|
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 |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
bacasper wrote:
| Quote: |
| Labels add little understanding unless well-defined |
That's correct but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue, namely, that responsible historians do not seek to make events conform to their agenda. Zinn is agenda-driven, as are all radicals on both the Left and the Right. He's not interested in dispassionate inquiry. Got it now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bangbayed wrote: |
| I'm not sure how you can read about anti-Americanism without reading about the causes of the phenomenon. |
That is because you lack the intelligence and the imagination to rise above the script you were programmed to always return to when in doubt. It simply does not and can never occur to you that antiAmericanism serves this and that agenda here and there, and that sometimes, perhaps more than merely "sometimes," this has little to do with your alleged "causes."
Anything worth researching and explaining is likely not monocausal but rather complex. But I just do not see antiAmerican simpletons grasping that in this particular case. OP's question just paralyzes you, does it not?
Just kidding. Relax, Bangbayed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
bacasper wrote:
| Quote: |
| Labels add little understanding unless well-defined |
That's correct but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue, namely, that responsible historians do not seek to make events conform to their agenda. Zinn is agenda-driven, as are all radicals on both the Left and the Right. He's not interested in dispassionate inquiry. Got it now? |
And "radicals' are...
Since you are having trouble articulating without resorting to labels, I'll get very concrete for you.
Give an example of Zinn being allegation- or agenda-driven, or dogmatic, and we'll go from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Give an example of Zinn being allegation- or agenda-driven, or dogmatic, and we'll go from there. |
Translation:
"Reveal something about your interpretation of H. Zinn so that I can ridicule you for it because you do not interpret him in ways that I approve -- that is, uncritically."
Sometimes this messageboard gets a little boring in its predictability... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher:
Your translation is dead on the mark.
bacasper:
Don't tiptoe through the tulips around the issue. Do you agree that historians who are agenda-driven are far more likely to skew historical events than those who are not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bacasper: H. Zinn has explained that he does not believe objectivity exists. Therefore, he embraces leftist ethics and moralizing -- and especially its preachy self-righteousness -- as his compass when writing history. And without hesitation or reservation. The Greater Good, at least as he sees it, justifies his including this and suppressing that, when selecting evidence and telling us American history. He makes no apologies about this. And we may take it or leave it. But please stop calling it "the truth" or implying it lacks conscious and deliberate propagandistic purpose...
| H. Zinn wrote: |
| If we start from the ethical assumption that it is fundamentally wrong to hold in bondage...another human being, and that the freeing of such persons requires penetrating the moral sensibilities of a nation, then it is justifiable to focus on those aspects of the complexity which support this goal...You are not telling the whole truth...but you are emphasizing that portion of the truth which supports a morally desirable action. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guess I was right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Give an example of Zinn being allegation- or agenda-driven, or dogmatic, and we'll go from there. |
Translation:
"Reveal something about your interpretation of H. Zinn so that I can ridicule you for it because you do not interpret him in ways that I approve -- that is, uncritically." |
That is not fair. I don't ridicule those who disagree with me. (OK, Joo may be an exception.) I am just trying to figure out what we are talking about here, which I can't from undefined labels and generalizations. I need something to get a handle on.
| Maninthemiddle wrote: |
| Do you agree that historians who are agenda-driven are far more likely to skew historical events than those who are not? |
Yes, but no particular ideology has a monopoly on this.
| Gopher wrote: |
| H. Zinn has explained that he does not believe objectivity exists. Therefore, he embraces leftist ethics and moralizing -- and especially its preachy self-righteousness -- as his compass when writing history. And without hesitation or reservation. The Greater Good, at least as he sees it, justifies his including this and suppressing that, when selecting evidence and telling us American history. He makes no apologies about this. And we may take it or leave it. But please stop calling it "the truth" or implying it lacks conscious and deliberate propagandistic purpose... |
So leftist = lack of objectivity? I give you credit for at least defining it this time, but that definition is not in any dictionary I have come across.
I am not going to repeat what I said about "the truth." You can go back and re-read it if you are so inclined. You can also re-read my post where I brought up Zinn, merely citing it as a source of reasons for anti-Americanism, not "the truth," whatever that may be. It certainly does not mean it is a pack of lies, either.
How far would a book extolling all the wonderful virtues, accomplishments, and good deeds America has done go in enlightening one about anti-Americanism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper replied:
| Quote: |
Maninthemiddle wrote:
Do you agree that historians who are agenda-driven are far more likely to skew historical events than those who are not?
Yes, but no particular ideology has a monopoly on this. |
Well, then, there you have it. Zinn should be held up to scrutiny for he's quite susceptible to the very tendency you admit is not in keeping with sound historical scholarship. Checkmate.
Researchers of integrity let their research lead them--not the other way around. It's one of the first things doctoral programs teach.
Gopher noted:
H
| Quote: |
| . Zinn has explained that he does not believe objectivity exists. |
Yes, and he was a postmodernist before po-mo was fully articulated. Historians who adhere to this scholarly fad are automatically suspect in my book as they divorce their analysis from social context when it is convenient to the course of their arguments.
But you already knew that, didn't you bacasper and company?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I need to modify that: N. Chomsky, H. Zinn, and co. tend to fault others for bias. They, on the other hand... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
My copy of Peoples History didn't have a single citation or footnote. I treated it with the seriousness that such a lazy style of writing deserves. Shit, even i provide citations on ol' daves eslcafe. Even Chomsky gets around to citing himself (or people who cite him).
Anyways, we all know the story. Whites colonized the The Americas. I eagerly await for a Peoples History of Argentina to make the rounds at a college bookstore near you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have to read everthing from the sceptics view point in order truly understand it.
I chewed on Marx, I chewed on Rand, I chewed on Smith have yet to swallow any ideology whole.
Pay me at the end of the week is all I ask. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SOOHWA101
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Location: Makin moves...trying to find 24pyung
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation
Michael Medved
In The 10 Big Lies about America, acclaimed author and talk-radio host Michael Medved zeroes in on ten of the biggest fallacies that millions of Americans believe about our country � in spite of incontrovertible facts to the contrary. He pinpoints the most pernicious pieces of America-bashing disinformation that pollute current debates about the economy, race, religion in politics, the Iraq war, and other contentious issues.
Each of the ten lies � widely believed among elites and taught as truth in universities and public schools � is a propagandistic distortion of the historical record, argues Medved. For everyone who is tired of hearing America denigrated by people who don�t know what they�re talking about, The 10 Big Lies about America supplies the answers necessary to address these baseless beliefs. Medved�s witty, well-documented rebuttal is a refreshing reminder that as Americans we should feel blessed, not burdened, by our heritage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maninthemiddle wrote: |
| Quote: |
bacasper replied:
| Quote: |
Maninthemiddle wrote:
Do you agree that historians who are agenda-driven are far more likely to skew historical events than those who are not? |
Yes, but no particular ideology has a monopoly on this. |
Well, then, there you have it. Zinn should be held up to scrutiny for he's quite susceptible to the very tendency you admit is not in keeping with sound historical scholarship. Checkmate. |
And who said he should not be held up to scrutiny? But all "your" authors are totally objective, right?
Translate this. Zugzwang. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
My copy of Peoples History didn't have a single citation or footnote. I treated it with the seriousness that such a lazy style of writing deserves. Shit, even i provide citations on ol' daves eslcafe. Even Chomsky gets around to citing himself (or people who cite him).
|
There is an extensive bibliography grouped by chapters.
Here's what Zinn has to say about citations:
| Quote: |
To indicate every source of information in the text would have meant a book impossibly cluttered with footnotes, and yet I know the curiosity of the reader about where a startling fact or pungent quote comes from. Therefore, as often as I can, I mention in the text authors and titles of books for which the full information is in this bibliography. Where you cannot tell the source of a quotation right from the text, you can probably figure it out by looking at the asterisked books for that chapter. The asterisked books are those I found especially useful and often indispensable.
I have gone through the following standard scholarly periodicals:
American Historical Review,
Mississippi Valley Historical Review,
Journal of American History,
Journal of Southern History,
Journal of Negro History,
Labor History,
William and Mary Quarterly,
Phylon,
The Crisis,
American Political Science Review,
Journal of Social History.
Also, some less orthodox but important periodicals for a work like this:
Monthly Review,
Science and Society,
Radical America,
Akwesasne Notes,
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
The Black Scholar,
Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars,
The Review of Radical Political Economics,
Socialist Revolution,
Radical History Review. |
Then when you consider the wealth of primary sources he uses in the text, it is hardly a shabbily written text. |
|
| 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
