OT.....on books...
John B
bit and I got rid of cable TV.
All my news now come from the net ad I have found the library to be great
source of old movies and I have started to read again.
Some interesting books have been:
"A Peoples History of American Empire" by Howard Zinn...when you read
something by Zinn you truly understand that history is written by the
victors. This book should be required reading in any High School History
call and besides, it is illustrated comic book style and it is a quick and
enlightening read....
Another book was:
"1491" by Charles Mann. do the double N's at the end of each name mean
anything? It is a description of the north and south American continents
the day before the white man landed...the research is excellent, the foot
notes are meticulous...and excellent read. I highly recommend you to read it
Joe...
...special thanks to Rdean for keeping me alive in New Orleans....
john
~^ beancounter ~^
btw: i find "the news" to be a very interesting business.......
DaveS
Hello John
Have not read Zinn's book but know him from a weekly radio show he
hosts on NPR or some-such. He does offer a wider perspective that is
mostly hidden by American Tories and fascists, however he is more hard
leftist than progressive, and a bit encumbered by a NYC/LA orientation
to the world. Still, . . . worth listening to sometimes, even though
he is a bit too eager to see the US as responsible for most of the
world's troubles. OK that's an exaggeration but . . . .
As to the "1491," with all its journalistic conceits and welcome
simplifications, it is the best thing Ive seen for updating my
understanding of all the post 1960s discoveries in anthro and
archeology. Definitely a must read.
Dave
MajorOz
As is Hitler and Marx -- for education, not for edification.
cheers
oz........"Christ, Marx, Wood, and Wei; thank you for this perfect day"
DaveS
SNIP
> oz........"Christ, Marx, Wood, and Wei; thank you for this perfect day"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting quote(?)
Assuming it refers to Jebus, Karl, Grant Wood and the comtempory
realist painter Wei. Is that the case?
Dave
MajorOz
It's from an Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby) SF book: _This Perfect Day_
It is a mantra spoken by the drug zonkered residents of a futuristic
society.
cheers
oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
Giles
Interesting quotes.....hm.....interesting topic. My own favorite
(apropos of nothing in particular.....except the human condition, I
suppose) in a life more or less blessedly free of favorite this,
favorite that, blah blah, comes from the quintessential American
writer; "If you find a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will
not bite you. This is the principle difference between a dog and a
man.".....or something very much like that.
> cheers
Prosit.
> oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
Not always distinguishable.
g.
and therein lies food for many a wonderful and potentially productive
discussion, in a world populated by adu.......um......well, never
mind.
Daniel-San
>
> "A Peoples History of American Empire" by Howard Zinn...when you read
> something by Zinn you truly understand that history is written by the
> victors.
I don't know if I'd quite go that far. History is always written from
a particular point of view, one that is shaped by the historian's life
and personal predilections. Someone like Zinn (or Thompson, or Rude,
or, ...or,...) who was shaped politically dring the cold war and the
nascent civil rights era, wrote against the dominant consensus
historiography of, for example, Hofstadter or Schlesinger. New Left
(or proto-NL, anyway) historians like Zinn simply challenged the then-
dominant interpretation of American whiggishness and exceptionalism.
This, IMO, does not mean that history is written by the victors;
rather, me thinks, the victors read history that makes them feel good
about their victory. That may be an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin sort
of distinction, but I think it's relevant.
If'n you find Zinn-esque historiography to your liking, and you've got
some time on your hands, pick up M.J. Sklar, _The Corporate
Reconstruction of American Capitalism_. Or about 10,000,000 other
monographs and (often failed) attempts at synthesis. Also, to mention
a favorite of mine, you may find Herbert Gutman's _Work, Culture, and
Society in Industrializing America_ to be a fine work. Or not. But we
can discuss critiques of Gutman some other time....
>
> Another book was:
>
> "1491" by Charles Mann.
A fine book, so far as Mann is able to go, given his huge geographic
scope. An, IMO, better job of essentially the same sort of book is
Daniel Richter, _Facing East From Indian Country_. The opening
vignette (possibly available for perusal on Amazon or Google books) is
very evocative and sets the tone for the rest of the book. A truly
wonderful book that because of its smaller geographic focus does a
better job.
Anywho,
-Dan
Daniel-San
> > oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
>
> Not always distinguishable.
>
Positivists versus empiricists versus post-modernists versus post-
structuralists versus....
Mine head spinneth.
-Dan
Giles
Second versus, same as the firstus.
Enery
Daniel-San
Epistemologies are fun. Until someone challenges yours. Then it gets
oddly personal. The question of what constitutes "truth" or fact to a
person seems to be among the more closely-held beliefs. Right up there
with religious preference (or lack thereof) and sexuality.
My copy of Blackwell's dictionary of modern social thought is a well-
worn tome. And I still don't understand shit. But it gives me lots of
stuff to think about when I run or fish.
-Dan
(Mostly Deweyan pragmatist, with a pinch of post-modernist
inclusiveness. I think.)
John B
"Daniel-San" <danbru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6b4523f-1531-4eff...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Mine head spinneth.
-Dan
This causes a pain between my ears that I do not understand...
john ..
...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three hundred
dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...
Ken Fortenberry
>
> ...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three hundred
> dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...
Hmmmm, his price has gone up. Last time I saw rdean performing
lap dances on Bourbon Street he was only charging $250.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Frank Reid © 2008
wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!! Hold it, I think I need therapy after that
visual.
Frank Reid
rw
$250??? Are you fucking kidding me? I'd go $20, max, with a photo.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Hey, I look at the current economic downturn as an opportunity...raise prices on
the truly important stuff and folks will pay for it...but truth be told, I
always turn down the guys and the less-attractive girls - the hot gals keep me
in JW Blue and bespoke shit like suits, silk drawers, and fitted shotguns...no,
that's not a euphemism - I do so love to hunt critters...too...
TC,
R
jeff
jeezus...culture should not suffer such indignity. john, if ever we
share a venue that offers such an extravagance for the senses, such
culture and pulchritude, such hedonism, such economic trickle down, and
such pure naked joy...well, my friend, i'll buy the drinks and pat you
on the back and remind you that dollars are meant to be spent, that the
platonic enjoyment of the magnificent female form...an incomparable
gift...is worthy of investment. and, as things go in my line of work,
that 300 dollars is incredibly inexpensive for such events in the life
of a married man... (um, unless there's video). i'd reckon you would
have remembered that $300, and pleasant memories have value. i doubt you
now remember where it was actually spent. <g>
Giles
> On Nov 19, 9:58 am, Giles <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:27 am, Daniel-San <danbrunsv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 7:29 pm, Giles <g_goat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
>
> > > > Not always distinguishable.
>
> > > Positivists versus empiricists versus post-modernists versus post-
> > > structuralists versus....
>
> > > Mine head spinneth.
>
> > > -Dan
>
> > Second versus, same as the firstus.
>
> > Enery
>
> Epistemologies are fun. Until someone challenges yours. Then it gets
> oddly personal. The question of what constitutes "truth" or fact to a
> person seems to be among the more closely-held beliefs. Right up there
> with religious preference (or lack thereof) and sexuality.
I think epistemology is always fun, regardless of challenges. It does
indeed get personal.....but then, it certainly SHOULD be.....otherwise
it's just another bit of rather pointless intellectual gymnastics, at
best. As to the matter of "truth" versus "fact," yet another fertile
field of inquiry, conjecture, theoretical speculation, semantics and
whatnot which, in the minds of most, appears to be nothing more than
yet another irresistible stimulous for ejecting yet another endless
stream of incoherent twaddle. At the end of the day, anyone who
boasts that he "distinguishes between truth and fact," can't be taken
seriously by anyone interested in anything more than cheap humor.
> My copy of Blackwell's dictionary of modern social thought is a well-
> worn tome. And I still don't understand shit. But it gives me lots of
> stuff to think about when I run or fish.
I don't run (did for a while in the seventies.....until one day when I
looked back over my shoulder and discovered that no one was chasing
me.....so I stopped) and haven't fished much in the last couple of
years. Surprisingly, to some perhaps, this has left me with not less,
but MORE time to think. Hasn't made any difference, though.....or
none that I've noticed, anyway.
Meanwhile, I've never actually looked at Blackwell's (still, I think I
should get consolation points for having heard of it), but it seems to
me that in a group where social thought is entirely lacking in the
majority of the most vociferous, anything and everything therein is
moot.
And THAT, should anyone require it, is even more to think
about. :)
> -Dan
> (Mostly Deweyan pragmatist, with a pinch of post-modernist
> inclusiveness. I think.)
I wouldn't know how to begin describing myself. Fortunately, there
are many others willing to take up the standard and do it for me.
giles
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Yeah, fuck you - you're just pissy because you can only charge $300.00 _AN
HOUR_...
HTH,
R
....money-maker shaker...
PS - Oogie-boogie or whatever - and you're worried about some fifteen-year-old
comments...this thread seems like it might eliminate me from reaching my
long-standing goal to be Miss California...
jeff
<g>...
but, of course, art is priceless. still, your response seems a bit
insensitive for an aspiring beauty queen. ...
jeff
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> John B wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three
>>> hundred dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm, his price has gone up. Last time I saw rdean performing
>> lap dances on Bourbon Street he was only charging $250.
>>
>
>$250??? Are you fucking kidding me? I'd go $20, max, with a photo.
Er, excuse me, there, Stanley Manley - you want a lapdance from a guy, and are
willing to pay for it, to boot...?
Hey, whatever floats your innertube...that's why there's chocolate and
vanilla...or hand-packed fudge ripple and tutti-frutti, as the case may be...
Hey, it may not help, but it's all I'm willing to do,
R
...OTOH - Mike, you have a customer at table 5...tune up yer banjo and have
Dieter shine up yer chaps...
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
And speaking of hourly rates, I was talking with some gay friends about the
whole "same-sex marriage" thing, and what came to my mind was that they may not
be ready to get that for which the ask. I mean, if a guy of unknown sexual
orientation brings furniture into your house, he is called a "delivery man" and
you can probably get the store to waive the charge, but if a gay guy brings it
in, he's called a "interior decorator" and he charges 10 grand and marks it up
300 percent. And if you go to a guy of unknown sexual orientation for a
haircut, he's called a "barber" and it's about 15 bucks, including the tip. But
if a gay guy cuts your hair, it's 150 bucks and he whines like a bratty little
girl if the tip isn't at least 50. Now, have you boys considered what "gay
divorce lawyer" is gonna mean...? I mean, bent over and royally screwed might
seem all hot and sexy NOW, but...pardon the pun...
HTH,
R
...eh, I was never big into sashes and tiaras anyway...
Giles
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:17:45 -0500, jeff <jmiller...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:41 -0500, jeff <jmiller...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>> John B wrote:
Moron.
g.
John B
"Giles" <g_go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:359a3fe4-8b88-4a4b...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Moron.
g.
G.
He is a short man of great stature and there is no comeliness about
him...but he has a mind like a steel trap.
If opposites attract do identicles testicle?
John.... who would pay green dollars for a recipe better than Blue Runner
Red Beans in a can...they are from New Orleans
Wm
<ker SNIP!>
> History is always written from
> a particular point of view, one that is shaped by the historian's life
> and personal predilections.
And, from one particular point of view, isn't being done very well of
late. Gordon S. Wood on academic history writing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111701864.html
Wm
Giles
>
> Wm
After reading the entire article one IS left with the impression that
professor Wood thinks it isn't being done very well.....sort
of.....despite the lengthy and entirely unconvincing apologia between
the first two paragraphs and the last sentence.
Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
writing. Scientific literature in general need not be narrative in
order to qualify as good writing. The simple truth is that most
people, regardless of what they do for a living, are not good
writers. The not quite so simple truth is that the vast majority even
of those whose work necessarily includes a great deal of writing are
not good writers (not too surprising when one considers all the other
factors that come to bear on publishability). If most scientific
papers (in any field) are not exemplary for their literary merits (and
they sure as hell ain't) it pays to remember that most books,
articles, monographs, lectures and virtually ALL other visual, graphic
and oral communications ain't either.
But then, you already knew that. :)
giles
Daniel-San
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR200...
>
>
> After reading the entire article one IS left with the impression that
> professor Wood thinks it isn't being done very well.....sort
> of.....despite the lengthy and entirely unconvincing apologia between
> the first two paragraphs and the last sentence.
>
IMO, there hasn't been a bit of really good *writing* in academic
history since the days of Hofstadter, et al. There has of course been
a great deal of fine history, but writing has, I think, become
reflective of the subject matter. As historiography shifted from
narratives of consensus-minded progress to tales of contested
struggle, the writing, too, became, well, contested, if I may torture
a comparison. Of course there are numerous exceptions to my little
"rule" here -- Laurel Ulrich, Alfred Chandler, Leon Fink, Joan Scott,
David Farber, and Andrea Colli are a few historians that come to mind
-- but I'd agree that "good" writers account for a very small
percentage of the academy's written output.
> Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
> writing.
Absolutely correct, but history (hah!) has shown that historical
writing does need to be packaged as a narrative if intended for public
consumption. The non-specialist, educated reader has shown a strong
preference for narrative writing, and biographical narrative in
particular. I won't claim to have read all the winners of the Pulitzer
in history, or the Bancroft, either, but I'd wager that the vast
majority of those books are narrative in nature. This tidbit may of
course say more about the nature of award committees than it does of
writing and the consumption thereof, but I'd speculate that one drives
the other.
As a personal aside, I find the typical academic monograph to be
almost unreadable -- even the books in the fields in which I claim
some level of specialization. Academics may not sell many books, but I
think that's largely because of the fact that they tend to write for
other academics. Historiography today has (laudably) become so
inclusive, the very possibility of a grand narrative (a la Hofstadter)
is precluded -- or, if attempted, will suffer paralysis by
inclusiveness. This, I believe, causes the historian to focus on very
small topics -- and engage in debates with other historians over
minutia. This, I believe, has become a self-replicating problem,
contributing to the ever-growing distance between academics and the
general public. There are of course other factors that contribute to
that divide, but I think the academic tendency to only see other
academics as the writer's audience is one of the more important
factors.
-Dan
(Not claiming to be a "good" writer)
Giles
I considered a number of approaches to a response after reading the
above material.....there are many that I think would be
fruitful.....but have decided to stick with the simplest and most
direct. Where consumption is concerned, the general public is the
final arbiter. "Good" writing is whatever the consuming public
decrees it to be. Arguable. No doubt about it. But in the long run,
the numbers and the critics come to a more or less solid consensus.
The bottom line is that regardless of current fashions in
historiography (or any other field of inquiry), it IS narrative.....or
it's abject nonsense. Radical, perhaps, but an easy enough assertion
to test.
Start with an example from a most rigorous field......logic. The
classic syllogism is a delicious case in point.
giles
who is not much swayed by claims.....or disclaimers.....from
writers. :)