REAL history?

[Tedly Nightshade]

For you Phait, I recommend doing some more interviews! Talk to the oldest people you can find. If nothing else it will mean a lot to them.

[realtrance]

The frequent truism "history is written by the victors" _used_ to be asserted as a reason to read history skeptically. Now it is simply used to make people more susceptible to the ploys of propaganda and advertising, as without the slightest bit of grounding in history, it's very easy for you to be swayed by whatever opinion of the moment serves the powers that be. Skepticism about historical writing has been turned, in the hands of the rich and powerful, into a means of disabling all threats to the point of view they wish to purvey for the sake of their retention of power.

 

Skepticism conducted scientifically can be knowledge-developing, not idiocy-enforcing. Skepticism is productive when it leads to active questioning of an assertion and pursuit of more, and more varied, information and analysis to assess the objectivity of an assertion.

 

There are skeptical histories, as well as "histories written by the victors." Howard Zinn's American historical writings are eye-opening, for instance.

 

A little further afield, I highly recommend a leisurely, summertime read of Fernand Braudel's "Wheels of Commerce." It's a wonderful history of pre-modern European culture and economy, that is neither preachy nor propagandist in intent, and represents one of the richer schools of historical perspective developed in our lifetimes (a French history writing which is interested in the development of history out of what evidence can be found of the daily lives of the people of the time, rather than just from the memoirs of war and exploit).

 

There's a huge amount of great stuff to read in history. You can tell "official" histories because they immediately put you to sleep, and serve little real purpose other than to make people feel comfortable about their existing convictions. Interesting histories are as exciting and thought-provoking to read as any novel. I highly recommend them.

 

Best,

 

rt

[Super 8]

Originally posted by Phait:

I don't vote because my vote doesn't matter. Electoral college and all.

If we've learned anything from the last two elections, it's that EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

True, that we do not live under a direct democracy. The Electoral college does choose the President, but WE choose the Electoral college. This is the way it was intended to work, and it DOES work IF people participate.

 

Now, it also comes to this - I don't trust anybody in government to do what they say, and I don't understand the government enough to know half of what they talk about or do.

The second part of your sentence explains the first part. You don't trust them because you don't understand enough about them.

 

I have heard from many respected journalists who have stated that by-and-large, most politicians DO CARE about their country and it's people, and are trying to serve as best they can.

 

Learning about who you can trust requires some time and effort, but I do not believe one has to devote their life to the study of history and politics in order to make informed choices.

 

Maybe someone will chime in with some places one can get good non-biased information on the politicians and the issues of the day.

 

Are there issues in this country that I have an opinion against or for? Absoutely. Does that mean I should vote for who shares my ideals? I don't know.

As opposed to what? Voting for someone who doesn't share your ideals? The answer to this question seems obvious.

 

But what I meant by saying I'm a 22 year old kid is I'm still young, and still learning, and am not one who thinks he has a handle on everything.

I can respect that.

I don't think it changes with age though. I'm more experienced than when I was 22, and I've learned a few more things, but not much has really changed. Maybe we can get a few people from different age groups to chime in on that one.

 

I used to think there would be a point when I knew I was a "grownup". That point never came. No rite of passage. Sure, I'm older, and I suppose I act like a grownup, but I don't really feel any different than when I was 18 or 22. Yet, I'm not calling myself a "kid", because I'm not a kid.

 

So, I guess I'm wondering at what point you are going to consider yourself an adult, and no longer a kid?

[Tedly Nightshade]

Originally posted by Super 8:

I have heard from many respected journalists who have stated that by-and-large, most politicians DO CARE about their country and it's people, and are trying to serve as best they can.

anyone who says that is NOT a reputable source! Nothing could be further from the truth. They're trying to get elected and stay that way, period.

 

So, I guess I'm wondering at what point you are going to consider yourself an adult, and no longer a kid?

My guess- when being an adult begins to seem like a worthwhile thing to be?

 

I'm an adult mostly be default. It's never something I've embraced or aspired to. But at 35, I have to acknowledge that the real kids have something I have lost.

[Phait]

--

[Phait]

I think Super is really asking when I'll adopt a less non-chalant attitude and actually give a fuck. To answer that, I don't know when. But at least I'm not ruling it out.

[Super 8]

Originally posted by Tedly Nightshade:

anyone who says that is NOT a reputable source! Nothing could be further from the truth. They're trying to get elected and stay that way, period.

Ted, I think you may be a little too cynical.

I'll leave it at that.