Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government "teaching my kids." Well, is that the way you really think it is supposed to be? We all pop out a bunch of kids and send them off to the government to be "educated." No thank you.
There are many private schools from prep school all the way up to advanced degrees. Sadly, they are way too expensive for the ordinary person. So, the rest of us go to public schools which are cheaper.
This whole "government educating my children" thing is hogwash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
That certainly is not the way I picture an ideal society. And it is one of the main reasons I have never had children.
I doubt that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
And because it is the subject of this thread, I can (and am free to so do) imagine what the social aspect of the lives of the typical person from middle America was like at the time. I am free to base my opinions on actual written accounts and journals from the people themselves and not the politically/socially disaffected from the time. I am also free to ignore all the negative aspects of that time just the same as I ignore (or at least try to) the negative aspects of this time and simply live my life as best I can in my "bubble."
I can write an account of today that is vastly different from what you see. If someone found it 200 years from now and clung onto it as if it were "true" - would just being 200 years old account of today really MAKE IT TRUE?
By all accounts, for the majority of people 1880s were a 3rd world country compared to today, probably even worse. You can try to put a spin on it but having a beautiful hotel built by Henry Flagler (man who ruined Florida for centuries to come) is not an example of "how great the times were" . It is just an example that back then, just like now or 1000 years ago, there was a layer of rich people who could do things others couldn't.
I can write an account of today that is vastly different from what you see. If someone found it 200 years from now and clung onto it as if it were "true" - would just being 200 years old account of today really MAKE IT TRUE?
And here you are confirming an argument from your own "poststructuralist" camp.
If the original inhabitants of a time are biased and "lying" about their experiences (and indeed, I cannot look at my great grandfather's journal and say for certain whether he was writing of his true experience or writing a fictional novel. I can only assume), then how can a modern historian (we're not talking archeologist here) be relied upon to have anything even close to fact? After all, the modern historian is relying mainly on written record of the time in question. If all that written record could just as easily be fabrication as it could be fact, then your friendly neighborhood historian is not only basing his/her research on fiction in the first place compounded by generations of further fabrication, he/she is in addition imposing his/her own bias/lies/fabrications. So we are essentially 6 generations removed from an original lie (potentially), and have absolutely no chance of uncovering the truth at this point. Hooray for post-structural theory. And besides that, I think you are privileging the binary that you choose based on your own preference (as most everyone does), thus introducing another level of bias.
The fact that you are equating the nineteenth century US and a "third world country" tells me that you have been reading the revisionist history that is so popular these days. Arguing from the basis of misinformation is rather pointless.
Who is dreaming of committing violence against the government or anyone else?
The government "teaching my kids." Well, is that the way you really think it is supposed to be? We all pop out a bunch of kids and send them off to the government to be "educated." No thank you. That certainly is not the way I picture an ideal society. And it is one of the main reasons I have never had children. I saw "now" coming when I was 18 years old... way back in the 70s: a time when things were still not completely flushed down the toilet. I can at least say I enjoyed most of that era.
And because it is the subject of this thread, I can (and am free to so do) imagine what the social aspect of the lives of the typical person from middle America was like at the time. I am free to base my opinions on actual written accounts and journals from the people themselves and not the politically/socially disaffected from the time. I am also free to ignore all the negative aspects of that time just the same as I ignore (or at least try to) the negative aspects of this time and simply live my life as best I can in my "bubble."
The only real question, whether I live now to be 120 years old or lived them to be 30 years old, is which lifestyle (typical everyday life and society) would I rather be surrounded by. And every day that I wake up and look (and listen) around me, I am reminded of which lifestyle I would choose. Since I do not have the power to actually decided that for myself, I am free to at least "dream" about it. And if any of you don't like that or you think I'm crazy, well PM and I'll tell you where you can shove it.
I have a childhood friend who teaches revisionist history through literature at the college level. His understanding of 19th century America is based entirely on politically/socially disaffected British novelists and poets. He attended college later in life (1980s-early 90s) and was taught by radicals. He is convinced that he was taught how to think rather than what to think. He doesn't realize that he never questioned it.
To him, American literature is insignificant. I doubt he could name an American writer other than Mark Twain. His mind is completely closed on this topic. He already knows everything about 19th century America based on British satirical works about Britian. And this is what he teaches his students.
And here you are confirming an argument from your own "poststructuralist" camp.
If the original inhabitants of a time are biased and "lying" about their experiences (and indeed, I cannot look at my great grandfather's journal and say for certain whether he was writing of his true experience or writing a fictional novel. I can only assume), then how can a modern historian (we're not talking archeologist here) be relied upon to have anything even close to fact? After all, the modern historian is relying mainly on written record of the time in question. If all that written record could just as easily be fabrication as it could be fact, then your friendly neighborhood historian is not only basing his/her research on fiction in the first place compounded by generations of further fabrication, he/she is in addition imposing his/her own bias/lies/fabrications. So we are essentially 6 generations removed from an original lie (potentially), and have absolutely no chance of uncovering the truth at this point. Hooray for post-structural theory. And besides that, I think you are privileging the binary that you choose based on your own preference (as most everyone does), thus introducing another level of bias.
You need some kind of corroboration, obviously. One written record can be the truth but if there are many written records that overlap in detail, then the conclusion is obvious.
What bothers me is that you use this term "revisionist history" as if it is common and normal and practiced every day, based on a few accounts you have read from the past that seem to disagree with what YOU know to be the accepted view. Obviously reconciling individual views on topics of their own time with the generally accepted views is something that is an ongoing process but it is widely understood that it is peer reviewed.
I understand the need to question things - I have no problems with it, in my everyday work I do it all the time and I do it in my personal life too. If I find something I cannot reconcile, however, my knee jerk reaction is NOT "Alert! Government conspiracy!"
Finally, many historians are professors at private universities - what is their interest in swindling the public and keeping this vast conspiracy going?
I have a childhood friend who teaches revisionist history through literature at the college level. His understanding of 19th century America is based entirely on politically/socially disaffected British novelists and poets. He attended college later in life (1980s-early 90s) and was taught by radicals. He is convinced that he was taught how to think rather than what to think. He doesn't realize that he never questioned it.
To him, American literature is insignificant. I doubt he could name an American writer other than Mark Twain. His mind is completely closed on this topic. He already knows everything about 19th century America based on British satirical works about Britian. And this is what he teaches his students.
Yes, this is common. In the US, university "English" departments aren't really about "English" at all (meaning the English language, grammar/structural aspects, and "art" based on written or spoken language). Actually, I think it would be great if English departments were about the actual language--from a more linguistic point of view, along with grammar, usage, etc. But, that's not the case, for the most part. The typical university English department is a sort of a melding of political science, psychology, sociology, philosophy, literary study from a social perspective, and liberal-oriented social theory (such as Poststructuralism) from the prism of historic English/American literature.
One of my degrees is in English/Writing. Yeah, I sat through all of those classes that are considered liberal indoctrination. And I must say, for those who do not come into college with critical thinking skills and a natural inclination to question every detail of "reality," the programs are largely indoctrination camps. The student is not there to critique or question (and if he/she does, he/she is castigated by the professors), he/she is there to be "built," essentially. I know this from experience, because my years in that program (which, truly, the typical "English Major" program is considered to be a bastion of left-thinking philosophy) were spent largely experimenting with the instructors and the "way things worked in the field." I emphasized creative writing, because it emphasizes free-thinking and writing with the intent to entertain the reader (at least for the program I was in). In those creative writing classes I always had A's because, even when I had the most liberal instructors, I was easily able to "entertain them" with my writing and not even touch on anything politically or socially important.
BUT, in those classes I had to take that dealt with historic literature or literary theory, it was "death to he/she who does not toe the line." This is where my experiment came in. I guess I have an ability to do something that most folks really can't do so well, and that is write from any perspective convincingly--it needn't reflect my true feelings at all. So, I would write a research paper with the "correct" stance for one assignment and turn right around and write a paper with the "incorrect" stance the next time (my favorite memory of this is a pair of papers on the motivation of Nathaniel Hawthorn in writing The House of Seven Gables). Both were stylistically the same, both were mechanically sound (grammatically speaking), and well-written papers with proper citations, etc. Guess which papers got the A's and which got the B's? I'm sure the instructors would have loved to make those B's C's, D's, or F's, but couldn't because they were flawless in all respects except their thesis and attitude toward the subject.
In the end, I was able to internalize those aspects of the program that I felt were conducive and beneficial to my ability to think critically and form viable opinions based on reasonable criteria. And the rest... well the rest was a curiosity to me. In my mind, I can shoot holes in most of it, but even so, it was interesting to see the direction some of the literary minds and social reformers have gone with their thinking in the past. But, as well, it scared me at times to think that all of these young minds were taking it as gospel (more or less).
Of course, I also have a background (degree) in mathematics. That's the sort of program that actually teaches logical and critical thinking. But perhaps my first love has always been the written word and writing in general--so I sort of have degrees on opposite ends of the spectrum. The thing I like about math, though, is that a detractor can argue all he/wants about this or that not being right, and it means absolutely nothing until it is proven to not be right (or be right). If you can't prove it, you shut up.
In the end, I don't see much difference between a preacher pounding on a pulpit and a liberal arts professor pounding on a podium. It's the job of the listener/student or reader to sort it out and never take it as assumed or absolute. That's NOT what is being taught nowadays in college. You go there to be modified, whether you know it or not, with the exception of those who are unwilling to accept and worship blindly. It's the old, "You accept what I'm saying because I'm the expert, by god." That's your typical liberal arts professor today. And yeah, maybe the guy is right about whatever he's talking about. But don't just accept it! Find out for yourself. And then see if it meshes with what you are as a person or not. You as an individual always should have a right to an opinion, whether it's a good or bad opinion, or whether it's a right or wrong opinion. It's YOUR choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
You need some kind of corroboration, obviously. One written record can be the truth but if there are many written records that overlap in detail, then the conclusion is obvious.
What bothers me is that you use this term "revisionist history" as if it is common and normal and practiced every day, based on a few accounts you have read from the past that seem to disagree with what YOU know to be the accepted view. Obviously reconciling individual views on topics of their own time with the generally accepted views is something that is an ongoing process but it is widely understood that it is peer reviewed.
I understand the need to question things - I have no problems with it, in my everyday work I do it all the time and I do it in my personal life too. If I find something I cannot reconcile, however, my knee jerk reaction is NOT "Alert! Government conspiracy!"
Finally, many historians are professors at private universities - what is their interest in swindling the public and keeping this vast conspiracy going?
I think you are biased
You are right, I am biased. But, I would add to that that everyone is biased--not just me. There is no such thing as a non-biased individual on this planet.
The main problem I have (as a writer of fiction) is that I see many history books showing obvious signs of persuasive writing and dramatization. How do I know that? Because I, myself, use it all the time in the writing that I market and sell. But the difference is that at the front of all my books, it states that mine are works of fiction. In my opinion, persuasive writing and dramatization has absolutely no place in a history book that is advertising itself as factual. And it's certainly not supposed to be creative non-fiction, either (which in itself is a rather odd concept). It's not meant to entertain. What should be in there is solid fact, no opinion one way or the other, and no attempt to persuade anyone of anything. What should happen is that the reader extracts the facts and then forms his/her opinion based on just those facts.
Even the few books dealing with "everyday life" of the past have their share of agenda within. When I'm reading one of these and laughing because it's either funny or ludicrous... well, that ceases to be a history text and starts being entertainment--the sort of thing I write (fictional novels).
I don't really want to sift through all the books I've read on early America to find it, but in one of them, the author describes (without any reference or citation to historic accounts or statistics) of "dangerous intersections" along the turnpikes in the eastern US where folks were literally being wiped out like flies due to the horrifying collisions they had in their buggies and on horseback (high-speed collisions, no less). It was portrayed as nothing short of a free-for-all slaughterhouse. Frankly I do not believe that. And I'm not saying that buggies are devoid of danger. And I assume there were dangerous intersections then as now. What I'm saying is that the people of the time would not put up with that any more than they would today. If an intersection is that dangerous, statistically, something would be changed to make it less dangerous. They would not just go on for 50 years killing each other at the intersection with no thought of a way to improve the situation. Not to mention that "high-speed" then is far from "high-speed" now. People, in general, were not stupid back then any more than they are now (arguably, it's actually the other way around Yes, there is some research into that). Bottom line is historians need to report the facts. No drama. No persuasive essays. No political indoctrination. Or social commentary (on a personal level). If that is too boring for the reader, then the reader wasn't interested in learning history or thinking in the first place and should have bought a Stephen King novel because he/she wanted only entertainment. Stephen is far more entertaining.
You are right, I am biased. But, I would add to that that everyone is biased--not just me. There is no such thing as a non-biased individual on this planet.
The main problem I have (as a writer of fiction) is that I see many history books showing obvious signs of persuasive writing and dramatization. How do I know that? Because I, myself, use it all the time in the writing that I market and sell.
I think the main problem you have is that history is not like math. Math has universal truths and theorems based on these truths. Theorems can be proved and the system is closed one way or another.
History is not so. It is, in my humble opinion, a pretty pointless debate - what we are having. Labeling all of today's history textbooks as revisionist is silly and so is claiming that there are absolutely no inaccuracies in these textbooks. Building a conspiracy on top of the revisionist claim is, in my opinion, even sillier
Yes, this is common. In the US, university "English" departments aren't really about "English" at all (meaning the English language, grammar/structural aspects, and "art" based on written or spoken language). Actually, I think it would be great if English departments were about the actual language--from a more linguistic point of view, along with grammar, usage, etc. But, that's not the case, for the most part. The typical university English department is a sort of a melding of political science, psychology, sociology, philosophy, literary study from a social perspective, and liberal-oriented social theory (such as Poststructuralism) from the prism of historic English/American literature.
One of my degrees is in English/Writing. Yeah, I sat through all of those classes that are considered liberal indoctrination. And I must say, for those who do not come into college with critical thinking skills and a natural inclination to question every detail of "reality," the programs are largely indoctrination camps. The student is not there to critique or question (and if he/she does, he/she is castigated by the professors), he/she is there to be "built," essentially. I know this from experience, because my years in that program (which, truly, the typical "English Major" program is considered to be a bastion of left-thinking philosophy) were spent largely experimenting with the instructors and the "way things worked in the field." I emphasized creative writing, because it emphasizes free-thinking and writing with the intent to entertain the reader (at least for the program I was in). In those creative writing classes I always had A's because, even when I had the most liberal instructors, I was easily able to "entertain them" with my writing and not even touch on anything politically or socially important.
BUT, in those classes I had to take that dealt with historic literature or literary theory, it was "death to he/she who does not toe the line." This is where my experiment came in. I guess I have an ability to do something that most folks really can't do so well, and that is write from any perspective convincingly--it needn't reflect my true feelings at all. So, I would write a research paper with the "correct" stance for one assignment and turn right around and write a paper with the "incorrect" stance the next time (my favorite memory of this is a pair of papers on the motivation of Nathaniel Hawthorn in writing The House of Seven Gables). Both were stylistically the same, both were mechanically sound (grammatically speaking), and well-written papers with proper citations, etc. Guess which papers got the A's and which got the B's? I'm sure the instructors would have loved to make those B's C's, D's, or F's, but couldn't because they were flawless in all respects except their thesis and attitude toward the subject.
In the end, I was able to internalize those aspects of the program that I felt were conducive and beneficial to my ability to think critically and form viable opinions based on reasonable criteria. And the rest... well the rest was a curiosity to me. In my mind, I can shoot holes in most of it, but even so, it was interesting to see the direction some of the literary minds and social reformers have gone with their thinking in the past. But, as well, it scared me at times to think that all of these young minds were taking it as gospel (more or less).
Of course, I also have a background (degree) in mathematics. That's the sort of program that actually teaches logical and critical thinking. But perhaps my first love has always been the written word and writing in general--so I sort of have degrees on opposite ends of the spectrum. The thing I like about math, though, is that a detractor can argue all he/wants about this or that not being right, and it means absolutely nothing until it is proven to not be right (or be right). If you can't prove it, you shut up.
In the end, I don't see much difference between a preacher pounding on a pulpit and a liberal arts professor pounding on a podium. It's the job of the listener/student or reader to sort it out and never take it as assumed or absolute. That's NOT what is being taught nowadays in college. You go there to be modified, whether you know it or not, with the exception of those who are unwilling to accept and worship blindly. It's the old, "You accept what I'm saying because I'm the expert, by god." That's your typical liberal arts professor today. And yeah, maybe the guy is right about whatever he's talking about. But don't just accept it! Find out for yourself. And then see if it meshes with what you are as a person or not. You as an individual always should have a right to an opinion, whether it's a good or bad opinion, or whether it's a right or wrong opinion. It's YOUR choice.
You are right, I am biased. But, I would add to that that everyone is biased--not just me. There is no such thing as a non-biased individual on this planet.
The main problem I have (as a writer of fiction) is that I see many history books showing obvious signs of persuasive writing and dramatization. How do I know that? Because I, myself, use it all the time in the writing that I market and sell. But the difference is that at the front of all my books, it states that mine are works of fiction. In my opinion, persuasive writing and dramatization has absolutely no place in a history book that is advertising itself as factual. And it's certainly not supposed to be creative non-fiction, either (which in itself is a rather odd concept). It's not meant to entertain. What should be in there is solid fact, no opinion one way or the other, and no attempt to persuade anyone of anything. What should happen is that the reader extracts the facts and then forms his/her opinion based on just those facts.
Even the few books dealing with "everyday life" of the past have their share of agenda within. When I'm reading one of these and laughing because it's either funny or ludicrous... well, that ceases to be a history text and starts being entertainment--the sort of thing I write (fictional novels).
I don't really want to sift through all the books I've read on early America to find it, but in one of them, the author describes (without any reference or citation to historic accounts or statistics) of "dangerous intersections" along the turnpikes in the eastern US where folks were literally being wiped out like flies due to the horrifying collisions they had in their buggies and on horseback (high-speed collisions, no less). It was portrayed as nothing short of a free-for-all slaughterhouse. Frankly I do not believe that. And I'm not saying that buggies are devoid of danger. And I assume there were dangerous intersections then as now. What I'm saying is that the people of the time would not put up with that any more than they would today. If an intersection is that dangerous, statistically, something would be changed to make it less dangerous. They would not just go on for 50 years killing each other at the intersection with no thought of a way to improve the situation. Not to mention that "high-speed" then is far from "high-speed" now. People, in general, were not stupid back then any more than they are now (arguably, it's actually the other way around Yes, there is some research into that). Bottom line is historians need to report the facts. No drama. No persuasive essays. No political indoctrination. Or social commentary (on a personal level). If that is too boring for the reader, then the reader wasn't interested in learning history or thinking in the first place and should have bought a Stephen King novel because he/she wanted only entertainment. Stephen is far more entertaining.
Excellent post Chris!
Mirrors my experience very closely. In all those required extra courses I had to take that had no bearing on what I wanted to learn, but were required to keep the money rolling in for archaic tenured professors, you had to write what they wanted to hear or you wouldn't make it through.
Luckilly, I have something of a photgraphic memory, so I could just write the pablum they spewed, change it a little, and feed it back to them and get A's.
Critical thinking and logic were not something that was encouraged or allowed.
So I just held my tounge, wrote the marxist drivel they preached for assignments, made it through unscathed.
Good thing I was a little older and had actually held jobs before I went in there or I could have actually believed some of that garbage and screwed up at least a portion of my real life. As it is, I ignored them, got my degree, and went to work in spite of them.
Yeah, I sat through all of those classes that are considered liberal indoctrination. And I must say, for those who do not come into college with critical thinking skills and a natural inclination to question every detail of "reality," the programs are largely indoctrination camps.
This is very true. I was aged 18-21 when I got my degree in chemistry; the math and science were pretty straightforward, but the "general eds" were just crazy with that stuff. But I was young, and just spewed back what they wanted to hear without being affected myself.
Grad school was a whole 'nother thing. I was well into my 30s, and was going part-time at night after work. I was nowhere near as malleable as I had been 15 years earlier, and managed to ruffle quite a few feathers. I got my degree on time and with a 3.90 average, but the faculty was not sorry to see me go!
Mirrors my experience very closely. In all those required extra courses I had to take that had no bearing on what I wanted to learn, but were required to keep the money rolling in for archaic tenured professors, you had to write what they wanted to hear or you wouldn't make it through.
Luckilly, I have something of a photgraphic memory, so I could just write the pablum they spewed, change it a little, and feed it back to them and get A's.
Critical thinking and logic were not something that was encouraged or allowed.
So I just held my tounge, wrote the marxist drivel they preached for assignments, made it through unscathed.
Good thing I was a little older and had actually held jobs before I went in there or I could have actually believed some of that garbage and screwed up at least a portion of my real life. As it is, I ignored them, got my degree, and went to work in spite of them.
The point of a University is to give you a well rounded education. This means that an engineer should also know how to write, had read some classics and has some general history knowledge. Perhaps exposure to a social science or two. A business major should know some basic calculus, so on and so on. These may not directly help you in your day to day tasks, but they kind of do. They help in life in general, any exposure to anything important does.
Judging by what you said above - I think a vocational school would have done the trick for you, no?
In my experience, most engineers I have met are not so great on the soft-skill, social side of things. The ones that are - they don't have to even be great engineers but will always get ahead. Taking an English class or a history class is not directly about what you will learn - most of that stuff will be a vague memory 10 years after college - it is about exposing you to different things and broadening your horizons.
Last edited by ognend; 06-23-2015 at 07:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It is just an example that back then, just like now or 1000 years ago, there was a layer of rich people who could do things others couldn't.
