|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| The point to all this speculation on the smallness or the "punyness" being...Columbus's accomplishment: no biggie? Any monkey on a raft could have done it? I feel like Diamond wants to say that, at least...kind of like the Conquest, which comes down to, among other things, unconscious disease... |
Interesting that we read the same words and have such different reactions to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| What most of us ask for is that journalists and historians have some self-knowledge and to be up front about the biases/assumptions they hold. What's sneaky is when somebody (like the NYT) claims to be unbiased and abuses their readers' trust. |
Isn't it interesting that you would choose the NYT as being indicative of this kind of behaviour- Wouldn't something like "fair & balanced" have a much larger bullseye painted on it? |
I've still never seen Fox News b/c I gave up TV five years ago, but I don't think there's a person alive who doesn't realize Fox News is intended to present a conservative viewpoint. I mean I've never even seen it and I've heard it a thousand times. The New York Times and CBS News are two examples of news organizations that exploit their historical reputations of objectivity to distort the news to a liberal viewpoint. That's much more insidious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
please provide an example of the NY Times distorting the news for a liberal viewpoint; op-eds don't count of course. 
And honestly, the NY Times has a reputation that is as well-known as Fox's anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| In any case, I don't know if people are understanding my point here, and it's a little frustrating. I am not attacking Liberalism in the name of Convservatism. I am a Liberal heterodox and I point out that Liberals are dangerously biased in their analyses, and pushing political agendas more than investigating issues dispassionately, perhaps as professional scholars should strive to do... |
How would one know when one is being dispassionate? And how would one measure it?
It's interesting, looking at wikipedia's attempts to keep to a neutral point of view. Clearly there are real issues - and, though I've not tried it, I wonder whether the NPOV on the English (or French) wikipedia would match closely the NPOV on the Arabic or Hebrew ones. But that is for some PhD student somewhere to study.
Do you think, then, that intelligent conservatives are less likely to show bias than intelligent liberals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hypnotist wrote: |
| How would one know when one is being dispassionate? And how would one measure it? |
For one thing, we should ruthlessly edit our texts to eliminate -- to use the example that has been cited a million times -- "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" and replace these words with less emotionally-invested words like "guerrilla forces" or "irregular forces." One man's villain is another man's hero, and, if we're writing history, we should strive not to take sides.
We should also never use words like "puny" when we have drier words like "small" or "smaller" available. Indeed, adjectives can be quite problematic. Consider: "Hitler's overwhelming forces overran a defenseless Poland in a matter of weeks" vs. "Hitler's superior Army defeated Poland's puny resistance in less than a month" vs. "The great Nazi Army destroyed Poland's inferior forces, more or less in a month." (Which one seems more dispassionate to you?)
We should strive for a dry presentation of facts as much as possible, without admiring or villainizing, even though even this isn't usually objective, at least it will be more dispassionate...
| hypnotist wrote: |
| Do you think, then, that intelligent conservatives are less likely to show bias than intelligent liberals? |
Good question, and I really don't know. I would imagine that, once we get to this level of comparison, it will come down to individual personalities and their relationship with the specific issue we are talking about. Read Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards" for a blatant example of a rightist flying her biases without apology...she is one of the most intelligent ones, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Interesting that we read the same words and have such different reactions to them. |
Interesting but not surprising. There are a number of cases of people with the same education, training, and expertise, evaluating the exact same data under the same conditions, and reaching conclusions at variance with each other.
Look at any legal case in the U.S. where each side employs expert witnesses -- fire cause and origin experts, DNA experts... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| hypnotist wrote: |
| How would one know when one is being dispassionate? And how would one measure it? |
For one thing, we should ruthlessly edit our texts to eliminate -- to use the example that has been cited a million times -- "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" and replace these words with less emotionally-invested words like "guerrilla forces" or "irregular forces." One man's villain is another man's hero, and, if we're writing history, we should strive not to take sides.
We should also never use words like "puny" when we have drier words like "small" or "smaller" available. Indeed, adjectives can be quite problematic. Consider: "Hitler's overwhelming forces overran a defenseless Poland in a matter of weeks" vs. "Hitler's superior Army defeated Poland's puny resistance in less than a month" vs. "The great Nazi Army destroyed Poland's inferior forces, more or less in a month." (Which one seems more dispassionate to you?)
We should strive for a dry presentation of facts as much as possible, without admiring or villainizing, even though even this isn't usually objective, at least it will be more dispassionate...
|
What, again, is your idea of the purpose of history? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
(a) Some believe that history serves to instruct on nationalism, patriotism, morality, etc. This is a Conservative view.
(b) Others believe that history serves as a judge, to right wrongs, ensuring that they are not repeated in future generations. This is a Liberal view |
I'm going to object to that. On this forum we haven't even got consensus on definitions of "liberal" or "conservative". What does option B have to do with liberty? Certainly people of vastly different political views could share similar beliefs about the purpose of history, or vice versa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
(a) Some believe that history serves to instruct on nationalism, patriotism, morality, etc. This is a Conservative view.
(b) Others believe that history serves as a judge, to right wrongs, ensuring that they are not repeated in future generations. This is a Liberal view |
I'm going to object to that. On this forum we haven't even got consensus on definitions of "liberal" or "conservative". What does option B have to do with liberty? Certainly people of vastly different political views could share similar beliefs about the purpose of history, or vice versa. |
...that's fine.
"tends to be a Liberal view," then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:51 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Surely I can offer my own opinions in my history. |
Yes you can, but be careful your history doesn't become a diatribe or, in Diamond's case, meant to further a political agenda.
Scholarly inquiry differs from political agendas, no matter how well intentioned they are. |
I agree with you that G, G, and N is biased in muted fashion in some parts, those you mentioned for example. However, have you (or any of the other participants of this thread) ever read any book of any genre that has not been biased in some way? If a human is the author (and there's no book for which a human is not), then bias is sure to creep in. I think this especially true in history books.
Peace,
Daniel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| "tends to be a Liberal view," then. |
By liberal you mean "left-wing"? Er, wouldn't you say jingoistic nationalism (option A) is a far-left view? I'd say your option B belongs to "do-gooders" or big-government types, which in the US could mean Lefties or Righties (religious type), and option C belongs to the "let me make up my own mind" group, which is more libertarian (classical definition of "liberal") but is also found in both US parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Surely I can offer my own opinions in my history. |
Yes you can, but be careful your history doesn't become a diatribe or, in Diamond's case, meant to further a political agenda.
Scholarly inquiry differs from political agendas, no matter how well intentioned they are. |
I agree with you that G, G, and N is biased in muted fashion in some parts, those you mentioned for example. However, have you (or any of the other participants of this thread) ever read any book of any genre that has not been biased in some way? If a human is the author (and there's no book for which a human is not), then bias is sure to creep in. I think this especially true in history books.
Peace,
Daniel |
OK, compare Diamond with Hawking's Black Holes and Baby Universes, where he studiously refuses to answer whether he believes in God as not relevant to the discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Others believe that history serves as a judge, to right wrongs, ensuring that they are not repeated in future generations. This is a Liberal view, and I think it is going in the wrong direction, even though it has honorable motives. Some of the worst things in the world have been done for "the best of intentions." |
I'd agree on that score. Columbus tends to be the favorite whipping boy of people who use history to judge good and evil. Columbus, for all his moral failings (and they were huge moral failings) was fairly representative of any other military man (or hell, civilians even) of his time. I think it's kind of unfair to castigate a historical figure for actions that were completely in line with the mentality of the times.
That was a brutal period of history. Whether you were white, black, Indian, whatever, your life was likely to be short, nasty, and ugly. Judging past actions through the lens of modern values is fairly short sighted, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
