Jump to content

Rewriting History -


observer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Goonerman - the trouble is that post-modernism excludes the historical study of religion - too bad they took out the books in the Bible written by women? I do not wish to quibble with you over this because the truth is we will never agree. I see the world completely different from you but I respect your right to think the way you do - please respect mine.

 

Peter, it isn't right that - the Japanese ignore the atrocities that they did during WW2?

 

Or is it right that all American films take the credit for English successes?

 

History is written by people and that is the flaw - impossible for some to be objective(well most.

We celebrated Columbus Day here today - WHY??? He did not discover America, we know this but they still follow the tradition. Man is flawed so history is flawed too.

 

Rant over!

 

[ 09.10.2007, 01:01: Message edited by: Mary ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think all topics are up for grabs. That's why I have a large collection of books written by my opponents, which shows my respect is enormous- but I demolish them as I read them! :D:D Au contraire...! In that case, the Statue of Liberty's severe facial expression could be misinterpreted as something less benign that it actually is. (I'm back from NY by the way.)

 

The wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy.

 

They took out books written by women from the Bible?

 

Had this been true I would have known about it, having studied Canon issues. :D

 

Nah, no books were taken away from the Bible, having done Canonical history I know exactly how the Bible was compiled and by whom. And when. No conspiracy, just more post-modern paranoia.

 

The women's stamp on the Bible is all over the place. The feminine fingerprints are all over the place and the men who wrote the Bible acknowledged it freely and gratefully.

 

PS Post-modernism is a betrayal of the study of History.

 

[ 09.10.2007, 15:18: Message edited by: GUNNER ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even on the women who contributed enormously to the Bible? Come on!!!!

 

You are supposed to be a history teacher. You cannot make assertions on any topic without backing it up.

 

Do you teach subjectiveness to your students? I doubt it.

 

Let's see the consequences of post-modernism.

 

We know for sure that we will never know. But if we know, then we cannot not know, can we? It's an absurd and completely illogical position which ties in with the quote:

 

"All History Is Bunk."

 

Some people have said to me in trying to evade my points for example about Jesus that you cannot know anything about History. Some have said you cannot know anything about anything. One couple in York got so desperate that they argued blind that they didn't even exist, none of us did!

 

And, completely separately from Jesus, let's switch to Augustus, Nero and all of them. When I was 16 when people learned about my interest in the Roman Emperors, they reacted in a similar manner. They claimed that History or any objective knowledge was non-existent and useless. That was because they didn't see it happen. They weren't there. They argued, "You cannot know anything about History."

 

Plus I had a long debate with my metalwork teacher who said that ancient historians were totally unreliable and biased and wrong about everything, and that therefore nothing, absolutely nothing about ancient history, about the Roman Emperors, can be known. But I held my own.

 

Post-modernism has no place in History. It is the antithesis and sworn enemy of Historical study or any kind of epistemology. It is a cancer that is undermining Western society. It stifles and weakens constructive discussion. It attacks meaning and solid interpretation.

 

This is where it leads to. Deconstructionism. Since the 1960s, intellectuals, many of whom were fuelled by drugs, not least LSD, promoted the view of relativism. There was no meaning in the text. There is no meaning in meaning. Or in language. The author's intention and meaning does not matter. Only the subjective view of the reader matters. We do not know, cannot know, and know for sure that we cannot know or ever know, and we know this for sure, all views are right, and don't you dare contradict me you intolerant twerp or I will declare you intolerant and dangerously dogmatic, you who wants objective truth you dangerous crusading dogmatist, as we know all views are right and we are right and you are wrong for saying there is a right and wrong view, for we know that we cannot know!

:D

 

It's right for you but not for me, I am tolerant and don't you dare say you are right!

 

Consider the parable of the elephant. Dawkins loves this one. Religious people are like blind men who are sent to inspect an elephant. One blind man feels the leg and assumes it is a tree. Another feels the tail, and says it is a rope. Another feels the trunk and says it is a fire-hose. Another feels the bottom and says it is a rock. But they are all wrong.

 

A lot of relativists agree, or say, well, we cannot know, so there is truth in everyone's statement.

 

But an elephant is still an elephant nonetheless.

 

Because what it is is not dependent on the views of the blind men nor of the parable teller. The parable teller is arrogant and foolish as they assume they know what the elephant is, even though the fundamentalist type elephant story teller like Dawkins assumes that he knows what the elephant is even though the parable is about people not knowing. Also, the original Buddhist teachers used this to say there was no absolute truth and nothing was real. All views were to be tolerated. Buddha himself made matters worse by teaching that a cart cannot be a cart. After all, he taught, wheels aren't carts. Horse harnesses aren't carts. The main body of the cart is not a cart without wheels. And the spokes and hub and rim of a wheel by themselves aren't wheels. And a cart has to be driven by a horse in order to function as a cart. And a horse isn't a cart, not even when he is pulling one. Logical conclusion: there is no such thing as a cart. There is no such thing as ANYTHING.

 

Nevertheless the parable of the elephant really teaches that the blind men were really wrong. That there is an objective reality, the elephant. A more careful blind man could work out that it is an elephant by carefully inspecting the whole thing. The elephant could assist by trumpeting, and by scooting the blind men with water. Someone could shout, feel the whole creature, you idiots! Or at least try.

 

Or prompt them.

 

But the post-modernist would encourage the blind men to stick with their views that the elephant is a fire-hose, a rock, a tree, etc., and angrily call the blind man who was more thorough an arrogant bigot. Or shrug their shoulders.

 

Therefore it is not very consistent to say that History should leave no stone unturned and leave any topic out or give it a different set of rules.

 

Post-modernism is a defeatist perspective and absurd. It is a fundamental threat to History or any kind of research.

 

[ 09.10.2007, 23:07: Message edited by: GUNNER ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, Obbs, I would think you are modern, not post-modern. :D

 

But my jetlag coming home from New York makes me want to sleep, and sleep, and sleep.

 

I'm so sorry so many have such poor attention spans. The consequences of post-modernism and the inability to cope beyond soundbites! :P

 

Post-modernism is creating a civilisation of idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a classic example of the kind of crap post-modernism causes:

 

See:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=274

 

The New Humanist Manifesto

 

1. There are lots and lots of atheists and agnostics and people who really don't know really what to think, or why.

 

2. We need to build a movement just for them.

 

3. And a big table.

 

4. Atheists and agnostics really need to discover the wisdom of the Buddha...

 

5. And Rainbow Love.

 

6. The problem with the Old Humanism is that it is Old.

 

7. The New Humanism is New. This is fundamental.

 

8. In the new humanism, everything will be tentative. For example, if someone asks us, "What do you stand for?" we must not take offense. We must say: "Why is that important to you?"

 

9. Similarly, if an Anti-New Humanist attacks us, we must say, "Why are you attacking us? Have some green tea and relax."

 

10. The New Humanism is hopeful. The Old Humanism was critical. It is not our job to be critical. It is our job to be hopeful.

 

11. We are religious atheists. We believe that there is no God, and that Jews are his chosen people. Likewise, the Chinese, Inuit, Low-achievers, etc.

 

12. There is no contradiction in this. New Humanists have risen above contradiction to the All Embracing.

 

13. And Rainbow Love.

 

14. Everything is Mood.

 

15. New Humanists have no scripture.

 

16. New Humanists have a Project: their Project is to re-write Woody Allen's "Life is Worth Living" speech in Manhattan.

 

17. Start Now.

 

18. The New Humanism is not a fad. It is not a cult. It is not a religion. If you are pressed, say "It is not anything in particular."

 

19. Men are equal to women, All people of the earth should have equal rights. Everyone. There should not be discrimination based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation or class. Democracy is better than slavery. Assault weapons should be banned. The New Humanism is the first movement in world history to teach this doctrine.

 

20. In re-writing Woody Allen's speech, replace "Tracy's face" with "that special someone," Otherwise, do what you want.

 

21. America is a great country. It may not be the greatest country. This is fundamental.

 

22. Truth is negotiation, often confused with correspondence to facts.

 

23. Facts have two sides, your side and my side.

 

24.. Everything is Narrative.

 

25. And Rainbow Love.

 

The New Humanism conference was held in April 2007 at Harvard.

 

R. Joseph Hoffmann, PhD

Senior Vice President,

Director of the CFI Institute

Center for Inquiry International

 

:roll: :biggrinbounce:

 

The articles which crack me up the most are:

 

8. In the new humanism, everything will be tentative. For example, if someone asks us, "What do you stand for?" we must not take offense. We must say: "Why is that important to you?"

 

11. We are religious atheists. We believe that there is no God, and that Jews are his chosen people. Likewise, the Chinese, Inuit, Low-achievers, etc.

 

12. There is no contradiction in this. New Humanists have risen above contradiction to the All Embracing.

 

22. Truth is negotiation, often confused with correspondence to facts.

 

23. Facts have two sides, your side and my side.

 

The reference to everything being narrative, that is classic deconstructionalism. Absolute lunacy! :redmad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side issue, I reckon that the claimed omitted books from the Bible written by women are probably the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. But given that the Muratorian Canon citing the 27 books of the New Testament that we know, which dates from around AD 170, and that those two Gospels were written as Gnostic speculative tracts in the 3rd century, and so nothing at all to do with either Mary, and of no historical value, and given the sexism within Gnosticism, they were most likely written by men anyway, my verdict is:

 

Nice try, but no cigar. :wink:

 

Not unlike the attempt to give Turks the credit for beating the Spanish Armada. The main culprit, apart from Drake's fireships, of the defeat of Spain in 1588, was the weather!

 

Now if it was something like a study on how there was an extensive Black community in London and Liverpool during the reign of Elizabeth I, leading to the Queen issuing racist legislation against them 'taking over', as in the book 'Black England', now that is good revisionism which is far more sensible. But that isn't really re-writing History, it was always there, it just needs a little more noticing. (The Black community in Toxteth, for example, pre-dates the Carribean emigration to the UK in the 1950s by centuries, and indeed, Shakespeare had a gay lover in the 1590s who was a black actor working in London. (Or should I say Southwark, as Southwark was a separate town in those days.)

 

[ 10.10.2007, 19:45: Message edited by: GUNNER ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone forgot what this thread was about: Trevor Phillips (Chair of the Race Relations Commission) is suggesting we rewrite history to show the contribution made to British History by other Nations and Ethnicities. He cites as an example; the contribution made by the Turks in fighting the Spanish Armada. Well I've read a few books, but I don't recollect any Turkish ships of crews sailing with Drake - does anyone know the truth?

For further understanding:

Trevor Phillips, has asked for British history to be rewritten to take into account the contribution of Turks and Muslims.

 

Quoting the example of Turks holding up the Spanish Armada at the request of Queen Elizabeth I, he said the national story should be retold to make it ?truly inclusive?.

 

Speaking at a Labour Fringe meeting yesterday he said: "Part of the job of heritage is to cognitize - give physical existence - to that national story.

 

"And if there is a practical thing, I would say it is that we need to revisit some parts of that national heritage, to rewrite some parts of that national story to tell the whole story.?

 

He went on: "When we talk about the Armada it's only now that we are beginning to realise that part of it is Muslims. It was the Turks who saved us, because they held up the Armada at the request of Elizabeth I.?

 

Mr Phillips said recognising these contributions can create a shared identity which will bind us together ?in the stormy times that we are going to have in the next century.?

 

[ 14.10.2007, 22:01: Message edited by: Mary ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...