Diversity at the expense of .....
georgann
"""In 1994, the prestigious Journal of American
History surveyed its members about the state of
the profession.
Those who responded -- mostly academic
historians -- agreed that the greatest
improvement in the field was the inclusion of
"more diverse people from the past." Yet when
asked to list the greatest weaknesses, the
respondents placed "narrowness," "political
correctness" and "divorce from the public" at
the top of the list. """
....................................
whole article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/082600history.html
Humpty Dumpty of Scholarship: History Has
Broken Into Pieces
By DAVID OSHINSKY
The writing of American history underwent a
significant change in the 1960's and 70's, one
that remains in place today. Not only did the
Vietnam War trigger a backlash against national
institutions, especially the state, but the
growth of "liberation" movements also led many
women, blacks, gays and other groups to demand
their own distinctive, "usable past."
Increasingly, younger historians shifted their
emphasis from the public life of the nation to
the private lives of its citizens.
By the 1980's an explosion of historical
categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
sexuality -- had supplanted the more
traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
intellectual history. Those formerly on the
margins of American society now got the lion's
share of attention.
But critics of the new history have worried
about the fragmentation of the past, with each
group telling its own story, on its own terms,
in its own "authentic" voice. And even
advocates wondered at times about the place of
these categories in the larger scheme of
things.
How do they fit together? What does the
research tell us about the overall culture or
the exercise of power in public life? Where is
the framework that connects the parts to the
whole?
In 1994, the prestigious Journal of American
History surveyed its members about the state of
the profession.
Those who responded -- mostly academic
historians -- agreed that the greatest
improvement in the field was the inclusion of
"more diverse people from the past." Yet when
asked to list the greatest weaknesses, the
respondents placed "narrowness," "political
correctness" and "divorce from the public" at
the top of the list.
Diversity, it appears, does not come cheaply.
In a biting critique, the journal's respected
editor, David Thelen, portrayed the new
scholarship as "too obscure to appreciate and
too remote from everyday life." The profession
had reached a point, he warned, "where dazzling
people with the unfamiliar and erudite was more
highly prized than telling a good story or
distilling wisdom."
Six years have passed, but the issues linger.
Interviewed recently at Indiana University in
Bloomington, where he teaches American history,
Mr. Thelen still frets about his profession's
divorce from the larger world.
Yet he also claims to have widened his own
focus in teaching and scholarship in terms that
reflect the new social history. "It's difficult
to view the nation-state as an agent of
progressive change anymore," he says. "I'm
trying to stress the more human elements of
history. The ways that individuals experience
events, interpret them and then remember them
are essential to understanding our national
culture and beliefs."
Some historians see a clearer pattern of
progress in recent years. "Specialization is
essential," says Linda Kerber, a history
professor at the University of Iowa.
"The grand old theories we inherited were
fragile and poorly researched.
They didn't match up to our present standards
of evidence, and we needed to be specific in
order to puncture their claims.
Microstudies are really the building blocks of
change."Ó
And change, Ms. Kerber believes, means a more
honest, complex and inclusive vision of the
past.
With a solid foundation now in place, she says,
historians are beginning to ask the large
questions that make good synthesis inevitable.
"We're on the cusp of something extraordinary,"
she says, "an explosion of knowledge that is
revolutionizing the profession."
Other historians, including Eric Foner of
Columbia and David Levering Lewis of Rutgers,
are less confident. Mr. Foner, whose books on
race, slavery and freedom reach audiences well
beyond the academic walls, is concerned by what
he sees as the continued reluctance of
historians to impart broad meaning in their
written work.
In the classroom, he notes, it's just the
opposite: "We all do synthesis there.
Events don't simply happen. We provide an
interpretive framework that ties the new social
history to larger themes of ideology and power.
We give students a clear but contested
narrative that makes sense of the major
features of American history while highlighting
the diversity of our experience."
Above all, Mr. Foner adds, "we stake out
positions on the big issues and we defend them.
When a student asks, 'Why did Andrew Jackson
veto the bank bill?,' we don't stumble around
and give 15 different scenarios.
It seems so natural in the classroom, yet so
very hard to do in print."
The failure to write boldly and clearly may
help explain why commercial publishers -- not
to mention the reading public -- are deserting
academic history. Indeed, professional
historians find themselves in an odd position
today.
Their subject is growing in popularity, yet
their once considerable influence is on the
wane.
Fewer people are seeking their wisdom about the
past.
With some exceptions, the most widely read
narratives in American history are no longer
written by academic historians; and even the
freshest theories connecting America's past and
present are appearing in the books of
"outsiders," like the journalist Michael Lind's
"New American Nation," published in 1995, and
the economist Robert Fogel's "Fourth Great
Awakening," released a few months ago.
This wasn't always the case.
Grand narratives and big theories once
dominated the writing of American history.
From George Bancroft and Frederick Jackson
Turner in the 19th century through Charles and
Mary Beard, Richard Hofstadter and Arthur
Schlesinger Jr. in later years, the great
historians combined elegant prose and sweeping
synthesis in ways that are rarely seen today.
Turner wove the tale of an exceptional nation
removed from the corrupting influences of
Europe, a country where the frontier produced
the perfect mix of abundance, individualism and
equality. The Beards viewed American history in
equally heroic terms, with "the people"
battling the "special interests" for economic
and political control.
In the 1950's, an influential school of
"consensus" history emerged. Postwar historians
were haunted by memories of Nazi genocide, the
threat of Soviet expansion and the spread of
McCarthyism.
Wary of mass movements on the left or right,
they stressed the beliefs and values
that united Americans rather than the crises
and upheavals that divided them.
Led by Hofstadter and his enormously popular
books "The American Political Tradition" (1948)
and "The Age of Reform"(1955), the more
creative consensus historians worked the
neighboring fields of sociology and political
science. New theories of human behavior emerged
linking McCarthyism to past extremist movements
and charting the assimilation of immigrant
groups into the mainstream culture.
There were dissenters, too.
William Appleman Williams turned American
exceptionalism upside down by portraying the
nation as a greedy colossus searching endlessly
for raw materials and foreign markets. Although
some historians condemned him as a dangerous
radical, there was, in fact, a large common
ground. What united scholars like Turner and
the Beards, Hofstadter and Williams, was their
preoccupation with national history, their
interest in how the United States was created,
how it developed and, ultimately, how it should
be judged.
By focusing on large themes, they became valued
participants in the public life and
civic culture of their time.
Of course, the field of American history up
into the 1960's was a simpler, more restrictive
place resembling an old boys' club, with
leading scholars training their successors in
elite departments reserved mostly for
Protestant white men.
The writing naturally reflected this
insulation.
There was no violence on Turner's frontier, no
slaves or Indians to muddle the story.
Women rarely entered these historical
narratives. Racial and ethnic tensions were
often minimized or ignored. The new history of
recent decades exploded this complacency.
So is there a way to combine the diversity and
specialization of today's history with the
grand narratives of the past? Can professional
historians win back a broad audience?
It won't be easy.
Mr. Lewis, the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for
his 1993 biography of W. E. B. Du Bois,
observes that mastery of the synthetic
narrative is far more difficult than it
appears.
At its best, he says, "the well-told story
about the national past should always be an
argument, a thesis, an analysis disguised in
the action and drama of its narrative." This is
not, he declares, "a formula to be commended to
all professional historians."
Yet it seems a formula worth trying.
This past year Scott Sandage, an assistant
professor at Carnegie Mellon, taught a graduate
seminar in American history. From the outset he
stressed the importance of good writing, a
clear thesis, solid organization, the telling
of anecdotes and a smooth narrative flow.
His message apparently got through.
The final papers were quite readable, Mr.
Sandage says. And he got an extra bonus as
well.
When the course ended, one of his students
presented him with a plaque containing four
well-chosen words: "It's the story, stupid."
DrDecaf
<39A7AA96...@mindspring.com>:
********posting on top*************
why did you post this?
what's your point?
--dr d
snipped.
georgann
> why did you post this?
> what's your point?
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
inclusion. It missing the mark.
What's the answer to that?
....................
"Time for them to go".
G.W.Bush 8/3/00
new guard or old
which is it?
....................
Bushman
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39A7FFC2...@mindspring.com...
> DrDecaf wrote:
> > why did you post this?
> > what's your point?
> > --dr d
>
> georgann wrote:
> Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
> What's the answer to that?
There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new honesty
causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling back
diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular subject
is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's story.
Bushman
georgann
> > DrDecaf wrote:
> > > why did you post this?
> > > what's your point?
> > > --dr d
> > georgann wrote:
> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
> > What's the answer to that?
Bushman wrote:
> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
> comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new honesty
> causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling back
> diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular subject
> is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's story.
> Bushman
georgann wrote:
No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
"compatibility" into this picture?
< can we move to issue two yet? >
Randomity
>> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
>> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
>> > What's the answer to that?
>
>
>Bushman wrote:
>> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
>> comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new honesty
>> causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling
>back
>> diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular subject
>> is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's story.
>> Bushman
>
>georgann wrote:
>No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
>suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
>Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
>"compatibility" into this picture?
My guess is we introduce compatibility by mainstreaming the information
formerly taught in, say, a black studies course into the standard history
courses. It is a progressive, step by step evolution. We had to start somewhere
because even you must admit the history taught 30 years ago was pretty
one-sided.
BTW, what "program" do you want us to get on? Maybe you should try
deprogramming. That would go a long way to promoting compatibility.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
Eve DuJardin
>From: rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity)
>Date: 8/26/00 3:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Eve wrote:
I don't understand any "discussion" about diversity. We have it, like it or
not. In my state, the white population will be a minority along with black,
oriental, and Pacific Rim nationalities. The Hispanic population should become
the majority in California by 2020, at least. TheGOP, in their breakneck race
to be known as the Party of Inclusion, had best get at least some minority
delegates by the next (2004) election.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
georgann
> >> > georgann wrote:
> >> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> >> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> >> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
> >> > What's the answer to that?
> >Bushman wrote:
> >> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
> >> comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new honesty
> >> causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling back
> >> diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular subject
> >> is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's story.
> >> Bushman
> >georgann wrote:
> >No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
> >suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
> >Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
> >"compatibility" into this picture?
Randomity wrote:
> My guess is we introduce compatibility by mainstreaming the information
> formerly taught in, say, a black studies course into the standard history
> courses. It is a progressive, step by step evolution. We had to start somewhere
> because even you must admit the history taught 30 years ago was pretty
> one-sided.
> BTW, what "program" do you want us to get on? Maybe you should try
> deprogramming. That would go a long way to promoting compatibility.
> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> Randomity
georgann wrote:
Starting with such additions to basic history sounds like a
good idea. Do you think that will be accomplished without
shrillness -- i.e. with balance? Cause if it is overdone
then its just as incompatible as the original.
What would you suggest for "deprogramming", Random? Mind
altering "substances" are generally illegal. And willingness
might be in order. Not force. Got any ideas?
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> Starting with such additions to basic history sounds like a
> good idea.
Yeah, we just don't see enough of Charles Beard's ideas in our
textbooks.
--
"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I
understand the emotionality of death penalty cases."--G W Bush in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000
Bushman
>
> > > DrDecaf wrote:
> > > > why did you post this?
> > > > what's your point?
> > > > --dr d
>
> > > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> > > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> > > inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
> > > What's the answer to that?
>
>
> Bushman wrote:
> > There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
> > comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new
honesty
> > causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling
back
> > diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular
subject
> > is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's
story.
> > Bushman
>
> georgann wrote:
> No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
> suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
> Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
> "compatibility" into this picture?
>
>
Why didn't you just say so? I didn't expect you to approve of diversity to
begin with and thought we had to hash that out.
Issue two: get conservatives to stop bitching about it. Now it's
compatible.
Bushman
georgann
> > > > DrDecaf wrote:
> > > > > why did you post this?
> > > > > what's your point?
> > > > > --dr d
> > > > georgann wrote:
> > > > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> > > > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> > > > inclusion. It missing the mark.
> > > > What's the answer to that?
> > Bushman wrote:
> > > There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
> > > comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new honesty
> > > causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling back
> > > diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular subject
> > > is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's story.
> > > Bushman
> > georgann wrote:
> > No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
> > suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
> > Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
> > "compatibility" into this picture?
> > < can we move to issue two yet? >
Bushman wrote:
> Why didn't you just say so? I didn't expect you to approve of diversity to
> begin with and thought we had to hash that out.
> Issue two: get conservatives to stop bitching about it. Now it's
> compatible.
> Bushman
georgann wrote:
You have just explained in a nutshell, why there is LITTLE
compatibility Bushman. Cooperation takes two. Not one.
Randomity
>> >> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>> >> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
>> >> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
>> >> > What's the answer to that?
>
>
>> >Bushman wrote:
>> >> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid and
>> >> comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new
>honesty
>> >> causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not rolling
>back
>> >> diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a popular
>subject
>> >> is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell everyone's
>story.
>> >> Bushman
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
>> >suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
>> >Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
>> >"compatibility" into this picture?
>
>
>> My guess is we introduce compatibility by mainstreaming the information
>> formerly taught in, say, a black studies course into the standard history
>> courses. It is a progressive, step by step evolution. We had to start
>somewhere
>> because even you must admit the history taught 30 years ago was pretty
>> one-sided.
>> BTW, what "program" do you want us to get on? Maybe you should try
>> deprogramming. That would go a long way to promoting compatibility.
>
>> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
>> Randomity
>
>
>Starting with such additions to basic history sounds like a
>shrillness -- i.e. with balance? Cause if it is overdone
>then its just as incompatible as the original.
attention. And besides look at how the whites are complaining about "reverse
discrimination". One can only imagine how much shriller they would be after 400
years of it.
>
>What would you suggest for "deprogramming", Random? Mind
>altering "substances" are generally illegal. And willingness
>might be in order. Not force. Got any ideas?
Mind altering substances are not only legal but part and parcel of life. You
are probably sipping on one right now. What is illegal are the drugs that make
you feel peaceful and happy. Mustn't have that. I would suggest you go to
Amsterdam where pot is legal and cop yourself one hell of a buzz. Then you will
be able to separate your thinking from your daddy's. So often you turn out to
be cooler than even you think you are. I bet, deep down, you are a fun loving,
openhearted person. Somehow you have been programmed into thinking that the
fundamentalists believe as you do. They hide their hatred and insanity with
platitudes we can all agree with (responsibility, family, care of children,
honesty). My guess is that when you inhale your first puff, the herb will flow
over your fevered mind like a cool, clear mountain stream. You will look around
yourself and see people of different colors and hairstyles and habits and you
will see that in your heart you have no prejudice and you will feel some of the
same mischeivous, harmless joy they are feeling. Then you will remember the
thinly veiled buzzwords of hatred spewed by the think tanks and the bible
thumpers that have programmed you. You will realize what an utter fool they
have made of you and how they have sent you into a battle of wits of woefully
underarmed. You will realize that they have done you no favors. As you exhale,
a sigh will work its way upward from the depths of your soul and you will
realize that, for the first time, you are surrounded by friends.
georgann
> >What would you suggest for "deprogramming", Random? Mind
> >altering "substances" are generally illegal. And willingness
> >might be in order. Not force. Got any ideas?
Randomity wrote:
> Mind altering substances are not only legal but part and parcel of life. You
> are probably sipping on one right now. What is illegal are the drugs that make
> you feel peaceful and happy. Mustn't have that. I would suggest you go to
> Amsterdam where pot is legal and cop yourself one hell of a buzz. Then you will
> be able to separate your thinking from your daddy's. So often you turn out to
> be cooler than even you think you are. I bet, deep down, you are a fun loving,
> openhearted person. Somehow you have been programmed into thinking that the
> fundamentalists believe as you do. They hide their hatred and insanity with
> platitudes we can all agree with (responsibility, family, care of children,
> honesty). My guess is that when you inhale your first puff, the herb will flow
> over your fevered mind like a cool, clear mountain stream. You will look around
> yourself and see people of different colors and hairstyles and habits and you
> will see that in your heart you have no prejudice and you will feel some of the
> same mischeivous, harmless joy they are feeling. Then you will remember the
> thinly veiled buzzwords of hatred spewed by the think tanks and the bible
> thumpers that have programmed you. You will realize what an utter fool they
> have made of you and how they have sent you into a battle of wits of woefully
> underarmed. You will realize that they have done you no favors. As you exhale,
> a sigh will work its way upward from the depths of your soul and you will
> realize that, for the first time, you are surrounded by friends.
> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> Randomity
georgann wrote:
Oh spare me the old man lectures Random. I did marijuana but
literally hated it cause I'm jazzy not cool on it. Did coke
during my wilder days and loved it. But knew it was a very
very stupid thing to do after discovering how very very nice
it was. And for your information I is not see my way clear
to "my daddy's" way of thinking till somewhat late in life.
After I crashed and burned enough times to really look at
myself in the mirror. Sans mind altering.
What you fail to realize is I was on one side then the other
then another altogether. I've been where you're prescribing
I go already. Regardless. Your vitriol against conservatives
[above] demonstrates a form of paranoia that has probably
given mind altering drugs those black eyes and fowl
reputations. The popular loathing of conservatism is just
silly.
DrDecaf
<39A8242D...@mindspring.com>:
>
>> > DrDecaf wrote:
>> > > why did you post this?
>> > > what's your point?
>> > > --dr d
>
>> > georgann wrote:
>> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
>> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
>> > What's the answer to that?
>
>
>Bushman wrote:
>> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid
>> and comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new
>> honesty causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer,
>> not rolling back diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't
>> been a popular subject is exactly because it was exclusive and it did
>> not tell everyone's story.
>> Bushman
>
>georgann wrote:
>No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
>suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
>Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
>"compatibility" into this picture?
"compatibility"?
what does that mean in a discussion of diversity in american history?
--dr d
DrDecaf
<39A7FFC2...@mindspring.com>:
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> why did you post this?
>> what's your point?
>> --dr d
>
>georgann wrote:
>Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
>inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
>What's the answer to that?
so this isn't about the article, then.
--dr d
georgann
> >> > > why did you post this?
> >> > > what's your point?
> >> > > --dr d
> >
> >> > georgann wrote:
> >> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> >> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> >> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
> >
> >> > What's the answer to that?
> >
> >
> >> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid
> >> and comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new
> >> honesty causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer,
> >> not rolling back diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't
> >> been a popular subject is exactly because it was exclusive and it did
> >> not tell everyone's story.
> >> Bushman
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
> >suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
> >Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
> >"compatibility" into this picture?
>
> "compatibility"?
>
> what does that mean in a discussion of diversity in american history?
>
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
It means some attempt at peaceful resolutions rather than
backbiting and constant carping. The history article only
got this started. It veered.
georgann
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> why did you post this?
> >> what's your point?
> >> --dr d
> >georgann wrote:
> >Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> >contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> >inclusion. It missing the mark.
> >What's the answer to that?
DrDecaf wrote:
> so this isn't about the article, then.
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
Sure it is. The article underscores additional problems.
"Narrowness," "political correctness" and "divorce from the
public" sound distinctly like a new set of problems to me.
And I'm not very sure the old ones are resolved. Are you?
DrDecaf
<39A99DB9...@mindspring.com>:
>DrDecaf wrote:
>>
>> chen...@mindspring.com (georgann) wrote in
>> <39A8242D...@mindspring.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >> > DrDecaf wrote:
>> >> > > why did you post this?
>> >> > > what's your point?
>> >> > > --dr d
>> >
>> >> > georgann wrote:
>> >> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>> >> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
>> >> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
>> >
>> >> > What's the answer to that?
>> >
>> >
>> >Bushman wrote:
>> >> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid
>> >> and comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new
>> >> honesty causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer,
>> >> not rolling back diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't
>> >> been a popular subject is exactly because it was exclusive and it did
>> >> not tell everyone's story.
>> >> Bushman
>> >
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
>> >suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
>> >Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
>> >"compatibility" into this picture?
>>
>> "compatibility"?
>>
>> what does that mean in a discussion of diversity in american history?
>>
>> --dr d
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>It means some attempt at peaceful resolutions rather than
>backbiting and constant carping. The history article only
>got this started. It veered.
what's your evidence for "backbiting and constant carping"?
if you want to discuss this subject, you need to bring some information to
the table -- i'm not up to whacking my head repeatedly against unsupported
assertions.
--dr d
DrDecaf
<39A99E9C...@mindspring.com>:
>
>> >DrDecaf wrote:
>> >> why did you post this?
>> >> what's your point?
>> >> --dr d
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>> >contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
>> >inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
>> >What's the answer to that?
>
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> so this isn't about the article, then.
>> --dr d
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Sure it is. The article underscores additional problems.
>"Narrowness," "political correctness" and "divorce from the
>public" sound distinctly like a new set of problems to me.
>And I'm not very sure the old ones are resolved. Are you?
you pulled a couple of sentences out of context. it's a larger issue than
that, according to the article.
the discussions going on now in history have always been going on -- the
particulars may have changed, but the arguments are the same. there's
always dissension before a new consensus is reached.
history isn't simply a collection of facts, it's a method of inquiry.
--dr d
georgann
> >> >> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to give aid
> >> >> and comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the new
> >> >> honesty causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer,
> >> >> not rolling back diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't
> >> >> been a popular subject is exactly because it was exclusive and it did
> >> >> not tell everyone's story.
> >> >> Bushman
> >> >georgann wrote:
> >> >No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
> >> >suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
> >> >Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
> >> >"compatibility" into this picture?
> >> "compatibility"?
> >> what does that mean in a discussion of diversity in american history?
> >> --dr d
> >georgann wrote:
> >It means some attempt at peaceful resolutions rather than
> >backbiting and constant carping. The history article only
> >got this started. It veered.
DrDecaf wrote:
> what's your evidence for "backbiting and constant carping"?
> if you want to discuss this subject, you need to bring some information to
> the table -- i'm not up to whacking my head repeatedly against unsupported
> assertions.
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
Tell you what Dr. D....... lets save ourselves a lot of
aggravation and just start off with YOU telling ME what
evidence there is of peaceful coexistence. History or no.
Would you say there is peace between the various factions in
our society?
georgann
> >Oh spare me the old man lectures Random. I did marijuana but
> >literally hated it cause I'm jazzy not cool on it. Did coke
> >during my wilder days and loved it. But knew it was a very
> >very stupid thing to do after discovering how very very nice
> >it was. And for your information I is not see my way clear
> >to "my daddy's" way of thinking till somewhat late in life.
> >After I crashed and burned enough times to really look at
> >myself in the mirror. Sans mind altering.
> >
> >What you fail to realize is I was on one side then the other
> >then another altogether. I've been where you're prescribing
> >I go already. Regardless. Your vitriol against conservatives
> >[above] demonstrates a form of paranoia that has probably
> >given mind altering drugs those black eyes and fowl
> >reputations. The popular loathing of conservatism is just
> >silly.
Randomity wrote:
> Religion and conservatism are for weak minds that can't handle drugs.
> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> Randomity
georgann wrote:
I used to believe that was true. But no longer. And you
should take a look at some of the ones who have cracked up
or croaked from playing with that stuff too long. The list
is vast.
DrDecaf
<39A9A545...@mindspring.com>:
once you explain what this has to do with the article or with american
history.
i'm not getting drawn into tangents and shifting definitions again.
--dr d
Eve DuJardin
>Date: 8/27/00 12:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
>> Randomity
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Oh spare me the old man lectures Random. I did marijuana but
>literally hated it cause I'm jazzy not cool on it. Did coke
>during my wilder days and loved it. But knew it was a very
>very stupid thing to do after discovering how very very nice
>it was.
Eve wrote:
I know what you mean, Georgann. Pot only made me sleepy, but Coke....now there
was a truly dangerous drug. Waay too dangerous for me with my semi-adictive
personality.
And for your information I is not see my way clear
>to "my daddy's" way of thinking till somewhat late in life.
>After I crashed and burned enough times to really look at
>myself in the mirror. Sans mind altering.
>
>What you fail to realize is I was on one side then the other
>then another altogether. I've been where you're prescribing
>I go already. Regardless. Your vitriol against conservatives
>[above] demonstrates a form of paranoia that has probably
>given mind altering drugs those black eyes and fowl
>reputations. The popular loathing of conservatism is just
>silly.
As silly as the demonization of liberalism?
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Randomity
>to "my daddy's" way of thinking till somewhat late in life.
>After I crashed and burned enough times to really look at
>myself in the mirror. Sans mind altering.
>
>What you fail to realize is I was on one side then the other
>then another altogether. I've been where you're prescribing
>I go already. Regardless. Your vitriol against conservatives
>[above] demonstrates a form of paranoia that has probably
>given mind altering drugs those black eyes and fowl
>reputations. The popular loathing of conservatism is just
>silly.
Religion and conservatism are for weak minds that can't handle drugs.
Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
Randomity
Martha Hughes
> > >georgann wrote:
> > >Oh spare me the old man lectures Random. I did marijuana but
> > >literally hated it cause I'm jazzy not cool on it. Did coke
> > >during my wilder days and loved it. But knew it was a very
> > >very stupid thing to do after discovering how very very nice
> > >it was. And for your information I is not see my way clear
> > >to "my daddy's" way of thinking till somewhat late in life.
> > >After I crashed and burned enough times to really look at
> > >myself in the mirror. Sans mind altering.
> > >
> > >What you fail to realize is I was on one side then the other
> > >then another altogether. I've been where you're prescribing
> > >I go already. Regardless. Your vitriol against conservatives
> > >[above] demonstrates a form of paranoia that has probably
> > >given mind altering drugs those black eyes and fowl
> > >reputations. The popular loathing of conservatism is just
> > >silly.
>
>
> > Religion and conservatism are for weak minds that can't handle drugs.
>
> > Taking the time to explain the obvious since early 1998.
> > Randomity
>
>
> I used to believe that was true. But no longer. And you
> should take a look at some of the ones who have cracked up
> or croaked from playing with that stuff too long. The list
> is vast.
What? From religion? Oh yeah, that list is quite long.
Hawkster
rand...@aol.comdropdead (Randomity) wrote:
> >> >> > georgann wrote:
> >> >> > Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
> >> >> > contemporary setting, results in greater division. Not
> >> >> > inclusion. It missing the mark.
> >
> >> >> > What's the answer to that?
> >
> >
> >> >> There IS diversity. It used to be ignored, sometimes not to
give aid and
> >> >> comfort to those who were not mainstream (propaganda). If the
new
> >honesty
> >> >> causes problems then addressing the problems is the answer, not
rolling
> >back
> >> >> diversity. I think one of the reasons history hasn't been a
popular
> >subject
> >> >> is exactly because it was exclusive and it did not tell
everyone's
> >story.
> >> >> Bushman
> >
> >
> >> >georgann wrote:
> >> >No one is suggesting there is not diversity. Nor are they
> >> >suggesting "rolling back diversity". Get with the program
> >> >Bushman. The question IS how do we incorporate
> >> >"compatibility" into this picture?
> >
> >
> >> My guess is we introduce compatibility by mainstreaming the
information
> >> formerly taught in, say, a black studies course into the standard
history
> >> courses. It is a progressive, step by step evolution. We had to
start
> >somewhere
> >> because even you must admit the history taught 30 years ago was
pretty
> >> one-sided.
> >> BTW, what "program" do you want us to get on? Maybe you should
try
> >> deprogramming. That would go a long way to promoting compatibility.
> >
> >> Randomity
> >
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >good idea. Do you think that will be accomplished without
> >shrillness -- i.e. with balance? Cause if it is overdone
> >then its just as incompatible as the original.
>
> No shrillness is necessary. Maybe at first it was because no one was
paying
> attention. And besides look at how the whites are complaining
about "reverse
> discrimination". One can only imagine how much shriller they would be
after 400
> years of it.
>
> >
> >altering "substances" are generally illegal. And willingness
> >might be in order. Not force. Got any ideas?
>
> Randomity
>
--
Hawkster
Yes, we have no bananas
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> why did you post this?
>> what's your point?
>> --dr d
>
>Pretty obviously diversity, the way it is approached in the
>contemporary setting, results in greater division.
No, it doesn't. It simply means that additional information is likely to
be regarded as part of the academic mainstream.
> Not
>inclusion. It missing the mark.
>
>What's the answer to that?
Whining about "political correctness" doesn't require much of an answer.
--
ShrubJoke Of The Week: "Do you realize that if, God forbid, anything
should happen to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush would be President?" --
Mark Russell.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Starting with such additions to basic history sounds like a
>good idea. Do you think that will be accomplished without
>shrillness -- i.e. with balance?
For the first (X * 100) years of the history profession, there WAS no
balance. Additions to the curricula that provide a wider and more
accurate picture of the events of the past are a benefit, regardless of
the progression towards balance.
BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is it a goal worthy to be
pursued?
georgann
>>Starting with such additions to basic history
>>sounds like a good idea. Do you think that
>>will be accomplished without shrillness --
>>i.e. with balance?
Eric da Red wrote:
>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
>the curricula that provide a wider and more
>accurate picture of the events of the past are
>a benefit, regardless of the progression
>towards balance.
>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
georgann wrote:
Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
done to history in the name of restitution or
some sort of fairness. Ref...
""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
sexuality -- had supplanted the more
traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
intellectual history. Those formerly on the
margins of American society now got the lion's
share of attention.""
Additions to curricula are appropriate.
Trashing historical figures in order to have a
hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
DrDecaf
<39AAD861...@mindspring.com>:
what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
--dr d
started the semester today
Eric da Red
Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know what you
mean by "balance."
>Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this a
problem?
georgann
> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
DrDecaf wrote:
> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
> --dr d
> started the semester today
georgann wrote:
The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
or so years. Junk history. Or I should say non-history.
Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
was necessary? do you call that balance?
< it shows >
georgann
> >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
> >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
> >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
> >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
> >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
> >>towards balance.
> >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
> >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
> >georgann wrote:
> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> >done to history in the name of restitution or
> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
> >margins of American society now got the lion's
> >share of attention.""
Eric da Red wrote:
> Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know what you
> mean by "balance."
> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
Eric da Red wrote:
> Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this a
> problem?
georgann wrote:
Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
build up someone else?
georgann
>
> >
> >> >>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >>>Starting with such additions to basic history
> >> >>>sounds like a good idea. Do you think that
> >> >>>will be accomplished without shrillness --
> >> >>>i.e. with balance?
> >
> >> >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
> >> >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
> >> >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
> >> >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
> >> >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
> >> >>towards balance.
> >
> >> >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
> >> >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
> >
> >> >georgann wrote:
> >> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> >> >done to history in the name of restitution or
> >> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
> >
> >> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
> >> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
> >> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
> >> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
> >> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
> >> >margins of American society now got the lion's
> >> >share of attention.""
> >
> >> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> >> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
> >
> >
> >> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
> >> --dr d
> >> started the semester today
> >
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> >or so years. Junk history. Or I should say non-history.
> >Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
> >was necessary? do you call that balance?
> >
> >< it shows >
> >
>
> history?
>
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
Is it exam time ALREADY?
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
>> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
> georgann wrote:
> The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> or so years. Junk history.
Which ones, specifically?
--
"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I
understand the emotionality of death penalty cases."--G W Bush in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
> build up someone else?
Ironic. G's attempt to discredit the study of history is in fact a
description of it's strongest feature. Historians form a thesis based
on the interpretation of the data they collect. Other historians glean
other data and an antithesis is formed. Eventually, someone takes the
best of both and synthesizes it into a new thesis. One could say that
they tear down history and take the best pieces to build a new history.
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> done to history in the name of restitution or
> some sort of fairness. Ref...
Yeah, you'd think these people had never heard of Hegel and his ideas
about balance.
But then there's always Cooke's Theorem:
Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be
Don't know much geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for
But I know that one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful this would be
I don't claim to be an "A" student
But I'm trying to be
Maybe my being an "A" student baby
I can win your love for me
Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be
But I know that one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful this would be
Eve DuJardin
>> >>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>>Starting with such additions to basic history
>> >>>sounds like a good idea. Do you think that
>> >>>will be accomplished without shrillness --
>> >>>i.e. with balance?
>
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
>> >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
>> >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
>> >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
>> >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
>> >>towards balance.
>
>> >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
>> >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
>> >done to history in the name of restitution or
>> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
>> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >share of attention.""
>
>> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
>> --dr d
>> started the semester today
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>or so years. Junk history. Or I should say non-history.
>Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
>was necessary? do you call that balance?
>
>< it shows >
Eve wrote:
Which ones, was "The Patriot" one of them?
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
DrDecaf
<39AB1D25...@mindspring.com>:
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
>> >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
>> >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
>> >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
>> >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
>> >>towards balance.
>
>> >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
>> >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
>> >done to history in the name of restitution or
>> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
>> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >share of attention.""
>
>
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know what
>> you mean by "balance."
>
>> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this a
>> problem?
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
>build up someone else?
who has been "torn down"?
--dr d
DrDecaf
>
>> >>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>>Starting with such additions to basic history
>> >>>sounds like a good idea. Do you think that
>> >>>will be accomplished without shrillness --
>> >>>i.e. with balance?
>
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
>> >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
>> >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
>> >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
>> >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
>> >>towards balance.
>
>> >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
>> >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
>> >done to history in the name of restitution or
>> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
>> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >share of attention.""
>
>> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
>> --dr d
>> started the semester today
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>or so years. Junk history. Or I should say non-history.
>Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
>was necessary? do you call that balance?
>
>< it shows >
>
what does that have to do with the article, or with the study of american
history?
--dr d
DrDecaf
<39AB256B...@mindspring.com>:
>georgann wrote:
>Is it exam time ALREADY?
i'm just trying to figure out what your point is.
you post an article about the current state of the study of american
history.
then you talk about "balance," but don't really define it.
then you mention how historical figures are being trashed, and point to
movies as an example.
what exactly is your point here?
was this thread started to discuss the article?
american history?
popular culture?
--dr d
Eve DuJardin
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
>> >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
>> >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
>> >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
>> >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
>> >>towards balance.
>
>> >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
>> >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
>> >done to history in the name of restitution or
>> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
>> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >share of attention.""
>
>
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know what you
>> mean by "balance."
>
>> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this a
>> problem?
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
>build up someone else?
Eve wrote:
The name of that game is "Politics".
Brien Sullivan
>> georgann wrote:
>> Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
>> build up someone else?
>Ironic. G's attempt to discredit the study of history is in fact a
>description of it's strongest feature. Historians form a thesis based
>on the interpretation of the data they collect. Other historians glean
>other data and an antithesis is formed. Eventually, someone takes the
>best of both and synthesizes it into a new thesis. One could say that
>they tear down history and take the best pieces to build a new history.
Hey! Cut that out! We don't tolerate that stealth Hegel stuff
in here.
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
georgann
> >> >> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> >> >> >done to history in the name of restitution or
> >> >> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
> >> >> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
> >> >> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
> >> >> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
> >> >> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
> >> >> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
> >> >> >margins of American society now got the lion's
> >> >> >share of attention.""
> >> >> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
> >> >> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> >> >> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
> >> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> >> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
> >> >> --dr d
> >> >> started the semester today
> >> >georgann wrote:
> >> >The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> >> >or so years. Junk history. Or I should say non-history.
> >> >Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
> >> >was necessary? do you call that balance?
> >> what does that have to do with the article, or with the study of
> >> american history?
> >> --dr d
> >georgann wrote:
> >Is it exam time ALREADY?
DrDecaf wrote:
> i'm just trying to figure out what your point is.
> you post an article about the current state of the study of american
> history.
> then you talk about "balance," but don't really define it.
> then you mention how historical figures are being trashed, and point to
> movies as an example.
> what exactly is your point here?
> was this thread started to discuss the article?
> american history?
> popular culture?
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
I wasn't being specific in WHERE I INTENDED The discussion
to go dr d. It isn't an assignment with a "requisite view"
for a passing grade on any of it.
I am interested in people's opinions ... 1. on the article
itself 2. if others feel there IS (or not) an imbalance in
perspectives of the contemporary rewrites of history as the
article implies and 3. whether or not others in the NG are
happy with the aparent alteration of the coloring of history
and its figures.
georgann
> >> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> >> >done to history in the name of restitution or
> >> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
> >> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
> >> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
> >> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
> >> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
> >> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
> >> >margins of American society now got the lion's
> >> >share of attention.""
> >Eric da Red wrote:
> >> Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know what you
> >> mean by "balance."
> >> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
> >> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> >> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
> >Eric da Red wrote:
> >> Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this a
> >> problem?
> >georgann wrote:
> >Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
> >build up someone else?
Eve DuJardin wrote:
> The name of that game is "Politics".
georgann wrote:
Eve, you wouldn't be suggesting that the movements to
rewrite history are politically motivated are you? < coph
coph > We're supposed to go along with the idea that its
being done in the name of fairness, balance, restitution.
Which is it?
georgann
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
> > georgann wrote:
> > The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> > or so years. Junk history.
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
> Which ones, specifically?
georgann wrote:
The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately. Do I need
to actually "work up" a list? I thought it was pretty obvious.
Martha Hughes
>
> > >>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >>>Starting with such additions to basic history
> > >>>sounds like a good idea. Do you think that
> > >>>will be accomplished without shrillness --
> > >>>i.e. with balance?
>
> > >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
> > >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
> > >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
> > >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
> > >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
> > >>towards balance.
>
> > >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
> > >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
>
> > >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> > >done to history in the name of restitution or
> > >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
> > >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
> > >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
> > >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
> > >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
> > >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
> > >margins of American society now got the lion's
> > >share of attention.""
>
> > >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> > >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
> > what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
> > started the semester today
>
>
> The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
> was necessary? do you call that balance?
>
the film industry is FICTIONAL and has no reason to be historically correct.
Next example.
> < it shows >
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
>
>> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >share of attention.""
>
>> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
>> --dr d
>> started the semester today
>georgann wrote:
>The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>or so years. Junk history.
You mean, laughably inaccurate movies like "The Patriot".
> Or I should say non-history.
Do you have some specific movies in mind, or are they listed on the back
of the piece of paper that contains the names of businesses that hate
Christians?
>Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
>was necessary? do you call that balance?
I thought we were talking about history in academia, not Hollywood.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
>> > georgann wrote:
>> > The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>> > or so years. Junk history.
>
>"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
>> Which ones, specifically?
>
>georgann wrote:
>The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately.
Which movie about Jefferson?
> Do I need
>to actually "work up" a list?
That would be nice. Otherwise, we might think you are just venting
misdirected feelings of persecution.
>I thought it was pretty obvious.
If I grasp your opinion correctly, it is inobvious to the point of
invisibility.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
>> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >share of attention.""
>
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know what you
>> mean by "balance."
>
>> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this a
>> problem?
>georgann wrote:
>Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
>build up someone else?
Huh?
You are literally making no sense whatsoever.
If you can tie your obviously heated emotions on this matter to some
concrete examples, we might be able to have a discussion.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>>> > The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>>> > or so years. Junk history.
>>"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
>>> Which ones, specifically?
>>georgann wrote:
>>The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately.
Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> Which movie about Jefferson?
She's probably speaking about "Jefferson in Paris" which alleged there
was an affair between TJ and his slave (and wife's half-sister) Sally
Hemming. Keep in mind that through DNA, they've proved pretty
conclusively that at least one of Sally Heming's children were fathered
by TJ.
>> Do I need
>>to actually "work up" a list?
I'd like to see it. I've got a book (grumble-misplaced) about historical
films (films about historical characters or events, not just old movies)
that points out inaccuracies and political bias in just about EVERY
historical film.
For example, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood had some stupid PC attitudes (such
as the Moorish Merry Man) but that doesn't mean that earlier film
adaptations were any more accurate. Errol Flynn's "Adventures of Robin
Hood" may be more fun, but it's just as bad (if not worse) in its
portrayal of that time period.
Modifying the portrayal of history to match cultural biases is nothing new.
It's as old as film ("Birth of a Nation" anyone?) and it's terribly
disingenuous to pretend that this is something new.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
mrpotter
"Martha Hughes" <bast...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:39AB1A11...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > > >>georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >>>Starting with such additions to basic history
> > > >>>sounds like a good idea. Do you think that
> > > >>>will be accomplished without shrillness --
> > > >>>i.e. with balance?
> >
> > > >Eric da Red wrote:
> > > >>For the first (X * 100) years of the history
> > > >>profession, there WAS no balance. Additions to
> > > >>the curricula that provide a wider and more
> > > >>accurate picture of the events of the past are
> > > >>a benefit, regardless of the progression
> > > >>towards balance.
> >
> > > >>BTW, what do you mean by "balance," and why is
> > > >>it a goal worthy to be pursued?
> >
> > > >georgann wrote:
> > > >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
> > > >done to history in the name of restitution or
> > > >some sort of fairness. Ref...
> >
> > > >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
> > > >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
> > > >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
> > > >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
> > > >margins of American society now got the lion's
> > > >share of attention.""
> >
> > > >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
> > > >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
> >
> >
> > > what's your evidence that historical figures are being
> "trashed"?
> > > --dr d
> > > started the semester today
> >
> >
> > The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> > Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
> > was necessary? do you call that balance?
> >
> would say
> the film industry is FICTIONAL and has no reason to be
> historically correct.
> Next example.
IN OLD CHICAGO
PLYMOUTH ADVENTURE
MY SON JOHN
THE ALAMO
I WAS A COMMUNIST FOR THE FBI
Best
Greg LOL!
* Sent from Novell Discussion Forums http://novell.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
mrpotter
<l...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> > georgann wrote:
> >>> > The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
> >>> > or so years. Junk history.
> >>> Which ones, specifically?
> >>georgann wrote:
> >>The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately.
> Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> > Which movie about Jefferson?
> She's probably speaking about "Jefferson in Paris" which alleged
> there
> was an affair between TJ and his slave (and wife's half-sister)
> Sally
> Hemming. Keep in mind that through DNA, they've proved pretty
> conclusively that at least one of Sally Heming's children were
> fathered
> by TJ.
This has been pretty well - proven. Several years ago, there was a big
reunion between the descendants of SH and TJ; they are all *really*
intermixed racially. There were some very poignant stories written
about these cousins, etc. many times removed, meeting and discovering
they had more in common than they could have ever dreamed....
If anything, JEFFERSON IN PARIS shows TJ in a more sympathetic and
human light. I don't know why one would find this objectionable.
Best
Greg
Brien Sullivan
>Eve, you wouldn't be suggesting that the movements to
>rewrite history are politically motivated are you? (coph
>coph) We're supposed to go along with the idea that its
>being done in the name of fairness, balance, restitution.
>Which is it?
OK, Georgann, how about this? During the early part of this
century (the twentieth) some historians at Prof. S' alma
mater rewrote the history of Reconstruction, turning white
Southern aristocrats into victims, portraying Congressional
Republicans as a pack of frothing jackals, and making Andrew
Johnson into some kind of tragic hero.
There's even an Hollywood connection here. "Birth of a Nation"
and "Gone With the Wind" both used this "history" to provide
context for their dramas, reinforcing the popular notion that
Blacks were too childlike to be enfranchised without being
manipulated by nefarious outside forces.
Were efforts to restore a more accurate account of the Reconstruction
Era, many made by Southern historians, "politically motivated," or
should we "go along with the idea that its being done in the name of
fairness, balance, restitution."
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
Eric da Red
Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> > georgann wrote:
>>>> > The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>>>> > or so years. Junk history.
>>>"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
>>>> Which ones, specifically?
>
>>>georgann wrote:
>>>The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately.
>
>Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>> Which movie about Jefferson?
>She's probably speaking about "Jefferson in Paris" which alleged there
>was an affair between TJ and his slave (and wife's half-sister) Sally
>Hemming. Keep in mind that through DNA, they've proved pretty
>conclusively that at least one of Sally Heming's children were fathered
>by TJ.
Ok.
I don't see this as an example of "tearing down" Jefferson, anyway. I
mean, the guy was a big slaveholder and, unlike other members of his
class, did not release his slaves upon his death. This is a more damning
fact about Jefferson than his amorous interludes with a slave with whom he
apparently had genuinely warm feelings. I suppose that a sex-obsessed
Republican might weigh the facts differently.
Most people have been told about many clever devices and objects that
Jefferson invented. It turns out that almost all of them were actually
not invented by Jefferson but were minor enhancements and adaptations that
he made to existing items. I learned this fact during a tour of
Montecello last spring, so I guess we can include the National Park
Service in the list of purveyors of "junk history."
Some people apparently have a need to turn historical figures into
unblemished demi-gods. I find it much more valuable to have a full plate
of facts both positive and negative, because knowing the deficiencies of
people like Jefferson makes their accomplishments all the more impressive.
>>> Do I need
>>>to actually "work up" a list?
>
>I'd like to see it. I've got a book (grumble-misplaced) about historical
>films (films about historical characters or events, not just old movies)
>that points out inaccuracies and political bias in just about EVERY
>historical film.
>
>For example, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood had some stupid PC attitudes (such
>as the Moorish Merry Man) but that doesn't mean that earlier film
>adaptations were any more accurate. Errol Flynn's "Adventures of Robin
>Hood" may be more fun, but it's just as bad (if not worse) in its
>portrayal of that time period.
>
>Modifying the portrayal of history to match cultural biases is nothing new.
>It's as old as film ("Birth of a Nation" anyone?) and it's terribly
>disingenuous to pretend that this is something new.
Examples abound. "The Nation" has movie reviews that examine this matter,
as in this week's review of "X-Men." Michael Parenti's book "Make Believe
Media" does a nice analysis of the pervasiveness of the attitudes of the
dominant culture into entertainment.
Eric da Red
Using the ante-bellum era as an example, here's a simple thought
experiment to demonstrate the issue:
Write down the number of novels, movies, and TV shows that portray the
white southern slaveholding culture as enjoyable, noble, creative,
romantic, or virtuous, and in which the slaves cheerfully accept their
lot.
Write down the number of novels, movies, and TV shows in which a white
slaveholder breaks up a family by selling some of their members, beats or
rapes a slave, explicitly refers to the slave as subhuman or equivalent to
the livestock, or consciously keeps slaves uneducated and underfed.
DrDecaf
<39ABB434...@mindspring.com>:
>> >> >georgann wrote:
>> >> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
>> >> >done to history in the name of restitution or
>> >> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
>> >> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >> >share of attention.""
>
>
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >> Since this latter statement is simply untrue, I still don't know
>> >> what you mean by "balance."
>
>> >> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
>> >Eric da Red wrote:
>> >> Some historical figures deserve to be trashed. Why exactly is this
>> >> a problem?
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Since when is it necessary to tear someone down in order to
>> >build up someone else?
>
>
>Eve DuJardin wrote:
>> The name of that game is "Politics".
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Eve, you wouldn't be suggesting that the movements to
>rewrite history are politically motivated are you? < coph
>coph > We're supposed to go along with the idea that its
>being done in the name of fairness, balance, restitution.
>Which is it?
>
"fairness, balance, restitution" _are_ political ideas.
and history is _always_ being rewritten. the article points this out.
--dr d
georgann
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:02:15 -0400, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Eve, you wouldn't be suggesting that the movements to
> >coph) We're supposed to go along with the idea that its
> >being done in the name of fairness, balance, restitution.
> >Which is it?
Brien Sullivan wrote:
> OK, Georgann, how about this? During the early part of this
> century (the twentieth) some historians at Prof. S' alma
> mater rewrote the history of Reconstruction, turning white
> Southern aristocrats into victims, portraying Congressional
> Republicans as a pack of frothing jackals, and making Andrew
> Johnson into some kind of tragic hero.
> There's even an Hollywood connection here. "Birth of a Nation"
> and "Gone With the Wind" both used this "history" to provide
> context for their dramas, reinforcing the popular notion that
> Blacks were too childlike to be enfranchised without being
> manipulated by nefarious outside forces.
> Were efforts to restore a more accurate account of the Reconstruction
> Era, many made by Southern historians, "politically motivated," or
> should we "go along with the idea that its being done in the name of
> fairness, balance, restitution."
> --
> Brien
> {br...@asan.com}
georgann wrote:
What a bizarre example Brien. "Nefarious outside forces"?!?
I don't know what to say to that.
georgann
> Using the ante-bellum era as an example, here's a simple thought
> experiment to demonstrate the issue:
> Write down the number of novels, movies, and TV shows that portray the
> white southern slaveholding culture as enjoyable, noble, creative,
> romantic, or virtuous, and in which the slaves cheerfully accept their
> lot.
> Write down the number of novels, movies, and TV shows in which a white
> slaveholder breaks up a family by selling some of their members, beats or
> rapes a slave, explicitly refers to the slave as subhuman or equivalent to
> the livestock, or consciously keeps slaves uneducated and underfed.
georgann wrote:
Gee Eric, I guess you missed the miniseries Roots, Roots II
and Return to Roots. Along with the miniseries Diary of Miss
Jane Pittman, award winners all. Don't you watch TV movies EVER?
DrDecaf
<39ABB304...@mindspring.com>:
>> >> >> >georgann wrote:
>> >> >> >Balance is goal worthy because of what's been
>> >> >> >done to history in the name of restitution or
>> >> >> >some sort of fairness. Ref...
>
>> >> >> >""By the 1980's an explosion of historical
>> >> >> >categories -- race, gender, ethnicity,
>> >> >> >sexuality -- had supplanted the more
>> >> >> >traditional fields of political, diplomatic and
>> >> >> >intellectual history. Those formerly on the
>> >> >> >margins of American society now got the lion's
>> >> >> >share of attention.""
>
>> >> >> >Additions to curricula are appropriate.
>> >> >> >Trashing historical figures in order to have a
>> >> >> >hand in recoloring the "common view", is not.
>
>
>> >> >DrDecaf wrote:
>> >> >> what's your evidence that historical figures are being "trashed"?
>> >> >> --dr d
>> >> >> started the semester today
>
>
>> >> >georgann wrote:
>> >> >The films that proliferated the film industry within the 8
>> >> >or so years. Junk history. Or I should say non-history.
>> >> >Trashed quite a bit of Americana. You wanna tell me why that
>> >> >was necessary? do you call that balance?
>
>
>> >> what does that have to do with the article, or with the study of
>> >> american history?
>> >> --dr d
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Is it exam time ALREADY?
>
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> i'm just trying to figure out what your point is.
>> you post an article about the current state of the study of american
>> history.
>> then you talk about "balance," but don't really define it.
>> then you mention how historical figures are being trashed, and point to
>> movies as an example.
>
>> what exactly is your point here?
>> was this thread started to discuss the article?
>> american history?
>> popular culture?
>> --dr d
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>I wasn't being specific in WHERE I INTENDED The discussion
>to go dr d. It isn't an assignment with a "requisite view"
>for a passing grade on any of it.
>
>I am interested in people's opinions ... 1. on the article
>itself
then why have you posted so little about the article itself?
> 2. if others feel there IS (or not) an imbalance in
>perspectives of the contemporary rewrites of history as the
>article implies
the article says that the study of history is changing.
there's nothing new in that.
> and 3. whether or not others in the NG are
>happy with the aparent alteration of the coloring of history
>and its figures.
your bias shows in your phrasing.
how about "the increasing focus on groups previously ignored"?
the current concern about history being "rewritten" can only occur in a
society that knows little of its own history.
many people believe that until the 1960s everyone agreed on what our past
was -- columbus was a good guy, the colonists were united in throwing off
the chains of oppression, the founders believed in equality of all people,
etc.
columbus didn't become a good guy until the late 1800s. eyewitnesses in the
late 1400s saw the atrocities committed for gold -- read bartoleme de las
casas for a graphic account.
only about 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence. about 1/3 didn't care
one way or another. this was common knowledge at the time.
the founders were nearly all slaveholders and they refused to include women
in the constitution. also common knowledge.
these aren't new pieces of information. they've been known for a couple of
centuries, but took hold at various points in our history. the article also
points out the different kinds of "consensus" that have been developed at
different times.
what's going on now in the study of american history is nothing new.
academic studies are always in flux, with groups staking out positions
based on the evidence they uncover, and the evidence they choose to
emphasize.
and someone usually says there's a "political" motivation for the
reexamination and creation of new perspectives.
--dr d
georgann
georgann:
You found nothing interesting in the article? Must be nice
to have all of the views on history "all wrapped up" huh.
> > and 3. whether or not others in the NG are
> >happy with the aparent alteration of the coloring of history
> >and its figures.
georgann wrote:
Lets see. From what I have gleaned of your remarks over the
past several months dr d I take it you're an instructor. I
believe at an institution of higher learning, yes? Should I
also take it from your comments above that you teach your
students that Columbus was a greedy, disease carrying total
shit, the colonists were misguided and / or hapless idiots
uncertain of anything and everything about their paths, the
founders were not only knowingly oppressive but they also
had no intention of offering equality to all people and that
anybody that would like to hold some high opinion of these
people (not for everything mind you) is totally ignorant and
history challenged. Is that the deal?
georgann
> historically inaccurate movies. Do you actually think "Birth of a Nation"
> was accurate? How about "The Green Berets"? There's a lovely piece of
> historically fucked up celuloid. And let's see....just about any western
> made in the 30s to more recently.
>
> Should I name some more?
georgann wrote:
Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
another film.
The point I have been trying to make however is that when
hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
georgann
DrDecaf wrote:
> uh, no.
> where in _anything_ i've said do you get this idea?
georgann:
From your evident objection to the kinder views of same.
What did you think it sounded like when you wrote what you
wrote above?
> is it so impossible for you to deal with any ideas other than your own with
> _any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
georgann wrote:
I have strong opinions. I respect people who also have
strong opinions. Not a big admirer of gamesmanship however.
> and, if you'll remember our last go round, YOU were the one who said the
> puritans were engaged in spreading "lies from the pit of hell." _i_ was the
> one attempting to treat their views respectfully.
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
Respect schmespect. You were defending (personally) people
neither you nor I ever knew personally, against my obvious
disdain for what I consider false teachings. I said then and
stand by it that "predestination" as it is popularly
understood (i.e. that God "must" care for some more than
others) teaches lies from the pit of hell. I couldn't care
less what the Puritans actually said about it. Or the people
of today for that matter. If that view is the current
context of "the elect" then it is a lie from hell. Whoever
says it.
I have experienced GRACE. This I know THIS with my entire
being. It is just as undeserved today as it was when I
received it. Its free for all. ALL. (Are we clear yet?) I
didn't deserve to be saved. Never will deserve it. I am no
different than anyone here. Except by a simple act of my own
free will .... I said yes.
.......................
.......................
.......................
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: [[ mine ]]
"""Tripp suit reassigned: Three federal judges
appointed by President Clinton took a lawsuit
filed by Linda Tripp away from a Reagan
appointee and randomly assigned the case by
computer to one of themselves, court records
show. In a five-page order dated Aug. 11, the
judges said the Tripp suit never should have
been directed to U.S. District Judge Royce
Lamberth.
[[ wait for it ... here it comes ... ]] The
decision to remove the case from Lamberth's
control comes amid a judicial inquiry into why
the chief federal judge in the District of
Columbia, Norma Hollowly Johnson, [[ oh, oh ]]
bypassed the computer system and directed half a
dozen [[ ooOH Boy ]] criminal prosecutions of
campaign fund-raisers and friends of Clinton
and Vice President Al [[ clean nose certainly ]]
Gore to Clinton appointed judges."""
Lexington Herald Leader - Knight Ridder,
Washington Bureau [[more than li
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately. Do I need
> to actually "work up" a list? I thought it was pretty obvious.
Maybe I'm stupid. I can't think of any. Please make up a list.
As for Jefferson, do you mean "Jefferson in Paris"? Did you see it?
I haven't seen it myself, but I understand that it has a romantic
angle. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly, Jefferson was not
a puritan. Does that make him less important? He's still one of the
greatest minds of his time, if not all times, whether he slept with
just one or a thousand women. Why does it bother you that someone
looked at other aspects of his life?
--
"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I
understand the emotionality of death penalty cases."--G W Bush in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> Hey! Cut that out! We don't tolerate that stealth Hegel stuff
> in here.
I thought it was OK to bring up the dialectic as long as we didn't add
any material to it.
Tim
"Must have felt a bit hegelian last night."
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> georgann wrote:
>Should I
> also take it from your comments above that you teach your
> students that Columbus was a greedy, disease carrying total
> shit,
I don't know if he carried disease personally, but I think his greed
has been fairly well documented. Why is it so important to you that he
be a saint? It doesn't change history.
>the colonists were misguided and / or hapless idiots
> uncertain of anything and everything about their paths,
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
>the
> founders were not only knowingly oppressive but they also
> had no intention of offering equality to all people
They owned slaves, counted Blacks as 3/5 a person, and only gave male
landowners the right to vote.
>and that
> anybody that would like to hold some high opinion of these
> people (not for everything mind you) is totally ignorant and
> history challenged. Is that the deal?
Nothing wrong with holding a high opinion of them unless it motivates
you to gloss over important elements of history.
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> I have experienced GRACE.
I can't remember. Did we agree that the Bible said it was OK for women
to experience Grace and that they could experience Gary also, but that
Men could never experience Gary and could only experience Grace if
certain vowes were said aloud? Whew!
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD
> >"Nefarious outside forces"?!?
> >I don't know what to say to that.
>
> "Nefarious outside forces"?!? such as Radical Republicans,
> carpetbaggers, outside (insert your choice of "Northern, Jew,
> Communist, Liberal") agitators, depending on the time period.
> You're from a border state, G. Surely you've heard some of these
> bizarre phrases.
You should have mentioned Democrats. She'd understand it then.
Martha Hughes
> I don't know what to say to that.
>
historically inaccurate movies. Do you actually think "Birth of a Nation"
was accurate? How about "The Green Berets"? There's a lovely piece of
historically fucked up celuloid. And let's see....just about any western
made in the 30s to more recently.
Should I name some more?
>
DrDecaf
<39AC6BFC...@mindspring.com>:
>
>georgann:
>You found nothing interesting in the article? Must be nice
>to have all of the views on history "all wrapped up" huh.
where did i ever say that? all i was pointing out is that the rewriting of
history is nothing new.
_how_ it's rewritten is the interesting part. the article does a good job
in providing an overview of the major phases.
>
>
>> > and 3. whether or not others in the NG are
>> >happy with the aparent alteration of the coloring of history
>> >and its figures.
>
>
>Lets see. From what I have gleaned of your remarks over the
>past several months dr d I take it you're an instructor.
i've said that explicitly. no gleaning required.
>I
>believe at an institution of higher learning, yes?
yes. i've also said that several times.
> Should I
>also take it from your comments above that you teach your
>students that Columbus was a greedy, disease carrying total
>shit, the colonists were misguided and / or hapless idiots
>uncertain of anything and everything about their paths, the
>founders were not only knowingly oppressive but they also
>had no intention of offering equality to all people and that
>anybody that would like to hold some high opinion of these
>people (not for everything mind you) is totally ignorant and
>history challenged. Is that the deal?
uh, no.
where in _anything_ i've said do you get this idea?
is it so impossible for you to deal with any ideas other than your own with
_any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
and, if you'll remember our last go round, YOU were the one who said the
DrDecaf
<39AC6D89...@mindspring.com>:
>georgann wrote:
>Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
>Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
>don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
>another film.
>
>The point I have been trying to make however is that when
>hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
>real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
>a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
>But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
>of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
what was inaccurate about the jefferson movie?
--dr d
Eve DuJardin
>From: drd...@hotmail.com (DrDecaf)
>Date: 8/29/00 7:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Georgann wrote:
>>The point I have been trying to make however is that when
>>hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
>>real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
>>a greater responsibility for the
>accuracy of the contents.
>>But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
>>of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
dr decaf wrote:
>what was inaccurate about the jefferson movie?
Eve wrote:
Often, the word "inaccuracy" means "truth hurts".
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Eve DuJardin
Eve wrote:
Why is it seemingly impossible for Americans to be moderate about anything?
Our ancestors were, after all, human beings, neither completely admirable or
completely bad. The fact that these days, when there is so much propaganda for
our "Christian Nation" , prayer in school, vouchers, guns, etc., etc., it
appears that much is being written into the fairly straightforward language set
down by our forefathers, including the constitution. Therefore, it is
important that these "men" be shown as "perfect." Too bad.
Your faithful serpent,
Eve
Martha Hughes
> Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
> Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
> don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
> another film.
>
> hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
> real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
> a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
> But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
> of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
>
is released as a documentary, a movie has ziltch responsibility to present
itself as truth. If you think a made-for-tv movie with ever be made up of
*truth*, I got a bridge to sell to you.
Movies (excluding real documentaries) are not made to be *true*. They are
made for entertainment.
"Birth of a Nation" was a *semi-documentary* silent film, showing the
glories of the KKK and the horrors of the blacks.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Eric da Red wrote:
>> Using the ante-bellum era as an example, here's a simple thought
>> experiment to demonstrate the issue:
>
>> Write down the number of novels, movies, and TV shows that portray the
>> white southern slaveholding culture as enjoyable, noble, creative,
>> romantic, or virtuous, and in which the slaves cheerfully accept their
>> lot.
>
>> Write down the number of novels, movies, and TV shows in which a white
>> slaveholder breaks up a family by selling some of their members, beats or
>> rapes a slave, explicitly refers to the slave as subhuman or equivalent to
>> the livestock, or consciously keeps slaves uneducated and underfed.
>
>georgann wrote:
>Gee Eric, I guess you missed the miniseries Roots, Roots II
>and Return to Roots. Along with the miniseries Diary of Miss
>Jane Pittman, award winners all. Don't you watch TV movies EVER?
Do the math, georgann. All of it. And don't try hiding in an imaginary
black hole.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
>Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
>don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
>another film.
>
>The point I have been trying to make however is that when
>hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
>real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
>a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
>But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
>of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
According to the reviews I was able to find, "Jefferson in Paris" played a
bit loose with a few historical details but not to a degree unusual for
Hollywood romances. "The Patriot", otoh, is a total piece of historical
deception.
Why do you pick out a movie that was not especially onerous in its abuse
of history as a target of your wrath?
Brien Sullivan
>Brien Sullivan wrote:
>> OK, Georgann, how about this? During the early part of this
>> century (the twentieth) some historians at Prof. S' alma
>> mater rewrote the history of Reconstruction, turning white
>> Southern aristocrats into victims, portraying Congressional
>> Republicans as a pack of frothing jackals, and making Andrew
>> Johnson into some kind of tragic hero.
>> There's even an Hollywood connection here. "Birth of a Nation"
>> and "Gone With the Wind" both used this "history" to provide
>> context for their dramas, reinforcing the popular notion that
>> Blacks were too childlike to be enfranchised without being
>> manipulated by nefarious outside forces.
>> Were efforts to restore a more accurate account of the Reconstruction
>> Era, many made by Southern historians, "politically motivated," or
>> should we "go along with the idea that its being done in the name of
>> fairness, balance, restitution."
>What a bizarre example Brien.
How so? Because it illustrates a point you raised about
historiagraphy, before you veered off into TV and film as soon
as it became apparent you were, once again, in over your head?
>"Nefarious outside forces"?!?
>I don't know what to say to that.
"Nefarious outside forces"?!? such as Radical Republicans,
carpetbaggers, outside (insert your choice of "Northern, Jew,
Communist, Liberal") agitators, depending on the time period.
You're from a border state, G. Surely you've heard some of these
bizarre phrases.
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
Brien Sullivan
>"Brien Sullivan" <Br...@WatchRock.net> wrote:
>> Hey! Cut that out! We don't tolerate that stealth Hegel stuff
>> in here.
>I thought it was OK to bring up the dialectic as long as we didn't add
>any material to it.
Isn't that like a library without porn?
--
Brien
You have to perk yourself up every morning
when you get older. So you start thinking
of these perky subjects. --Donald Fagen
DrDecaf
<39AC7AD7...@mindspring.com>:
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> uh, no.
>> where in _anything_ i've said do you get this idea?
>
>georgann:
>From your evident objection to the kinder views of same.
>What did you think it sounded like when you wrote what you
>wrote above?
not at all like what you wrote.
and it's not a matter of how it's said -- whether one view is "kinder" or
not -- it's a factual difference. either the colonists were united against
britain or they weren't. the facts say they weren't.
>
>
>> is it so impossible for you to deal with any ideas other than your own
>> with _any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>I have strong opinions. I respect people who also have
>strong opinions. Not a big admirer of gamesmanship however.
gamesmanship?!
and the question remains: is it possible for you to deal with any ideas
other than your own with any degree of respect and accuracy?
>
>
>> and, if you'll remember our last go round, YOU were the one who said
>> the puritans were engaged in spreading "lies from the pit of hell."
>> _i_ was the one attempting to treat their views respectfully.
>> --dr d
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Respect schmespect.
case in point.
>You were defending (personally)
uh, no. i wasn't defending them personally. i was explaining their
theological views. i was defending them against your disrespect and lack of
knowledge.
> people
>neither you nor I ever knew personally, against my obvious
>disdain for what I consider false teachings. I said then and
>stand by it that "predestination" as it is popularly
>understood (i.e. that God "must" care for some more than
>others) teaches lies from the pit of hell. I couldn't care
>less what the Puritans actually said about it.
sure you did -- you spent a lot of time attacking them.
>Or the people
>of today for that matter. If that view is the current
>context of "the elect" then it is a lie from hell. Whoever
>says it.
then if the puritans were liars from hell, what does that do to your view
that this is a christian nation, founded by christians?
>
>I have experienced GRACE. This I know THIS with my entire
>being. It is just as undeserved today as it was when I
>received it. Its free for all. ALL. (Are we clear yet?) I
>didn't deserve to be saved. Never will deserve it. I am no
>different than anyone here. Except by a simple act of my own
>free will .... I said yes.
lucky you.
--dr d
georgann
> Why is it seemingly impossible for Americans to be moderate about anything?
> Our ancestors were, after all, human beings, neither completely admirable or
> completely bad. The fact that these days, when there is so much propaganda for
> our "Christian Nation" , prayer in school, vouchers, guns, etc., etc., it
> appears that much is being written into the fairly straightforward language set
> down by our forefathers, including the constitution. Therefore, it is
> important that these "men" be shown as "perfect." Too bad.
> Your faithful serpent,
> Eve
georgann wrote using Eves phrasing:
When there is so much propaganda that runs
counter to the idea that ours was founded a
"Christian Nation", prayer in school, vouchers,
guns, etc., etc., it is important that these
"men" be shown as more than simply "imperfect."
Too bad.
georgann
> > > > What a bizarre example Brien. "Nefarious outside forces"?!?
> > > > I don't know what to say to that.
Martha wrote:
> > > But you missed commenting on the fact that hollywood has ALWAYS made
> > > historically inaccurate movies. Do you actually think "Birth of a Nation"
> > > was accurate? How about "The Green Berets"? There's a lovely piece of
> > > historically fucked up celuloid. And let's see....just about any western
> > > made in the 30s to more recently.
> > > Should I name some more?
> > georgann wrote:
> > Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
> > Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
> > don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
> > another film.
> > The point I have been trying to make however is that when
> > hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
> > real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
> > a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
> > But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
> > of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
Martha Hughes wrote:
> Sorry, there really is no such thing as a *semi-ducomentary* film. Unless it
> is released as a documentary, a movie has ziltch responsibility to present
> itself as truth. If you think a made-for-tv movie with ever be made up of
> *truth*, I got a bridge to sell to you.
> Movies (excluding real documentaries) are not made to be *true*. They are
> made for entertainment.
> "Birth of a Nation" was a *semi-documentary* silent film, showing the
> glories of the KKK and the horrors of the blacks.
georgann wrote:
Was "Birth of a Nation" listed as a documentary?
georgann
> >Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
> >Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
> >don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
> >another film.
> >The point I have been trying to make however is that when
> >hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
> >real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
> >a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
> >But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
> >of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
Eric da Red wrote:
> According to the reviews I was able to find, "Jefferson in Paris" played a
> bit loose with a few historical details but not to a degree unusual for
> Hollywood romances. "The Patriot", otoh, is a total piece of historical
> deception.
georgann wrote:
Haven't seen the Patriot.
> Why do you pick out a movie that was not especially onerous in its abuse
> of history as a target of your wrath?
georgann wrote:
Because its intent was to fragment, recolor and rupture
opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
greatly admire. And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
at all unless it intended to "discredit".
Its very much of like having Hollywood do a film about
Martin Luther King Jrs pre-martyrdom focusing almost
exclusively on his extramarital, romantic life. (Like that
would ever happen!)
georgann
> > georgann wrote:
> > The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately. Do I need
> > to actually "work up" a list? I thought it was pretty obvious.
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
> Maybe I'm stupid. I can't think of any. Please make up a list.
> As for Jefferson, do you mean "Jefferson in Paris"? Did you see it?
> I haven't seen it myself, but I understand that it has a romantic
> angle. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly, Jefferson was not
> a puritan. Does that make him less important? He's still one of the
> greatest minds of his time, if not all times, whether he slept with
> just one or a thousand women. Why does it bother you that someone
> looked at other aspects of his life?
georgann wrote:
Why I object?
I'll repeat what I just posted to Eric.
georgann
> > georgann wrote:
> >Should I
> > also take it from your comments above that you teach your
> > students that Columbus was a greedy, disease carrying total
> > shit,
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
> I don't know if he carried disease personally, but I think his greed
> has been fairly well documented. Why is it so important to you that he
> be a saint? It doesn't change history.
> >the colonists were misguided and / or hapless idiots
> > uncertain of anything and everything about their paths,
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are referring to.
> >the
> > founders were not only knowingly oppressive but they also
> > had no intention of offering equality to all people
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
> They owned slaves, counted Blacks as 3/5 a person, and only gave male
> landowners the right to vote.
> >and that
> > anybody that would like to hold some high opinion of these
> > people (not for everything mind you) is totally ignorant and
> > history challenged. Is that the deal?
"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
> Nothing wrong with holding a high opinion of them unless it motivates
> you to gloss over important elements of history.
georgann wrote:
Nothing wrong with "de-sainting" them either, unless its
done for purposes OTHER than being more fully invested in
historical accuracy. There are those who maintain that once
this fashion in history is exhausted, then more balanced
portrayals will emerge. In the meantime there seems little
but "trendy trashing" going on.
georgann
> >> OK, Georgann, how about this? During the early part of this
> >> century (the twentieth) some historians at Prof. S' alma
> >> mater rewrote the history of Reconstruction, turning white
> >> Southern aristocrats into victims, portraying Congressional
> >> Republicans as a pack of frothing jackals, and making Andrew
> >> Johnson into some kind of tragic hero.
> >> There's even an Hollywood connection here. "Birth of a Nation"
> >> and "Gone With the Wind" both used this "history" to provide
> >> context for their dramas, reinforcing the popular notion that
> >> Blacks were too childlike to be enfranchised without being
> >> manipulated by nefarious outside forces.
> >> Were efforts to restore a more accurate account of the Reconstruction
> >> Era, many made by Southern historians, "politically motivated," or
> >> should we "go along with the idea that its being done in the name of
> >> fairness, balance, restitution."
georgann:
> >What a bizarre example Brien.
Brien Sullivan wrote:
> How so? Because it illustrates a point you raised about
> historiagraphy, before you veered off into TV and film as soon
> as it became apparent you were, once again, in over your head?
georgann wrote:
How come when I simply disagree with some of you people you
automatically go into insulting and super-analytical,
irrelevant copious cites-out-the-wazoo (i.e. dissertation)
ibid, ibid, ibid mode and behave as if this unattractive
and haughty but no more valid style of argument somehow
gives your opinion any greater weight than mine? The only
thing over my head in most of these matters is the "PHDs"
that get hauled in for the rest of you intellectuals to ohh
and ahh over --- i.e. Piled Higher and Deeper.
> >"Nefarious outside forces"?!?
> >I don't know what to say to that.
Brien Sullivan wrote:
> "Nefarious outside forces"?!? such as Radical Republicans,
> carpetbaggers, outside (insert your choice of "Northern, Jew,
> Communist, Liberal") agitators, depending on the time period.
> You're from a border state, G. Surely you've heard some of these
> bizarre phrases.
> --
> Brien
> {br...@asan.com}
georgann wrote:
Nefarious ....... Radical Republicans, carpetbaggers,
outside agitators ........ in the same context! Brien you're
not seriously suggesting that the RR IS the evil empire
within are you?!? This is beginning to sound suspiciously
like a BIG conspiracy (aka B-Ray vs the FBI) poster.
Please tell me you don't believe all that tripe about the
insidious powers of the "Radical" Republicans, Brien.
georgann
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> uh, no.
> >> where in _anything_ i've said do you get this idea?
> >georgann:
> >From your evident objection to the kinder views of same.
> >What did you think it sounded like when you wrote what you
> >wrote above?
DrDecaf wrote:
> not at all like what you wrote.
georgann wrote:
Yes it was. Style counts. Its only a game to pretend that it doesn't.
> and it's not a matter of how it's said -- whether one view is "kinder" or
> not -- it's a factual difference. either the colonists were united against
> britain or they weren't. the facts say they weren't.
georgann:
So? Anybody ever require a unified opinion that they were
united? I don't recall this being taught. One way or another.
> >> is it so impossible for you to deal with any ideas other than your own
> >> with _any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
georgann:
Have you read your own writing dr. d?
> >georgann wrote:
> >I have strong opinions. I respect people who also have
> >strong opinions. Not a big admirer of gamesmanship however.
DrDecaf wrote:
> gamesmanship?!
georgann:
Playing the game of "my field of study is bigger than (i.e.
discounts) your opinion". Its a thing that instructors do
sometimes, IMO. Probably because they have these dependent
sometimes adoring students taking in their every word and
meaningful glance or nod as some significant of brilliance
and irrefutability.
DrDecaf wrote:
> and the question remains: is it possible for you to deal with any ideas
> other than your own with any degree of respect and accuracy?
georgann:
I just explained this above. I respect * people * of strong
opinions. Not simply "ideas".
Ideas are cheap. Free. Sometimes hard-won. Sometimes
worthless. People are not "ideas".
> >> and, if you'll remember our last go round, YOU were the one who said
> >> the puritans were engaged in spreading "lies from the pit of hell."
> >> _i_ was the one attempting to treat their views respectfully.
> >> --dr d
> >georgann wrote:
> >Respect schmespect.
DrDecaf wrote:
> case in point.
georgann wrote:
I was remarking on how you give yourself too much credit in
this area. Sorry you missed it.
> >You were defending (personally)
DrDecaf wrote:
> uh, no. i wasn't defending them personally. i was explaining their
> theological views. i was defending them against your disrespect and lack of
> knowledge.
georgann:
Oh I see. You "don't" defend them "personally" but when I
come down hard on their "ideas" I'm attacking them or
disrespecting them -- "as persons". You honestly don't see
why you're contradicting yourself by drawing up this
comparison every time you do it??
And you're always sure to throw in the "lack of knowledge"
to be certain to position yourself with an imaginary upper
hand even thought it doesn't work on me and that's the kind
of gamesmanship to which I was also referring above. Is this
how you teach? By browbeating? Demand more cites? Ever call
a truly conservative student stupid?
> > people
> >neither you nor I ever knew personally, against my obvious
> >disdain for what I consider false teachings. I said then and
> >stand by it that "predestination" as it is popularly
> >understood (i.e. that God "must" care for some more than
> >others) teaches lies from the pit of hell. I couldn't care
> >less what the Puritans actually said about it.
DrDecaf wrote:
> sure you did -- you spent a lot of time attacking them.
georgann:
Go back and read them. I attacked the false ideas. LIES. I
didn't attack the persons.
> >Or the people
> >of today for that matter. If that view is the current
> >context of "the elect" then it is a lie from hell. Whoever
> >says it.
DrDecaf wrote:
> then if the puritans were liars from hell, what does that do to your view
> that this is a christian nation, founded by christians?
georgann:
WHY is this so difficult a concept for you? I have distain
for all "ideas" that flow from hell. I NEVER said the
puritans were from hell. Get it straight please. Or maybe
you are actually having trouble drawing a distinction on the
very real differences between people and ideas here.
Possible? Is ALL you ARE only what you think, believe or
teach dr d?
> >I have experienced GRACE. This I know THIS with my entire
> >being. It is just as undeserved today as it was when I
> >received it. Its free for all. ALL. (Are we clear yet?) I
> >didn't deserve to be saved. Never will deserve it. I am no
> >different than anyone here. Except by a simple act of my own
> >free will .... I said yes.
DrDecaf wrote:
> lucky you.
> --dr d
georgann wrote:
Luck had nothing to do with it. It was my choice.
p.s. God thinks we're "each" infinitely more valuable than
what we think, believe or teach.
Martha Hughes
> > > > > georgann wrote:
> > > > > What a bizarre example Brien. "Nefarious outside forces"?!?
> > > > > I don't know what to say to that.
>
>
> > > > But you missed commenting on the fact that hollywood has ALWAYS made
> > > > historically inaccurate movies. Do you actually think "Birth of a
Nation"
> > > > was accurate? How about "The Green Berets"? There's a lovely piece
of
> > > > historically fucked up celuloid. And let's see....just about any
western
> > > > made in the 30s to more recently.
>
> > > > Should I name some more?
>
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > Please do. As silly as it sounds the only thing I know about
> > > Green Berets was it had John Wayne in it (yes?) and I either
> > > don't recall Birth of a Nation or I'm confusing it with
> > > another film.
>
> > > The point I have been trying to make however is that when
> > > hollywood takes on a semi documentary style in films about
> > > real individuals, like the Jefferson film, they really bear
> > > a greater responsibility for the accuracy of the contents.
> > > But they seem shamelessly unable to resist the presentation
> > > of the "history du jour".....i.e. la VOGUE
>
>
> > Sorry, there really is no such thing as a *semi-ducomentary* film.
Unless it
> > is released as a documentary, a movie has ziltch responsibility to
present
> > itself as truth. If you think a made-for-tv movie with ever be made up
of
> > *truth*, I got a bridge to sell to you.
>
> > Movies (excluding real documentaries) are not made to be *true*. They
are
> > made for entertainment.
>
> > "Birth of a Nation" was a *semi-documentary* silent film, showing the
> > glories of the KKK and the horrors of the blacks.
>
>
>
> Was "Birth of a Nation" listed as a documentary?
No, neither was the movie about Jefferson. There is no such thing as a
*semi-documentary*.
Martha Hughes
>
> > > georgann wrote:
> > > The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately. Do I need
> > > to actually "work up" a list? I thought it was pretty obvious.
>
>
> > As for Jefferson, do you mean "Jefferson in Paris"? Did you see it?
>
> > I haven't seen it myself, but I understand that it has a romantic
> > angle. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly, Jefferson was not
> > a puritan. Does that make him less important? He's still one of the
> > greatest minds of his time, if not all times, whether he slept with
> > just one or a thousand women. Why does it bother you that someone
> > looked at other aspects of his life?
>
>
> georgann wrote:
> Why I object?
> I'll repeat what I just posted to Eric.
>
> Because its intent was to fragment, recolor and rupture
> opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
> in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
> greatly admire. And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
> at all unless it intended to "discredit".
>
> Its very much of like having Hollywood do a film about
> Martin Luther King Jrs pre-martyrdom focusing almost
> exclusively on his extramarital, romantic life. (Like that
> would ever happen!)
"Jefferson in Paris" was never listed as a documentary. As I said, there is
no such thing as a semi-documentary. A movie can be *based* on fact, but
actually have very little roots in reality. It was been this way since the
beginning of the film industry in the late 1800s.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
> Because its intent was to fragment, recolor and rupture
> opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
> in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
> greatly admire. And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
> at all unless it intended to "discredit".
I haven't seen "JiP" but have read many reviews of it. And from what I
can tell, the filmmakers were not making their film to damage peoples'
opinions of TJ -- they were trying to tell an entertaining story about
an interesting figure in American history, specifically about a footnote
to his life that hadn't gotten much focus before. They weren't trying to
sully his reputation -- in fact, the Time Magazine review complains that
"Thomas Jefferson's life had plenty of dramatic material, but Jefferson
in Paris is in too much tasteful awe of its subject" Hardly sounds like
an attempt to discredit him. Read http://us.imdb.com/Title?0113463 for
the reviews.
You must admit, the inherent contradiction of the man who wrote "All Men
Are Created Equal" was not only a slaveowner, but fathered children on
his wife's slave half-sister, is a fascinating character study.
Tell me, what do you think of the musical "1776" in which Jefferson
(a) doesn't want to write the Declaration of Independence, because he'd
rather go back home to his wife, (b) suffers tremendous writers'
block until his wife arrives for a visit, and (c) makes love to his wife
for the better part of a day.
That's just as inaccurate as "Jefferson in Paris"
Personally, I agree with John Adams dislike of the mythologizing that
went on about the Declaration of Independence. As Joseph Ellis (a recent
biographer of Adams) said on c-Span, "Adams believed that posterity
always wants to mythologize and to remember in a kind of halo way, with a
sort of gauze over the camera, the way history really happened. History,
according to Adams, is always a messy and not very neat and lovely thing."
Adams didn't even like the famous painting of the signing of the
Declaration of independence, because its a misrepresentation and nothing
like it actually happened. http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10203.htm
> Its very much of like having Hollywood do a film about
> Martin Luther King Jrs pre-martyrdom focusing almost
> exclusively on his extramarital, romantic life. (Like that
> would ever happen!)
Actually, I thought there had been such a show -- maybe it was a TV
movie -- but it does sound familiar...
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Elisabeth Anne Riba
> Nothing wrong with "de-sainting" them either, unless its
> done for purposes OTHER than being more fully invested in
> historical accuracy. There are those who maintain that once
> this fashion in history is exhausted, then more balanced
> portrayals will emerge. In the meantime there seems little
> but "trendy trashing" going on.
Keep in mind that much of the light raised on Jefferson's affairs were by
Sally Hemming's decendants who wanted recognition like that given to
Jefferson's legitimate children.
They weren't "trendy trashing" -- they wanted historians and their
distant "relatives" to recognize and accept their family's oral history.
I think *you're* the one imposing negative motives upon them.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
>> Maybe I'm stupid. I can't think of any. Please make up a list.
>
>> As for Jefferson, do you mean "Jefferson in Paris"? Did you see it?
>
>> I haven't seen it myself, but I understand that it has a romantic
>> angle. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly, Jefferson was not
>> a puritan. Does that make him less important? He's still one of the
>> greatest minds of his time, if not all times, whether he slept with
>> just one or a thousand women. Why does it bother you that someone
>> looked at other aspects of his life?
>georgann wrote:
>Why I object?
>I'll repeat what I just posted to Eric.
>
>Because its intent was to fragment, recolor and rupture
>opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
>in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
>greatly admire.
How do you know what the intent of the producers was? Are you good
friends with James Ivory or Ismail Merchant?
> And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
>at all unless it intended to "discredit".
How about: to tell an entertaining story. People in the movie business
do this sort of thing all the time.
Another possible purpose: to make money.
>Its very much of like having Hollywood do a film about
>Martin Luther King Jrs pre-martyrdom focusing almost
>exclusively on his extramarital, romantic life. (Like that
>would ever happen!)
There are many ways to portray the same event. Extramarital affairs of
King or Jefferson could be displayed as touching, sentimental, meaningful,
tawdry, uplifting, or disgusting. That determination is made by the
artist and the viewer.
By some accounts (see below), the movie was a bit of a mess without
direction to the story, completely contradicting your claim about the
"intent" of the producers.
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/j/jefferson.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues95/mar95/ivory.html
http://www.peers.org/revjeff.html
http://www.sunspot.net/our_town/film/data/MOV_1_4.html
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1995/04/973734.html
Eric da Red
>> you to gloss over important elements of history.
>georgann wrote:
>Nothing wrong with "de-sainting" them either, unless its
>done for purposes OTHER than being more fully invested in
>historical accuracy.
Since you have absolutely no idea what "purposes" historians or movie
makers have, it would appear that you have nothing to contribute to this
issue.
> There are those who maintain that once
>this fashion in history is exhausted, then more balanced
>portrayals will emerge.
Discovering more information about historical figures, including facts
that are not flattering to folks commonly well-regarded, has been the
fashion in historiography since Herodotus. I doubt if this fashion will
change anytime soon.
You still haven't told us what you mean by "balance."
> In the meantime there seems little
>but "trendy trashing" going on.
You've only given one movie as an example of this "trashing", and it turns
out not to be an example that supports your contention very well.
Eric da Red
georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Brien Sullivan wrote:
>> >> OK, Georgann, how about this? During the early part of this
>> >> century (the twentieth) some historians at Prof. S' alma
>> >> mater rewrote the history of Reconstruction, turning white
>> >> Southern aristocrats into victims, portraying Congressional
>> >> Republicans as a pack of frothing jackals, and making Andrew
>> >> Johnson into some kind of tragic hero.
>
>> >> There's even an Hollywood connection here. "Birth of a Nation"
>> >> and "Gone With the Wind" both used this "history" to provide
>> >> context for their dramas, reinforcing the popular notion that
>> >> Blacks were too childlike to be enfranchised without being
>> >> manipulated by nefarious outside forces.
>
>> >> Were efforts to restore a more accurate account of the Reconstruction
>> >> Era, many made by Southern historians, "politically motivated," or
>> >> should we "go along with the idea that its being done in the name of
>> >> fairness, balance, restitution."
>
>> >What a bizarre example Brien.
>
>> How so? Because it illustrates a point you raised about
>> historiagraphy, before you veered off into TV and film as soon
>> as it became apparent you were, once again, in over your head?
>
>How come when I simply disagree with some of you people you
>automatically go into insulting and super-analytical,
>irrelevant copious cites-out-the-wazoo (i.e. dissertation)
>ibid, ibid, ibid mode and behave as if this unattractive
>and haughty but no more valid style of argument somehow
>gives your opinion any greater weight than mine? The only
>thing over my head in most of these matters is the "PHDs"
>that get hauled in for the rest of you intellectuals to ohh
>and ahh over --- i.e. Piled Higher and Deeper.
>
>> >I don't know what to say to that.
>
>> "Nefarious outside forces"?!? such as Radical Republicans,
>> carpetbaggers, outside (insert your choice of "Northern, Jew,
>> Communist, Liberal") agitators, depending on the time period.
>> You're from a border state, G. Surely you've heard some of these
>> bizarre phrases.
>> --
>> Brien
>> {br...@asan.com}
>
>
DrDecaf
<39AD0CC9...@mindspring.com>:
>
>> >DrDecaf wrote:
>> >> uh, no.
>> >> where in _anything_ i've said do you get this idea?
>
>> >georgann:
>> >From your evident objection to the kinder views of same.
>> >What did you think it sounded like when you wrote what you
>> >wrote above?
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> not at all like what you wrote.
>
>georgann wrote:
>Yes it was. Style counts. Its only a game to pretend that it doesn't.
of course style counts. but you factually misrepresented what i said. big
difference.
>
>> and it's not a matter of how it's said -- whether one view is "kinder"
>> or not -- it's a factual difference. either the colonists were united
>> against britain or they weren't. the facts say they weren't.
>
>georgann:
>So? Anybody ever require a unified opinion that they were
>united? I don't recall this being taught. One way or another.
most of my students believe that the colonists were pretty much united. i'd
bet most americans think so.
>
>> >> is it so impossible for you to deal with any ideas other than your
>> >> own with _any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
>
>georgann:
>Have you read your own writing dr. d?
give me an example of where i've done this to you.
put it right here --->
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >I have strong opinions. I respect people who also have
>> >strong opinions. Not a big admirer of gamesmanship however.
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> gamesmanship?!
>
>georgann:
>Playing the game of "my field of study is bigger than (i.e.
>discounts) your opinion". Its a thing that instructors do
>sometimes, IMO. Probably because they have these dependent
>sometimes adoring students taking in their every word and
>meaningful glance or nod as some significant of brilliance
>and irrefutability.
i wish.
so if you think you know just as much as i do about history, then do i know
just as much as you do about art?
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> and the question remains: is it possible for you to deal with any
>> ideas other than your own with any degree of respect and accuracy?
>
>georgann:
>I just explained this above. I respect * people * of strong
>opinions. Not simply "ideas".
>
>Ideas are cheap. Free. Sometimes hard-won. Sometimes
>worthless. People are not "ideas".
this little passage says more about you than anything you've ever said
before.
btw, i have strong opinions. do you respect me?
>
>
>> >> and, if you'll remember our last go round, YOU were the one who
>> >> said the puritans were engaged in spreading "lies from the pit of
>> >> hell." _i_ was the one attempting to treat their views
>> >> respectfully. --dr d
>
>
>> >georgann wrote:
>> >Respect schmespect.
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> case in point.
>
>georgann wrote:
>I was remarking on how you give yourself too much credit in
>this area. Sorry you missed it.
here's another space for you to point out an example of my disrespect.
----->
>
>> >You were defending (personally)
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> uh, no. i wasn't defending them personally. i was explaining their
>> theological views. i was defending them against your disrespect and
>> lack of knowledge.
>
>georgann:
>Oh I see. You "don't" defend them "personally" but when I
>come down hard on their "ideas" I'm attacking them or
>disrespecting them -- "as persons". You honestly don't see
>why you're contradicting yourself by drawing up this
>comparison every time you do it??
this is an interesting comment from someone who plays the religion card so
consistently. though others need to separate "ideas" from "people," a
disagreement with your beliefs you see as an attack on you.
>
>And you're always sure to throw in the "lack of knowledge"
>to be certain to position yourself with an imaginary upper
>hand even thought it doesn't work on me and that's the kind
>of gamesmanship to which I was also referring above. Is this
>how you teach? By browbeating? Demand more cites? Ever call
>a truly conservative student stupid?
why are you so insulted by the idea that some people know more about a
subject than you do?
>
>> > people
>> >neither you nor I ever knew personally, against my obvious
>> >disdain for what I consider false teachings. I said then and
>> >stand by it that "predestination" as it is popularly
>> >understood (i.e. that God "must" care for some more than
>> >others) teaches lies from the pit of hell. I couldn't care
>> >less what the Puritans actually said about it.
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> sure you did -- you spent a lot of time attacking them.
>
>georgann:
>Go back and read them. I attacked the false ideas. LIES. I
>didn't attack the persons.
why do you have to tear them down to build up your view?
>
>> >Or the people
>> >of today for that matter. If that view is the current
>> >context of "the elect" then it is a lie from hell. Whoever
>> >says it.
>
>DrDecaf wrote:
>> then if the puritans were liars from hell, what does that do to your
>> view that this is a christian nation, founded by christians?
>
>georgann:
>WHY is this so difficult a concept for you? I have distain
>for all "ideas" that flow from hell. I NEVER said the
>puritans were from hell. Get it straight please. Or maybe
>you are actually having trouble drawing a distinction on the
>very real differences between people and ideas here.
>Possible? Is ALL you ARE only what you think, believe or
>teach dr d?
so they're still christians though they're teaching an idea straight from
the pit of hell? interesting.
>
>p.s. God thinks we're "each" infinitely more valuable than
>what we think, believe or teach.
so why do you treat people on this group so poorly?
--dr d
who isn't a history teacher
DrDecaf
<39ACFCB6...@mindspring.com>:
>
>> > georgann wrote:
>> > The one about Jefferson comes to mind immediately. Do I need
>> > to actually "work up" a list? I thought it was pretty obvious.
>
>"Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD" wrote:
>> Maybe I'm stupid. I can't think of any. Please make up a list.
>
>> As for Jefferson, do you mean "Jefferson in Paris"? Did you see it?
>
>> I haven't seen it myself, but I understand that it has a romantic
>> angle. Is there anything wrong with that? Certainly, Jefferson was not
>> a puritan. Does that make him less important? He's still one of the
>> greatest minds of his time, if not all times, whether he slept with
>> just one or a thousand women. Why does it bother you that someone
>> looked at other aspects of his life?
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>Why I object?
>I'll repeat what I just posted to Eric.
>
>Because its intent was to fragment, recolor and rupture
>opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
>in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
>greatly admire. And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
>at all unless it intended to "discredit".
how does it discredit him?
why do you believe it's a negative portrayal?
--dr d
who finds this jefferson a lot more interesting
augustxxi
> > > Should I
> > >also take it from your comments above that you teach your
> > >students that Columbus was a greedy, disease carrying total
> > >uncertain of anything and everything about their paths, the
> > >founders were not only knowingly oppressive but they also
> > >anybody that would like to hold some high opinion of these
> > >people (not for everything mind you) is totally ignorant and
> > >history challenged. Is that the deal?
>
> > uh, no.
> > where in _anything_ i've said do you get this idea?
>
> georgann:
> From your evident objection to the kinder views of same.
> What did you think it sounded like when you wrote what you
> wrote above?
>
> > _any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
>
> I have strong opinions. I respect people who also have
> strong opinions. Not a big admirer of gamesmanship however.
>
> > puritans were engaged in spreading "lies from the pit of hell." _i_ was the
> > one attempting to treat their views respectfully.
> > --dr d
>
> georgann wrote:
> neither you nor I ever knew personally, against my obvious
> disdain for what I consider false teachings. I said then and
> stand by it that "predestination" as it is popularly
> understood (i.e. that God "must" care for some more than
> others) teaches lies from the pit of hell. I couldn't care
> of today for that matter. If that view is the current
> context of "the elect" then it is a lie from hell. Whoever
> says it.
>
> being. It is just as undeserved today as it was when I
> received it. Its free for all. ALL. (Are we clear yet?) I
> didn't deserve to be saved. Never will deserve it. I am no
> different than anyone here. Except by a simple act of my own
> free will .... I said yes.
Sometimes when I read a post like this it sends me straight to Flannery
O'Connor. I'm going to have to read some "Everything That Rises Must
Converge" tonight. Georgann is a classic O'Connor Protestant, she talks
just like one of her characters. And the rest of us, when trying to
make rational sense to her, do too. And we're all comical.
August
"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a
best-seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher. -Flannery
O'Connor
georgann
> Regarding the film "Jefferson in Paris", georgann wrote:
> > opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
> > in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
> > greatly admire. And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
> > at all unless it intended to "discredit".
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> I haven't seen "JiP" but have read many reviews of it. And from what I
> can tell, the filmmakers were not making their film to damage peoples'
> opinions of TJ -- they were trying to tell an entertaining story about
> an interesting figure in American history, specifically about a footnote
> to his life that hadn't gotten much focus before. They weren't trying to
> sully his reputation -- in fact, the Time Magazine review complains that
> "Thomas Jefferson's life had plenty of dramatic material, but Jefferson
> in Paris is in too much tasteful awe of its subject" Hardly sounds like
> an attempt to discredit him. Read http://us.imdb.com/Title?0113463 for
> the reviews.
> You must admit, the inherent contradiction of the man who wrote "All Men
> Are Created Equal" was not only a slaveowner, but fathered children on
> his wife's slave half-sister, is a fascinating character study.
georgann wrote:
I'm all for character studies. And I can certainly stand the
presentation of a little contradictory nature in people. We
are human after all. But the idea that the quasi documentary
(Martha disdains my coining a phrase semi-documentary) genre
of film making is here to stay is disturbing to me. It
invites all sorts of mischief as it alludes to factual
people but freely blurs the lines on the facts. Its
dishonest to do very much editorializing in these things.
> Tell me, what do you think of the musical "1776" in which Jefferson
> (a) doesn't want to write the Declaration of Independence, because he'd
> rather go back home to his wife, (b) suffers tremendous writers'
> block until his wife arrives for a visit, and (c) makes love to his wife
> for the better part of a day.
georgann:
I thought it was a lark. But the story overall was not lost
in the more colorful tidbits. At least you didn't come away
feeling like all these people were trash. They were
significant. What they were doing was significant. And it
somehow managed to show the seriousness of the events
despite Jefferson's urgent need for his wife's affection.
> That's just as inaccurate as "Jefferson in Paris"
georgann:
But 1776 wasn't particularly determined to leave you with
just a personal portrait that overshadowed all other aspects
of the person. The JiP film supposedly (I didn't want to see
it and didn't) was reported to have gone into extremes about
his personal life. Its just so much Jerry Springer to me. I
find it distasteful to focus on peoples private lives. Sort
of like those who defend our illustrious president beyond
the pale arguing for his "privacy".
> Personally, I agree with John Adams dislike of the mythologizing that
> went on about the Declaration of Independence. As Joseph Ellis (a recent
> biographer of Adams) said on c-Span, "Adams believed that posterity
> always wants to mythologize and to remember in a kind of halo way, with a
> sort of gauze over the camera, the way history really happened. History,
> according to Adams, is always a messy and not very neat and lovely thing."
> Adams didn't even like the famous painting of the signing of the
> Declaration of independence, because its a misrepresentation and nothing
> like it actually happened. http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10203.htm
> > Its very much of like having Hollywood do a film about
> > Martin Luther King Jrs pre-martyrdom focusing almost
> > exclusively on his extramarital, romantic life. (Like that
> > would ever happen!)
> Actually, I thought there had been such a show -- maybe it was a TV
> movie -- but it does sound familiar...
georgann wrote:
I never saw such a film about MLK Jr. Wouldn't watch it if
there was one. And I think the howls of outrage would be
fierce if had been one. Just like Scorcese took a major
financial and personal hit for dallying in this genre with
The Last Temptation of Christ. Evidently nothing is sacred
to film makers if they can make a buck or are bucking for a reputation.
georgann
> >Why I object?
> >I'll repeat what I just posted to Eric.
> >Because its intent was to fragment, recolor and rupture
> >opinions of a man whose historical significance plus genius
> >in architecture and to some degree in invention I still
> >greatly admire.
Eric da Red wrote:
> How do you know what the intent of the producers was? Are you good
> friends with James Ivory or Ismail Merchant?
georgann wrote:
Well if it was NOT their intent then they did a piss poor job.
> > And I see no worthwhile purpose in doing it
> >at all unless it intended to "discredit".
Eric da Red wrote:
> How about: to tell an entertaining story. People in the movie business
> do this sort of thing all the time.
> Another possible purpose: to make money.
> >Its very much of like having Hollywood do a film about
> >Martin Luther King Jrs pre-martyrdom focusing almost
> >exclusively on his extramarital, romantic life. (Like that
> >would ever happen!)
Eric da Red wrote:
> There are many ways to portray the same event. Extramarital affairs of
> King or Jefferson could be displayed as touching, sentimental, meaningful,
> tawdry, uplifting, or disgusting. That determination is made by the
> artist and the viewer.
georgann:
Fine. Let them invent a character or two to work on so
freely. I would suggest to those wanting to approach
documentary with a fictional tilt, stick to what you know.
Then be honest. If you don't know then don't appear to give
an account. That's dishonest.
> By some accounts (see below), the movie was a bit of a mess without
> direction to the story, completely contradicting your claim about the
> "intent" of the producers.
> http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/j/jefferson.html
> http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues95/mar95/ivory.html
> http://www.peers.org/revjeff.html
> http://www.sunspot.net/our_town/film/data/MOV_1_4.html
> http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1995/04/973734.html
georgann wrote:
Their INTENT is certainly not my major concern. The new
freedom creative types feel entitled to is to blend fact and
fiction. Its abhorrent to me.
It only takes a little lie to make the truth indiscernible.
georgann
> > Was "Birth of a Nation" listed as a documentary?
Martha Hughes wrote:
> No, neither was the movie about Jefferson. There is no such thing as a
> *semi-documentary*.
georgann wrote:
Evidently there is now. A whole new genre headed by Martin
Scorsese and who ever did the Jefferson flick. I can hardly
wait to see what they do with Clinton now that the genre of
semi-documentary is open to all. No boundaries.
georgann
> >> >From your evident objection to the kinder views of same.
> >> >What did you think it sounded like when you wrote what you
> >> >wrote above?
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> not at all like what you wrote.
> >georgann wrote:
> >Yes it was. Style counts. Its only a game to pretend that it doesn't.
DrDecaf wrote:
> of course style counts. but you factually misrepresented what i said. big
> difference.
georgann:
More games. Your context was clear enough. You can't play
stupid now.
> >> and it's not a matter of how it's said -- whether one view is "kinder"
> >> or not -- it's a factual difference. either the colonists were united
> >> against britain or they weren't. the facts say they weren't.
> >georgann:
> >So? Anybody ever require a unified opinion that they were
> >united? I don't recall this being taught. One way or another.
DrDecaf wrote:
> most of my students believe that the colonists were pretty much united. i'd
> bet most americans think so.
georgann:
This is a crisis?
> >> >> is it so impossible for you to deal with any ideas other than your
> >> >> own with _any_ degree of respect and accuracy?
> >georgann:
> >Have you read your own writing dr. d?
DrDecaf wrote:
> give me an example of where i've done this to you.
> put it right here --->
> >> >georgann wrote:
> >> >I have strong opinions. I respect people who also have
> >> >strong opinions. Not a big admirer of gamesmanship however.
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> gamesmanship?!
> >georgann:
> >Playing the game of "my field of study is bigger than (i.e.
> >discounts) your opinion". Its a thing that instructors do
> >sometimes, IMO. Probably because they have these dependent
> >sometimes adoring students taking in their every word and
> >meaningful glance or nod as some significant of brilliance
> >and irrefutability.
DrDecaf wrote:
> i wish.
> so if you think you know just as much as i do about history, then do i know
> just as much as you do about art?
georgann:
You still don't know that who knows MORE (quantitative) on
any one subject is not particularly important to me. How
long have I been here now? I don't measure people by the
intensity of their knowledge in a subject any more than I
would the amount of RAM in their CPU.
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> and the question remains: is it possible for you to deal with any
> >> ideas other than your own with any degree of respect and accuracy?
> >georgann:
> >I just explained this above. I respect * people * of strong
> >opinions. Not simply "ideas".
> >Ideas are cheap. Free. Sometimes hard-won. Sometimes
> >worthless. People are not "ideas".
> this little passage says more about you than anything you've ever said
> before.
georgann:
Tell me what you think it meant and I'll tell you if you got
it right.
> btw, i have strong opinions. do you respect me?
georgann:
Yes. Of what I know of you. I don't have to agree with you
or think the WAY you do to respect you. You're obviously
sincere. That's more important than intelligence in my book
even though you are obviously that too.
> >> >> and, if you'll remember our last go round, YOU were the one who
> >> >> said the puritans were engaged in spreading "lies from the pit of
> >> >> hell." _i_ was the one attempting to treat their views
> >> >> respectfully. --dr d
> >> >georgann wrote:
> >> >Respect schmespect.
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> case in point.
> >georgann wrote:
> >I was remarking on how you give yourself too much credit in
> >this area. Sorry you missed it.
> here's another space for you to point out an example of my disrespect.
> ----->
georgann:
You're very good at twisting sentences to your advantage
I'll give you that. My intended meaning to the "give
yourself too much credit" was about your defending the
Puritans. It isn't necessary to defend people who aren't
being attacked. You disagree with my ideas vehemently and
assertively. Does that mean you disrespect me?
> >> >You were defending (personally)
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> uh, no. i wasn't defending them personally. i was explaining their
> >> theological views. i was defending them against your disrespect and
> >> lack of knowledge.
> >georgann:
> >Oh I see. You "don't" defend them "personally" but when I
> >come down hard on their "ideas" I'm attacking them or
> >disrespecting them -- "as persons". You honestly don't see
> >why you're contradicting yourself by drawing up this
> >comparison every time you do it??
DrDecaf wrote:
> this is an interesting comment from someone who plays the religion card so
> consistently. though others need to separate "ideas" from "people," a
> disagreement with your beliefs you see as an attack on you.
georgann:
No I don't. That's the way YOU see me. And you have just
successfully CHANGED THE SUBJECT, Again.
> >And you're always sure to throw in the "lack of knowledge"
> >to be certain to position yourself with an imaginary upper
> >hand even thought it doesn't work on me and that's the kind
> >of gamesmanship to which I was also referring above. Is this
> >how you teach? By browbeating? Demand more cites? Ever call
> >a truly conservative student stupid?
DrDecaf wrote:
> why are you so insulted by the idea that some people know more about a
> subject than you do?
georgann:
You're doing it again. Can we just stay on the topic and
stop trying to sidetrack me with this line of questioning.
I'm beginning to see when you feel a little cornered or
pressured you divert attention by slinging some irrelevant
stuff into the discussion. YOU THINK I have a around the
world way of communicating, you should see yourself from
this chair.
> >> > people
> >> >neither you nor I ever knew personally, against my obvious
> >> >disdain for what I consider false teachings. I said then and
> >> >stand by it that "predestination" as it is popularly
> >> >understood (i.e. that God "must" care for some more than
> >> >others) teaches lies from the pit of hell. I couldn't care
> >> >less what the Puritans actually said about it.
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> sure you did -- you spent a lot of time attacking them.
> >georgann:
> >Go back and read them. I attacked the false ideas. LIES. I
> >didn't attack the persons.
DrDecaf wrote:
> why do you have to tear them down to build up your view?
georgann:
Nice dodge.
> >> >Or the people
> >> >of today for that matter. If that view is the current
> >> >context of "the elect" then it is a lie from hell. Whoever
> >> >says it.
> >DrDecaf wrote:
> >> then if the puritans were liars from hell, what does that do to your
> >> view that this is a christian nation, founded by christians?
> >georgann:
> >WHY is this so difficult a concept for you? I have distain
> >for all "ideas" that flow from hell. I NEVER said the
> >puritans were from hell. Get it straight please. Or maybe
> >you are actually having trouble drawing a distinction on the
> >very real differences between people and ideas here.
> >Possible? Is ALL you ARE only what you think, believe or
> >teach dr d?
DrDecaf wrote:
> so they're still christians though they're teaching an idea straight from
> the pit of hell? interesting.
georgann:
Yes it is interesting.
> >p.s. God thinks we're "each" infinitely more valuable than
> >what we think, believe or teach.
> so why do you treat people on this group so poorly?
> --dr d
> who isn't a history teacher
georgann wrote:
Besides your last sentence having nothing whatsoever to do
with you, me or the Puritans, let's let others take care of
themselves shall we.