference point actually exist while the events are taking place.

He gives a contemporary take on history while telling you it's just history. You can accept that behavior as above board, I don't. My opinion on that behavior is every bit as valid as yours.

the moral of the day that Indians were savages according to who? the wealthy land-owners? the US government and military acting under government orders? that would do anything including genocide and forcing them onto reservations in order to seize their land? one has to wonder if if the average citizen of the US thought that these actions were morally acceptable?

you've been watching a few too many John Wayne westerns if you think that the answer is yes...afterall those westerns are telling the story of the cowboys that were being paid by whom? that's right, it was the wealthy land-owning ranchers.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

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.

prism

surferdude wrote:

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

Eliot Rosewater

surferdude wrote:

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

Morals are not new, surferdude. Remember that guy Jesus? He taught to live a moral life centuries ago.

Eliot Rosewater

surferdude wrote:

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.