Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The rewritting of American History

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The rewritting of American History
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:57 am Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

It wasn't an interview. At least not an unbiased interview. Both interviewer and interviewee have the same agenda. Sounds like an infomerical to me.

Fair enough, but it does happen with other people. Larry King has made a legacy through relationship building, right? Anyway, Sid's style is to investigate the supernatural from the position that it happens, his role is to discern the validity.

Quote:

I did watch the video, but when it become an obvious informercial, and 28 minutes at that, my concentration moved to other things. So I must have missed it, but what's the motive for "smearing his reputation"? Should we also deny that any FFs owned slaves to avoid casting aspersions on their character?

From http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html

The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson's first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for nearly two centuries.

That's some smear campaign. 200 years strong!

Controversy and duration doesn't denote truth. Look at the controversy surrounding the life of Christ. Many false gospels are reappearing to denounce the validity of his righteousness. Doesn't mean they are correct, but rather indicates the importance of who he was.

Similarily, if people can destroy the image of the founding Fathers then it is easier to change tradition. Like so many human secularists want to do.

Quote:

Where is this Human Secularism Church and when do they meet?

Bars and Pubs. Midnight mass is generally held over throughout the night. Very Happy

Quote:

As far as conspiracy theories go, there's not even a smoking gun. Do you really think the left is that organized? Look at all the various interest groups with conflicting agendas: animal rights, gay rights, environmentalism, anti-war, anti-consumerism. "Liberals" can't agree on anything and can't get any of their policies enacted. Proof enough that there is no "conspiracy".

True it isn't a conspiracy theory. There is a wide diversity within the group and there are a lot of varied interests. Much too complicated to discuss in this thread, but there is a lot of overlap in many of its leaders. I believe that it's going to reach a peak through people like Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates and other very influential leaders and organizations like the ACLU. Human secularism is evolving into a cosmic religion of sorts where truth is relative. Anything that opposes this ideology is removed or oppressed.

Quote:

Textbooks are changed to appease any number of lobbying organizations. Both conservative (Educational Research Analysts) and liberal (Norman Lear's People for the American Way). In both instances, it's a very small minority of people fighting for their agenda. Hardly a conspiracy by either side. More like proof of the theorem "The squeaky wheel gets the oil."

Read this commentary on textbook adoption and the role Texas (a conservative religious state) plays in it.

Sounds interesting. Hopefully, I will have some time to read through it.

Quote:

I call B***s***. Children are not going to be influenced by the religion of Thomas Jefferson. If Christianity needs the FFs to make their case, you might as well hang it up.

People are absolutely influenced by leaders. The FF are no different than other leaders within culture. I can't believe you don't see this?

Quote:

The Constitution was influenced a whole lot more by guys like Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau. Focusing on them seems a lot more historically relevant then focusing on the Bible, which was used to keep people in subjugation for 1500 years. To focus on the Bible's influence would be an focusing on the insignificant.

How do you know? Do you have a link that relates to this?

Quote:

As much as Christianity wants to keep its talons in all areas of academics (e.g. science, history, philosophy), it should stick the area it knows best. Religion. And keep it where it belongs. In the church. Their history of scientific freedom and tolerance is enough to warrant their exclusion from any self-respecting institution of learning. Wink

Boom, the hammer of arrogance falls. Mad

I hope you are joking. If not, you prove the point that human secularism is deeply entrenched in so many people's thinking. And it is a process of indoctrination.

Where would this world be without such great thinkers as

Isaac Newton,
Lincoln,
MLK,
Mandela,
Johannes Kepler,
Robert Boyle,
Carolus Linnaeus,
Louis Pasteur,

and others...
http://www.myfortress.org/greatchristianscientists.html

The knowledge of Christ transcends the boundaries of human institions. God is quite happy to be brought into all avenue of thought.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

then it is easier to change tradition. Like so many human secularists want to do.

For example?

Many traditions are abhorrent and need to be changed. Slavery is one glaring example.

endofthewor1d

Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Location: the end of the wor1d.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:04 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

i haven't read through this thread, but i read this little bit, and i'm curious as to how you determined which gospels are true and which gospels are false.

the tone of that might have sounded condescending, and if i had been in a condescending state of mind when i wrote it, it probably would have been worded exactly the same. however, i assure you that as i write this, i'm not talking down to you.

i'm curious to know which camp you are in. it seems to me there would be three camps... the bible as we now know it, jesus as the man he was, and a buffet of information that you can pick and choose from to suit whoever it is that you want jesus to be.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

Where would this world be without such great thinkers as

Isaac Newton,
Lincoln,
MLK,
Mandela,
Johannes Kepler,
Robert Boyle,
Carolus Linnaeus,
Louis Pasteur,

and others...
http://www.myfortress.org/greatchristianscientists.html

The knowledge of Christ transcends the boundaries of human institutions. God is quite happy to be brought into all avenue of thought.

Oddly many of those were actively opposed by the establish Christians at the time. How many good white christian folk preached from the pulpit men like Martin Luther King should just stay in his place and not stir up trouble?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

It wasn't an interview. At least not an unbiased interview. Both interviewer and interviewee have the same agenda. Sounds like an infomerical to me.

As soft and mushy as Larry King is, even he doesn�t have a web site esposing his interviewee�s beliefs. Sid makes Larry King look like Bob Woodward.

Quote:

The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson's first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for nearly two centuries.

I haven�t seen any proof that it�s not true. I believe the video mentioned that it was possibly Jefferson�s brother who fathered the children. But this is a recent theory. The �rumor� that Jefferson fathered Sally Heming�s children goes back over 200 years! A rumor that Jefferson himself never denied. So who is trying to write revisionist history here? This is what we call irony.

Quote:

Human secularism is evolving into a cosmic religion of sorts where truth is relative. Anything that opposes this ideology is removed or oppressed.

Oops, did you mean human secularism or the religious right? Last I looked it was the Bush admin who was changing science to meet their agenda and oppressing those who opposed. Just who exactly is getting removed or oppressed by human secularism?

Quote:

How do you know? Do you have a link that relates to this?

How do I know? I've read them. The Bible, Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau. How about you? Start with this one:

Quote:

Boom, the hammer of arrogance falls. Mad

Umm, these are people, not the church. I never claimed that belief in God or religion made a person incapable of reasonable thought. Nor am I claiming that Christians should stay away from academics. All I'm saying is that we should stay away from dogma based or controlled thought. If you want to be a scientist (or historian, or whatever) fine. But adhere to accepted methodologies of study and proof. Don't just dismiss theories or ideas because they don't agree with your religion. That is what gives religion a bad name.

Quote:

]MLK,

� Would have been a slave, based upon the FFs beliefs. Vilified by many in the church. Someone else who tried to change traditions. And yet, here you are using him as an example. Do you see the irony?

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:46 am Post subject:

endofthewor1d wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

I am sorry if you feel it is condenscending. I really don't mean to. I have actually tried to water down the context of the scripture I was thinking of when I wrote that piece,

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them�bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[.b] to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)� 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.[c] 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[d] and despise authority.

It seems pretty clear what is right in the eyes of God for what is the true gospel and what is false: Does the gospel lead them unto righteousness?

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:50 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The point remains though regardless of the evil or good, the history of what has should remain. Right?

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:30 am Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

As soft and mushy as Larry King is, even he doesn�t have a web site esposing his interviewee�s beliefs. Sid makes Larry King look like Bob Woodward.

ha...true. He's cheesy, but that's a part of why I like him. His intent is meant to be about encouragement rather than criticalness. Who do you like...Dan Rather? He was the epitome of success in the News World and now look at him. It's sad, but he brought it on himself. I think news casters have evolved into a role that they shouldn't have. It's one of the diseases of TV. All these opinions with great emptiness and lack of wisdom. Which really ties in the point of this thread, or so I believe. I think Dan really lost his moorings and set off without remembering his past. He got lost in the image that he created for himself rather than remembering his roots.

Quote:

I don't know if you are into the bible, but there is a scripture that says to not entertain false accusations. So it is quite possible that Jefferson was a man of God and followed the word of God. Many lies and rumors swirl around Bush and so they will until the next life. It's a part of the political process.

There will be two histories of Bush. There will be one side who will talk about his resolve and his commitment to victory in the face of a dark enemy and had to battle through great political turmoil to accomplish. Then there will be those who will try to castrate him at every step.

Quote:

MLK � Would have been a slave, based upon the FFs beliefs. Vilified by many in the church. Someone else who tried to change traditions. And yet, here you are using him as an example. Do you see the irony?

It's a great point and it's the reason that this is such a difficult subject, because the church has definitely screwed up big in the past. But, the pendulum swings the other way.

Would you credit a God fearing Lincoln as one of the main reasons for removing the bondages of slavery. When they don't, the don't paint the full picture of who the man was. Do history books talk about his reverance to God or that many left leaning newspapers and editorials poured scorn upon him and resisted his movement.

Or do you hear about the many liberals that resisted MLK's movement? Of course not. Usually, it's always the church that is blamed for the wrong.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

As soft and mushy as Larry King is, even he doesn�t have a web site esposing his interviewee�s beliefs. Sid makes Larry King look like Bob Woodward.

Honestly, I usually don't watch much news on tv. Too superficial. NPR was probably my top source of news back in the US. I agree that newscasters shouldn't be champions for a cause, but they shouldn't be just an echo board for the administration.

Quote:

I don't know if you are into the bible, but there is a scripture that says to not entertain false accusations. So it is quite possible that Jefferson was a man of God and followed the word of God.

I'm not sure how one followers the other. Sure, Jefferson may have been a man of God. But it's also possible that he had children by Sally Heming. Discussing and analyzing it is not an attempt to re-write history and discredit Jefferson, but rather an attempt to reveal the true history.

Quote:

Many lies and rumors swirl around Bush and so they will until the next life. It's a part of the political process.

ditto with Clinton, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. Like you say, it's part of the political process. Not a left-wing conspiracy to rewrite history.

Quote:

Or do you hear about the many liberals that resisted MLK's movement? Of course not. Usually, it's always the church that is blamed for the wrong.

I agree, but there are several reasons for this. One, it is the church which keeps bringing out the same arguments to deny progress. First for women, then blacks, and now gays. The church is also much more organized in opposition to these interest groups, and puts more of an effort into denying them their rights. Lastly, by now using a person like MLK as an example of Christianity and at the same time opposing something like gay rights, you rightfully open yourself to the charge of hypocrisy. All in all, that's the risk of standing up and taking a political stance. If the church doesn't want to be criticized for their stances, then don't take them. Like I said, religion and politics shouldn't mix. They make for very bad bedfellows.

freethought

Joined: 13 Mar 2005

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject:

this is an old, almost dead thread, but here's my two cents as someone with an MA and a BA in this stuff. The 're-writing' of history is part of history. Without the re-writes you'd have WW2 death tolls at 20 million people instead of the 50 million plus that they are currently believed to have been. The re-writing of history also includes things like the addition of rape, murder and plunder of Columbus rather than the whole 'discovered America' line. These are extremely important re-writes, and without them history is INACCURATE. As to the removal of religious references that some are upset about, most of those references were included by religious people. As we see today, religious people tend to overplay their view(as do most groups). That;s the reason it was included in the first place. not because it was necessarily accurate or legit, but because they wanted it included. If this is the kind of world/America you want to live in, without the 're-writing', then I suggest you keep looking for Saddam's WMDs and don't turn off fox news.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe