Rezultati pronađeni: 6
Good addition
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Loving it
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Fortunate for me theres a nearby local Applebees only 1,741.3 km from my home of residence.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Didn't know atwar had streaming potential
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
20.11.2019 u The War on History
I like to preface my post that I'm an extreme free speech advocate. I have a tremendous respect for the focal voices of the free speech movement in western academia (Jorden Peterson, Bret Weinstein, and the like). No one should have the ability to strip a fellow person of their ability to discuss issues no matter how the speech could be considered offensive or harmful to others. For it is within our ability as a society through discourse to arrive at proper conclusions and disprove others through flaws within their own logic. Now that's been prefaced I would like to share the common ground that we hold before I dive into where I believe we may diverge.

I do agree with an argument posed within your third paragraph. The passing of judgement over moral character flaws no matter how egregious does not dismiss the accomplishments of the person in question. Oj Simpson (Don't think this will that controversial) despite being found innocent by the criminal court is found guilty by that of larger society. It would simply be an inaccurate statement to say that Oj is not talented athlete or that he should be credited for his accomplishments despite his violation of well established moral tenant of murdering a fellow person. Same would argument would go for Franklin D. Roosevelt violation of a moral tenant of cheating on his wedful partner. His black mark on this character does not take away from his contribution as a leader during the Great Depression and World War 2. We cannot simply deny these characters a spot on the history books for they have left their mark on our society They should be credited for credit is due. These examples extend to Andrew Jackson, Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and men of the like who have had either positive contribution or influence upon human history despite flaws in their characters. Morals are always in a state of flux and change as their societies do as well. Why not be moraling acceptable in today's day and age they within their legal means within their day of age.
However I break with your argument is on the idea that the left has embarked itself on a "War on History" as its been coined.
Much like any and all other fields of academia, we should ourself put fourth a hypothesis that best captures of the data that we have the time. Test said hypothesis to see if it accurately captures and is then reinforced by our data set. We work off said theory until new data arises or a more accurate theory arises. We ourself must be analytical to arrive at "Truth". History, I believe operates in the same way. For history itself does change over time in contrary to what you've written in your piece. For it is our understanding of history that makes up the composition of history. I will provide an example written by someone way more well articulated then me and that is Nadia Abu El Haj's 1996 "Translating Truths". (If you can't find a free PDF online and wish to take a read please send me your email and I will send you a PDF file that I got from a class 3 years ago.) Nadia Abu El Haj puts forward an argument that the nation of Israel has undermined palestian history in order to provide justification for a jewish state by providing historical evidence of a jewish state in through archaeology work within the nation. Her point summarized are that Israel directs funding for sites towards one who seek to to research the jewish periods mentioned in the bible. At the same time providing very little funding to ones who seek to research other time periods which would have stronger evidence of other periods (Arabic, Ottomon, etc). This is even goes to points of at archaeology digging digging straight towards jewish time periods destroying higher layers of Arabc nature. This can even go as far of radical leaps despite the evidence to back up claims that support a national narrative (Jerusalem's Burnt house's women and the spear). These works build to make an overriding historical narrative that's not entirely accurate to support a particular narrative and dismiss another.
Of course what I've been describing is framing. It's easy to use certain pieces of historical fact to create a historical narrative. You can derive human history just as easy in marxist, liberalism, or that of realism. Throughout the ages and even in modern day we constantly debate and reframe our narratives. We need to have the ability to be analytical and re-evaluate historical narratives in order to refine our ideas and in the end find truth. We should be quick to champion success of our forth fathers as we should be able to fault them. For example we should put stock and praise Thomas Jefferson/ other founding fathers for the establishment of our constitution and declaration of independence who ideas were revolutionary at the time. However but this does not leave them immune to criticism. No one is unfathomable. Leaving out facts in order to serve a larger narrative would lead to dishonesty. We need to have healthy discussions on history and provide multiple points of view for each of historical evidence that they are constructed on. We cannot dispute their efforts and recognize their work that formed our modern society. But in other discussions such as race relations we should be able to state their faults. For it is not war on history but instead a search for the truth of history. Agree or disagree. It's an argument worth having.

That's my quick take on everything. Like your post man. Well written and I agree with a lot. I don't like modern left movements in the USA. I like hearing all sides and calling bullshit on everyone. Republicans and Dems alike. I'm a libertiran if you were curious.

Hopefully my response could be understood. My quick on the issues are posted below.
Confederate Flags: (Government buildings should not fly them. Don't support a time of insurrection against the federal governmentthat led to 500,000 americans death. But hell the fuck yeah to flying them yourslef at your house, truck, etc. Its your right. They mean southern pride to me. Not much else. I like them but down own any)
Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus: (Did a lot and should be recognized.Do have faults that can be talked about. But they are important for our nation's history and did a lot for our modern foundations)
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
Im curious in how the one will differ from the original base map? Are you going to adjust income to 2019 distribution/political realities like Crimea being attached to Russia south?
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
atWar

About Us
Contact

Privatnost | Uslovi korištenja | Baneri | Partners

Copyright © 2024 atWar. All rights reserved.

Pridružite nam se

Proširi riječ