|
TwoQuestions posted:So we're essentially bribing people with food? Yes. And when that proves insufficient and workers are still aggressively fighting for their interests you can bribe them with "New Deal" style programs. Right now the problems with low wages with regard to consumer spending is being masked by an explosion in credit card debt, allowing people with no money to keep up the charade of endless consumption:  Of course this is a bubble which will burst disastrously in the near future.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
I saw somewhere, probably in D&D somewhere, that there are 4 types of presidents, defined by how closely they stick to the status quo, with the 4th being a paradigm-shifting outside-box-thinking type, best exemplified by Reagan. Does anybody recognize this theory, or am I spouting gibberish?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I saw somewhere, probably in D&D somewhere, that there are 4 types of presidents, defined by how closely they stick to the status quo, with the 4th being a paradigm-shifting outside-box-thinking type, best exemplified by Reagan. Does anybody recognize this theory, or am I spouting gibberish? I've never heard of it before; the initial problem I see with it is that it might put too much focus on Presidential power. People have a tendency to view history through the lens of Famous Men and ignoring other important factors. The argument could be made (and I think accurately) that Congress is much more to blame / credit than the President is at almost any given point in American history. FDR may have pushed for the New Deal for example, but he didn't write it into law, Congress did. Outside of that objection, I'd have to see what criteria they are using to determine status quo and paradigm shifting. Would Lincoln be a paradigm shifter? Or was he arguably a man caught in his times, and just unlucky enough to be elected to face down an already brooding civil war that was in some ways inevitable because of the mismatch of our society at the time and our founding principles? I think history is much more nuanced than a 4 measures of status quo following Presidents who change the world by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Is there a good, concise resource on sovereign debt and how deficit and inflation works in a first world country?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
How heterodox or orthodox do you want to stay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Can anyone refute this list about Fukushima? It's your usual "pick 30 different points that require too much effort to contradict in a short period of time" sort of article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Can anyone refute this list about Fukushima? It's your usual "pick 30 different points that require too much effort to contradict in a short period of time" sort of article. Well right off the bat, that map at the top that they use to show that EVERYWHERE IS SUPER RADIOACTIVE is complete bullshit - even the "concern" level of radiation (which is currently being detected at like half the sites) is only around 200 to 600 cpm - only slightly above normal background levels, and probably a statistical aberration. That's about what your average smoke detector puts out if you take it apart and put your face right up against the source. EDIT: the rest of the sources are just numbers without context, or scary things like "there will be TEN TIMES AS MUCH CESIUM IN THE OCEAN as there was during the atomic bomb testings!" atomic testing was mostly an atmospheric problem, so that makes sense. It then goes on to quote loving Infowars of all things: quote:If you haven’t been to a California beach lately, you probably don’t know that the rocks are unnaturally CLEAN – there’s hardly any kelp, barnacles, sea urchins, etc. anymore and the tide pools are similarly eerily devoid of crabs, snails and other scurrying signs of life… and especially as compared to 10 – 15 years ago when one was wise to wear tennis shoes on a trip to the beach in order to avoid cutting one’s feet on all the STUFF of life – broken shells, bones, glass, driftwood, etc. Yes, all the life like... shells... bones... glass. The GLASS has died! Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Can anyone refute this list about Fukushima? It's your usual "pick 30 different points that require too much effort to contradict in a short period of time" sort of article. The problem with trying to refute garbage like that is that the answer to 99% of it is "No, reality doesn't work that way." As an example: quote:It also quotes several nuclear experts who say that estimate is likely conservative and the real toll could be closer to 80,000 cancers. Now in all fairness the article should have reported that the supposed nuclear experts are actually homeless vagrants living in the now defunct science wing of Night Vale community college. They did go on to say "loving ATOMS! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! THEY WILL KILL US ALL AND THEN WE TOO WILL BECOME NOTHING MORE THAN A MINDLESS COLLECTION OF ATOMS!" Most of that list can actually just be debunked by following the link and actually reading it. For example in the above 80,000 cancer article, We found that fish had an average of 18 becquerels of cesium per kilogram. Canada's limit is 1000 becquerels, and that corresponds to about 8 cancers per 1000 people exposed. So by my math you would need to eat 55 kilograms of tainted fish over the course of one year to have a 0.008% increased risk of cancer over a seventy year period. Even better, try searching the quotes in some of those articles to see how full of poo poo he is. This quote, for example, does not actually appear in the article it is supposedly from: quote:Some fish samples tested to date have had very high levels of radiation: one sea bass sample collected in July, for example, had 1,000 becquerels per kilogram of cesium. Caros fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Is there a good, concise resource on sovereign debt and how deficit and inflation works in a first world country? rscott posted:How heterodox or orthodox do you want to stay? Not speaking for SquadronROE, but I'd be interested in anything from an MMT perspective. I've been trying to read the New Economic Perspectives MMT Primer blog but I'm finding the material a little dense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
rscott posted:How heterodox or orthodox do you want to stay? Sorry, totally missed your response. The more orthodox the better, as it is for friends who have little Econ background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
What's the difference between a moderate Republican, a conservative Democrat, and a Blue Dog Democrat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:What's the difference between a moderate Republican, a conservative Democrat, and a Blue Dog Democrat? Short version: depends who you ask. Conservative & Blue Dog democrats are basically the same thing, they're Democrats from conservative districts who act like those districts due to personal belief or in order to stay elected. The line is blurring now but moderate Republicans are generally more conservative with business interests and while not specifically going for social issues (i.e., gays) they are more likely to put up with them. That being said, the social conservatives are likely to force many more moderate Republicans out as the years go on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
I enjoyed this article describing the "liberal media," perhaps someone else will find it useful. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/10/15-things-everyone-would-know-if-there-were-a-liberal-media/
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:I enjoyed this article describing the "liberal media," perhaps someone else will find it useful. Goddamn every time I think Nixon was the worst most evil president I've ever heard of I read something new and even more terrible that he did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
I've noticed that D&D posters tend to dismiss Austrian economics pretty casually. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I figure since it's like the dominant philosophy these days I at least shouldn't dismiss it immediately. Does anyone have a book or summary or article "deconstructing", I guess, Austrian economics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I've noticed that D&D posters tend to dismiss Austrian economics pretty casually. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I figure since it's like the dominant philosophy these days I at least shouldn't dismiss it immediately. Does anyone have a book or summary or article "deconstructing", I guess, Austrian economics? It's hardly the dominant philosophy these days, what makes you think that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I've noticed that D&D posters tend to dismiss Austrian economics pretty casually. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I figure since it's like the dominant philosophy these days I at least shouldn't dismiss it immediately. Does anyone have a book or summary or article "deconstructing", I guess, Austrian economics? Sure. quote:Thomas Mayer has argued that the Austrian economists rejection of the scientific method, which employs positivism and empiricism in the development of (falsifiable) theories, invalidates Austrian methodology. Austrians argue that logical positivism cannot predict or explain human action and that empirical data itself is insufficient to describe economics which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify economic theory and that logical positivism is not the proper method of conducting economic science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology#Criticisms
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
It's very visible on the Internet. That creates the appearance that it's dominant. What's really going on is that they're only active on the Internet because they get laughed out of any other venue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I've noticed that D&D posters tend to dismiss Austrian economics pretty casually. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I figure since it's like the dominant philosophy these days I at least shouldn't dismiss it immediately. Does anyone have a book or summary or article "deconstructing", I guess, Austrian economics? The dude who blogs under the moniker "Lord Keynes" has roughly a zillion posts pulling at loose threads in Austrian School thought. Here are two compilation posts, each linking to some subset of said zillion: "Why the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is Wrong (in a Nutshell)" "My Posts Refuting Misesian Apriorism and Praxeology"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:It's hardly the dominant philosophy these days, what makes you think that? I don't know what economists are saying, but it seems to be most legislators' favorite, and the average cable-news intellectual on Facebook or blog comments uses a lot of hand-me-down ideas from it. I can't remember the last time I heard Keynes mentioned in any situation other than to disparage him (his defenders on D&D notwithstanding). But then, Dr. Arbitrary posted:It's very visible on the Internet. That creates the appearance that it's dominant. 
Time to read Zinn fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Time to read Zinn posted:I don't know what economists are saying, but it seems to be most legislators' favorite, and the average cable-news intellectual on Facebook or blog comments uses a lot of hand-me-down ideas from it. I can't remember the last time I heard Keynes mentioned in any situation other than to disparage him (his defenders on D&D notwithstanding). One other thing to keep in mind is that Austrian Economics and American Libertarian are pretty much linked hand in hand these days, which can give you at least an idea of the overall support for Austrian Economics. Its not precise, and there are republicans who believe in some of the worst parts of Austrian Economics without being libertarians, but its a start. Libertarians account for roughly 7% of the vote, unsurprisingly that 7% breaks down to be mostly white, affluent and/or young. As other posters have mentioned, this seems to be the top out for their support, but they cast a shadow well in excess of their actual size because they are loud as all hell about it. The internet is a very good breeding ground for Austrian Economics because the demographics of the internet tend to skew towards the same people who would support this belief, the young, white and affluent. Austrian Economics is also deceptively simple. Instead of a massive course of study that can take years to properly learn, full of things like natural monopolies, externalities and so forth, the basic rules of Austrian Economics can be learned in a day (just read Econ 101!). Voluntary exchange is the best, anything that interferes with voluntary exchange is bad, all of these things are true because my LOGIC shows it to be true. For many people this resonates with the world view they've known from childhood, which is that the free market was way better than socialist, communist Russia, and they buy in wholesale. The problem with Austrian School Economics is that it sounds good on its face, but is really just like alternative medicine. Everything about it has either not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
This guy doesn't call out Austrian Economics by name (well, he does call out an Austrian Economist, by his name), but his critique applies just as well to them: http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/yes-libertarians-really-are-lazy-marxists/
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It's very visible on the Internet. That creates the appearance that it's dominant. Much like how in D&D literal Stalinists roam around freely while they're as common as Third World Maoists in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Mans posted:Much like how in D&D literal Stalinists roam around freely while they're as common as Third World Maoists in real life. Yeah the most common economic philosophy is monetarism I think right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Were Austrian Economics to truly be dominant, we'd be living in a post-apocalyptic hellscape by now rather than just having a kinda crappy world economy. It's fundamentally unsuited to running anything, and that includes having any kind of profitable businesses!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Mans posted:Much like how in D&D literal Stalinists roam around freely while they're as common as Third World Maoists in real life. "Stalinist" doesn't mean anything. I mean, if you are using it to mean 'likes Stalin very much' then Russia would be half-Stalinist right now. There's tons of poo poo like this. It's not about Stalin. Well, it is, but not in the way you think. The "Stalinists" I know are also some of the most moral people I know. Their tolerance for injustice is extremely low. But they don't see the most authoritarian and oppressive elements of society in actions of the State, or in plain hierarchy, or in the evil CEO, or whatever. They see it in every capitalist structure and institution, to some or other extent. To them, millions of more children dying this year as compared to last year, from the effects of malnourishment and hunger is not a separate, independent problem from the capitalism that we experience. Neither is the massive alienation running rampant through the West, masquerading as 'anxiety' and 'stress'. Those all fall within the totality of global capitalism, and our influence, however little, is exerted upon it. To keep this system intact requires nothing more of you than to do your job in society, go to work. Modern, post-industrial capitalist life is absurd, stupid and alienating. Our mode of production creates death, destruction and poverty as a rule and it is unfixable except by changing the very mode of production. We can ameliorate conditions with violence or the threat of violence, but only temporarily. Then to add something provocative: even by the most banal utilitarian calculations, Stalin does not come close to either the numbers of death and misery caused by, let's say, the British industrial revolution (for one example, see the Bengal famines. yes, plural), nor does he come close to being able to produce a fraction of the misery that capitalism produces day in day out right at this very moment. The term you're looking for is orthodox Marxist-Leninist. And no, even back in LF, 90% of regulars were run of the mill social dems/liberals. The really knowledgeable M-Ls (Oligopsony, McCaine, German Joey, Mr. Crow, etc.) are all gone, and we only have a few left (Cahal, Aeolius I think his name is, MaterialConceptual, Cerebral Bore and a few others). Your post draws a parallel between libertarian economics posters and the 'Stalinists' named above. The analogy doesn't go more than skin deep. Their only similarity is that they post on forums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
"Marxist-Leninist" was a propaganda term coined by Stalin and Stalinists to claim continuation from Lenin. Using it today makes about as much sense as referring to Trotskyism as "Bolshevik-Leninism" (a similarly constructed term). Stalinism most definitely still exists - and no, it does not simply mean "approves of Stalin". It has split into a number of different tendencies and many formerly Stalinist parties have embraced Eurocommunism or even liberal reformism, but it's still around.
Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
I'm not dealing with anyone asking about this right now, but in the past I've spoken to racists who are insistent that black people had essentially no "real" civilization before the white man and colonialism came along. I know a bit about the historical African civilizations in the Northern and Eastern parts of Africa(Ethiopia and Egypt alone make it pretty hard to argue that Africa was really a "dark continent"), but if I'm arguing with someone about West Africa, and some historically-minded racists do make the distinction, I don't know poo poo. I was wondering if anyone here had anything to say about resources on the history of places like Ghana, Nigeria, Guinea, etc, or knew of any major nation states to crop up in that area. I'm not overly concerned with civilizations looking exactly like they did in Europe or Asia, but anything that might shut down a racist trying to make the case that black people are incapable of sophisticated self-administration would be great. Books are especially welcome because the more I think about it the more of a personal curiosity I develop about this region, if it is even one region.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
My personal favorite are the various Yoruban kingdoms like Ile-Ife because they were some seriously fantastic sculptors(Here's a PDF with some examples), but there were lots so it really shouldn't a big problem to find more like the Mailian empire. They tended not to keep written records as much as other empires tended to but the contemporary written records from Eurasian and North African travelers and the archaeological record leave no doubt that West Africa was plenty "civilized".
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:I'm not dealing with anyone asking about this right now, but in the past I've spoken to racists who are insistent that black people had essentially no "real" civilization before the white man and colonialism came along. I know a bit about the historical African civilizations in the Northern and Eastern parts of Africa(Ethiopia and Egypt alone make it pretty hard to argue that Africa was really a "dark continent"), but if I'm arguing with someone about West Africa, and some historically-minded racists do make the distinction, I don't know poo poo. I was wondering if anyone here had anything to say about resources on the history of places like Ghana, Nigeria, Guinea, etc, or knew of any major nation states to crop up in that area. I'm not overly concerned with civilizations looking exactly like they did in Europe or Asia, but anything that might shut down a racist trying to make the case that black people are incapable of sophisticated self-administration would be great. Books are especially welcome because the more I think about it the more of a personal curiosity I develop about this region, if it is even one region. From A People's History of the United States, Chapter 2 http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html quote:The African civilization was as advanced in its own way as that of Europe. In certain ways, it was more admirable; but it also included cruelties, hierarchical privilege, and the readiness to sacrifice human lives for religion or profit. It was a civilization of 100 million people, using iron implements and skilled in farming. It had large urban centers and remarkable achievements in weaving, ceramics, sculpture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:I'm not dealing with anyone asking about this right now, but in the past I've spoken to racists who are insistent that black people had essentially no "real" civilization before the white man and colonialism came along. I know a bit about the historical African civilizations in the Northern and Eastern parts of Africa(Ethiopia and Egypt alone make it pretty hard to argue that Africa was really a "dark continent"), but if I'm arguing with someone about West Africa, and some historically-minded racists do make the distinction, I don't know poo poo. I was wondering if anyone here had anything to say about resources on the history of places like Ghana, Nigeria, Guinea, etc, or knew of any major nation states to crop up in that area. I'm not overly concerned with civilizations looking exactly like they did in Europe or Asia, but anything that might shut down a racist trying to make the case that black people are incapable of sophisticated self-administration would be great. Books are especially welcome because the more I think about it the more of a personal curiosity I develop about this region, if it is even one region. Guns, Germs and Steel is a great book on the subject. The premise is that Eurasian domination arouse from geographic advantages and the military and political advantages that rose from this, rather then any genetic ones. Basically Eurasians had better food and animal sources for domestication. Its East-West orientation allowed for farming in different regions year round as well as easy access to trade allowing for food surpluses and division of labour into other pursuits. Innovations were shared, as were diseases resulting in immunities. Much of these advantages weren't shared in other areas of the world by geographic differences and lack of plant and animal resources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
A lot of "serious historians" (or people who play them on the internet) laugh at that book, and accuse it of being reductionist and oversimplified. Of course it is simplified, it's a popular history book! While there are some valid concerns about geographic determinism, Diamond makes some very good points overall and I agree it's worth a read. Edit: I can't disagree with you there, but I still think that (unlike Ferguson) it makes some arguments worth considering, even if only briefly  And I can see why you'd like Clark if you're all about individual agency playing a significant role in events, rather than economic or geographic factors. I happen to think it's a mix of both, driven significantly by resources and climate but not entirely or even mostly deterministic (unless you believe what we perceive as free-will is itself determinist, that's a different discussion) vvv
OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
There are plenty of popular history books that aren't oversimplified (Chris Clark's recent The Sleepwalkers on the origins of WWI is a great example). In Guns, Germs and Steel Diamond plays fast and loose with historical facts to make a point that basically boils down to a 19th-century vision of climatic determinism which seems to leave no room for actual human agency -- something Diamond himself realised, hence how he inverts the argument in Collapse (where societies aren't inherently determined by their environment, they choose whether or not to succeed or fail). I also think his treatment of e.g. East Asia is vaguely orientalist. But I'm (a) a specialist in history of ideas so I tend to be a bit antagonistic towards things that make it sound like the thoughts of human historical agents themselves don't actually matter and (b) my feeling is that Diamond/Ferguson-style macrohistory is a bit of a dead end anyway in terms of being inherently vastly oversimplifying to the point of being analytically useless, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:I'm not dealing with anyone asking about this right now, but in the past I've spoken to racists who are insistent that black people had essentially no "real" civilization before the white man and colonialism came along. I know a bit about the historical African civilizations in the Northern and Eastern parts of Africa(Ethiopia and Egypt alone make it pretty hard to argue that Africa was really a "dark continent"), but if I'm arguing with someone about West Africa, and some historically-minded racists do make the distinction, I don't know poo poo. I was wondering if anyone here had anything to say about resources on the history of places like Ghana, Nigeria, Guinea, etc, or knew of any major nation states to crop up in that area. I'm not overly concerned with civilizations looking exactly like they did in Europe or Asia, but anything that might shut down a racist trying to make the case that black people are incapable of sophisticated self-administration would be great. Books are especially welcome because the more I think about it the more of a personal curiosity I develop about this region, if it is even one region. If you're participating in casual conversation, you can bring up France's intervention in Mali, and the city of Timbuktu that was recaptured by French forces earlier this year: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/20/mali-literary-treasures-battle-survival. One of the intervention justifications that popped up was that Islamists were burning texts in Timbuktu libraries stretching all the way back to the 9th century. Regardless of how anyone feels about France's intervention, the fact that a major Western power publicly declared protection of the rich literary tradition of ancient Mali should shut down the 'Africa was uncultured' myth quick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Van5 posted:Yeah the most common economic philosophy is monetarism I think right? Monetarism is pretty popular here, although I think the implications are quite different from any form of communism or anarchism which also seem popular on D&D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Obsolete posted:From A People's History of the United States, Chapter 2 My historian friend just laughed at that and said "Don't read Howard Zinn, he's dumb and has no idea what he's talking about" and "Did he forget that the replacement for Rome was nomadic tribal leadership that felt like settling down?" EDIT: He's also saying that the examples cited so far (Mali, Egypt, etc) had what we'd consider to be Arabs in charge, not what a racist would consider "Black", and that most of southern Africa never actually did develop advanced societies until European intervention (though he attributes that to being dealt a lovely hand rather than being inferior somehow) Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:My historian friend just laughed at that and said "Don't read Howard Zinn, he's dumb and has no idea what he's talking about" and "Did he forget that the replacement for Rome was nomadic tribal leadership that felt like settling down?" Since we're in the help each other debate and discuss thread, could you ask your historian friend for some accessible alternatives?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Howard Zinn's whole point is not, "this is history" but "this is how poor people experienced history." He's not out to provide a meticulously researched and precise account (though he does for the most part) but to counteract millennia of history being written by, and about, and for the benefit of rich people. Your historian friend is not a good historian if he doesn't get that, or understand that previous accounts were so biased in the other direction for so long that it needs a forceful challenge and questioning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Since we're in the help each other debate and discuss thread, could you ask your historian friend for some accessible alternatives? I asked him, though I really posted his response to hear what you guys thought of it since he has a degree in history and is going to go for his doctorate and I don't have much past a few gen ed courses so I can't really challenge any of his statements beyond cursory google searches, so I'd like some help debating and discussing if he's wrong 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Howard Zinn's whole point is not, "this is history" but "this is how poor people experienced history." He's not out to provide a meticulously researched and precise account (though he does for the most part) but to counteract millennia of history being written by, and about, and for the benefit of rich people. Your historian friend is not a good historian if he doesn't get that, or understand that previous accounts were so biased in the other direction for so long that it needs a forceful challenge and questioning. His response (paraphrased): That doesn't explain away Zinn's faux-history writing. The reason rich people are the focus of history is because poor people don't have the means/time to write. There isn't an alternative to the rich people's view since poor people didn't write history so we cant get their view on these things. Howard Zinn is just writing what he wants and claims that's what poor people thought. And now he left for work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:22
|
|