If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Oliver Stone defends his new Showtime series, "The Completely Made Up History Of America"   (rawstory.com) divider line 106
    More: Fail, Oliver Stone, Showtime  
•       •       •

5943 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Nov 2012 at 9:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-19 08:33:10 AM  
I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"
 
2012-11-19 09:24:53 AM  

Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"


Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.
 
2012-11-19 09:37:14 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone
takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake
MAKES A LOT OF CRAP.


ftfy
 
2012-11-19 09:42:53 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.


This seems to be more of a 'documentary' than a dramatization of a historical event. Would he do the same for this format?

I'm interested in taking a look, but the narrator (who may be Stone himself?) is really not very good. The voice doesn't really help me maintain interest.
 
2012-11-19 09:52:05 AM  
I know, Oliver Stone is SO FULL OF shiat because political conspiracies never happen.

Your whole world shows it (as proof).
 
2012-11-19 09:55:36 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone
takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake
MAKES A LOT OF CRAP.

ftfy


I agree. I hated The Doors. A more accurate biopic would have been welcome. What a waste of Val Kilmer - he was born to play that role, it should have been in a better movie.
 
2012-11-19 10:07:12 AM  

heinrich66: I know, Oliver Stone is SO FULL OF shiat because political conspiracies never happen.

Your whole world shows it (as proof).


Political conspiracies happen. Just not the ones Oliver Stone thinks. He's pretty much an indicator that a conspiracy is crap if he believes it.
 
2012-11-19 10:09:32 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.


JFK is almost entirely fictionalized, considering that Jim Garrison was a mob bagman who engaged in
his shenanigans to divert attention from his massive corruption and bribe taking.
 
2012-11-19 10:11:21 AM  

dittybopper: heinrich66: I know, Oliver Stone is SO FULL OF shiat because political conspiracies never happen.

Your whole world shows it (as proof).

Political conspiracies happen. Just not the ones Oliver Stone thinks. He's pretty much an indicator that a conspiracy is crap if he believes it.


t2.gstatic.com

You don't buy the whole 'gay people killed Kennedy' theory?
 
2012-11-19 10:33:15 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.

JFK is almost entirely fictionalized, considering that Jim Garrison was a mob bagman who engaged in
his shenanigans to divert attention from his massive corruption and bribe taking.


Did you just compound a conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory??

This is right up there with "Of *course* we went to the moon... that's where we monitor the aliens!"
 
2012-11-19 10:40:42 AM  

ryarger: DjangoStonereaver: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.

JFK is almost entirely fictionalized, considering that Jim Garrison was a mob bagman who engaged in
his shenanigans to divert attention from his massive corruption and bribe taking.

Did you just compound a conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory??

This is right up there with "Of *course* we went to the moon... that's where we monitor the aliens!"


What do you mean monitor the aliens. We send them episodes of their hit show Earth. You know, the one where they placed multiple species on our planet and watch our world develop for entertainment. There is a TV broadcasting station on the dark side of the moon.
 
2012-11-19 10:56:37 AM  
If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

As someone who likes history without the oppressor's narrative (DIAF, Robert Leckie!), this Oliver Stone stuff is little more than sensationalism.
 
2012-11-19 11:02:20 AM  
Oliver Stone sounds just like many college professors. Really. Just make shiat up and teach it as fact.

JFK was an entertaining film. The crazy about it was most of the entertainment.

Val Kilmer was Jim Morrison. Too bad they didn't do much with it.
 
2012-11-19 11:03:47 AM  

barneyfifesbullet: Oliver Stone sounds just like many college professors. Really. Just make shiat up and teach it as fact.

JFK was an entertaining film. The crazy about it was most of the entertainment.

Val Kilmer was Jim Morrison. Too bad they didn't do much with it.


I have yet to meet any college instructors of professors who do this. Just because they say it and you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it was made up. You just had a hard time understanding a viewpoint that challenged your perspective.
 
2012-11-19 11:07:52 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: barneyfifesbullet: Oliver Stone sounds just like many college professors. Really. Just make shiat up and teach it as fact.

JFK was an entertaining film. The crazy about it was most of the entertainment.

Val Kilmer was Jim Morrison. Too bad they didn't do much with it.

I have yet to meet any college instructors of professors who do this. Just because they say it and you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it was made up. You just had a hard time understanding a viewpoint that challenged your perspective.


I have met several of these. They are out there. And they do more harm then good.
 
2012-11-19 11:08:16 AM  

ryarger: DjangoStonereaver: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.

JFK is almost entirely fictionalized, considering that Jim Garrison was a mob bagman who engaged in
his shenanigans to divert attention from his massive corruption and bribe taking.

Did you just compound a conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory??

This is right up there with "Of *course* we went to the moon... that's where we monitor the aliens!"


Garrison was a nut, pure and simple.

And either Stone knows it and doesn't care, or more likely never cared to investigate the veracity of
Mr. Garrison's wild conspiracy theories, since to Stone's mind if you're against the US Government
you're automatically on the moral high ground.
 
2012-11-19 11:09:20 AM  
A 50 word "article" with an embedded Youtube video?

This is journalism now a days?
 
2012-11-19 11:13:16 AM  

yves0010: I have met several of these. They are out there. And they do more harm then good.


I've had some in college, but mostly in courses like Philosophy (which I took as easy electives) which really isn't going to hurt anybody.

I mean, seriously; feel free to install Conservative Randroids in their place, I really won't care. It's F*CKING PHILOSOPHY.
 
2012-11-19 11:14:50 AM  
That guy has a crazy head.
 
2012-11-19 11:17:52 AM  

yves0010: What do you mean monitor the aliens. We send them episodes of their hit show


Single Female Lawyer?
 
2012-11-19 11:21:54 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.


Although it is an entertaining read, I would not characterize Zinn as unbiased.

/or even that accurate
 
2012-11-19 11:24:00 AM  

Orgasmatron138: Haliburton Cummings: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone
takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake
MAKES A LOT OF CRAP.

ftfy

I agree. I hated The Doors. A more accurate biopic would have been welcome. What a waste of Val Kilmer - he was born to play that role, it should have been in a better movie.


I've got it: nudity!
 
2012-11-19 11:25:39 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

Although it is an entertaining read, I would not characterize Zinn as unbiased.

/or even that accurate


Yeah.

By definition, the "perspective of the oppressed" is biased.
 
2012-11-19 11:26:23 AM  

yves0010: whizbangthedirtfarmer: barneyfifesbullet: Oliver Stone sounds just like many college professors. Really. Just make shiat up and teach it as fact.

JFK was an entertaining film. The crazy about it was most of the entertainment.

Val Kilmer was Jim Morrison. Too bad they didn't do much with it.

I have yet to meet any college instructors of professors who do this. Just because they say it and you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it was made up. You just had a hard time understanding a viewpoint that challenged your perspective.

I have met several of these. They are out there. And they do more harm then good.


The only "brush" I had as a student was an economics professor who had a boner for Reaganomics. That said, he never said it was right or better. Most of my students always ask me things like "who are you going to vote for?" or just general political questions. I tell them that, morally, I can't stump in front of them. We can discuss issues and offer opinions, but don't look to me for the answers.

/always gives an opening day speech that if anyone starts a sentence with "I heard on the internet," they will receive summary smackdown
 
2012-11-19 11:26:45 AM  

ArkAngel: Orgasmatron138: Haliburton Cummings: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone
takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake
MAKES A LOT OF CRAP.

ftfy

I agree. I hated The Doors. A more accurate biopic would have been welcome. What a waste of Val Kilmer - he was born to play that role, it should have been in a better movie.

I've got it: nudity!


Or just let Wes Studi go after Val Kilmer for real.
 
2012-11-19 11:28:51 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: /always gives an opening day speech that if anyone starts a sentence with "I heard on the internet," they will receive summary smackdown


I heard that about you on the internet.
 
2012-11-19 11:33:06 AM  

Killer Cars: yves0010: I have met several of these. They are out there. And they do more harm then good.

I've had some in college, but mostly in courses like Philosophy (which I took as easy electives) which really isn't going to hurt anybody.

I mean, seriously; feel free to install Conservative Randroids in their place, I really won't care. It's F*CKING PHILOSOPHY.


Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas. The other two were technical writing classes where there was no room for political discussion.

Now the best "political" class I had was my Micro Economics class. The professor taught both sides and we all got a feel for how each side viewed the economy. The test were not based on politics either. Just facts and terms we learned from the class as well as scenarios that we had to write about. I really loved that class.
 
2012-11-19 11:38:38 AM  
I watch a part of the first one last week, and it seemed like pretty standard history, except for Stone describing Stalin's forced removal of entire ethnic groups to Siberia and Kazakhstan as an "evacuation."
 
2012-11-19 11:43:21 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: yves0010: whizbangthedirtfarmer: barneyfifesbullet: Oliver Stone sounds just like many college professors. Really. Just make shiat up and teach it as fact.

JFK was an entertaining film. The crazy about it was most of the entertainment.

Val Kilmer was Jim Morrison. Too bad they didn't do much with it.

I have yet to meet any college instructors of professors who do this. Just because they say it and you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean it was made up. You just had a hard time understanding a viewpoint that challenged your perspective.

I have met several of these. They are out there. And they do more harm then good.

The only "brush" I had as a student was an economics professor who had a boner for Reaganomics. That said, he never said it was right or better. Most of my students always ask me things like "who are you going to vote for?" or just general political questions. I tell them that, morally, I can't stump in front of them. We can discuss issues and offer opinions, but don't look to me for the answers.

/always gives an opening day speech that if anyone starts a sentence with "I heard on the internet," they will receive summary smackdown


I am one of the few that, though I am Conservative at heart with my political views, I had anyone teaching politics in class unless it is a political class. That means English, Sociology, Science, Computer classes and all the rest should be free from political discussion unless relevant to said lecture. I can see where an English or Sociology class can have political concepts, but they need to share them equally with the other views as well.

I see that the best way to argue something is to know the entire story. So if you are a Liberal, you should always study Conservative politics and the same goes for Conservatives. Best place to do that is in a class room while on certain subject like Economics or Political Sciences.
 
2012-11-19 11:43:57 AM  

yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.


What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.
 
2012-11-19 11:48:36 AM  

dittybopper: yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.

What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.


I know. Seems like a trend to me. I think I have written 5 bad reviews about professors I had. Three of them were those English professors on the grounds of wanting to take an English class, not a political science class.

And yes, I know I have had a unique experience. But it does happen.
 
2012-11-19 11:48:45 AM  

ArkAngel: Orgasmatron138: Haliburton Cummings: Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone
takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake
MAKES A LOT OF CRAP.

ftfy

I agree. I hated The Doors. A more accurate biopic would have been welcome. What a waste of Val Kilmer - he was born to play that role, it should have been in a better movie.

I've got it: nudity!


Chris Knight and Doc Holliday were great roles, but there was something absolutely haunting about the way Kilmer played Morrison.
 
2012-11-19 12:09:16 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

Although it is an entertaining read, I would not characterize Zinn as unbiased.

/or even that accurate


I'd go with the Oxford History of the United States.
 
2012-11-19 12:18:44 PM  

yves0010: Now the best "political" class I had was my Micro Economics class. The professor taught both sides and we all got a feel for how each side viewed the economy. The test were not based on politics either. Just facts and terms we learned from the class as well as scenarios that we had to write about. I really loved that class.


One of the electives I took in college was I believe called "Social and Political Philosophy" taught by someone who had recently ran for governor as a Republican. Some of us going into it were grumbling about what to expect (not surprisingly most of the class including myself had a liberal bent), but he was one of the best professors I had; truly open-minded, let class discussion meander in wild directions and only gently nudging us back "on-script". Really, really cool guy.

/liberal.
 
2012-11-19 12:21:41 PM  
Should add I actually majored in Economics, so politics did enter a lot of class debates too in that, but largely the Econ professors I had didn't interject their own opinions much.
 
2012-11-19 12:26:10 PM  

yves0010: dittybopper: yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.

What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.

I know. Seems like a trend to me. I think I have written 5 bad reviews about professors I had. Three of them were those English professors on the grounds of wanting to take an English class, not a political science class.

And yes, I know I have had a unique experience. But it does happen.


I think a part of that is that many rural students (at least where I'm from) tend to be completely underexposed to other cultures in general. I know when I speak about gay or transgender authors or African American literature, I must sound like a raving liberal, but it's what I have to do to fairly depict the struggles of particular group of people in less than a week or so. It's not politicking at all, but I find myself REALLY having to close significant gaps in knowledge.
 
2012-11-19 12:35:58 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: yves0010: dittybopper: yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.

What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.

I know. Seems like a trend to me. I think I have written 5 bad reviews about professors I had. Three of them were those English professors on the grounds of wanting to take an English class, not a political science class.

And yes, I know I have had a unique experience. But it does happen.

I think a part of that is that many rural students (at least where I'm from) tend to be completely underexposed to other cultures in general. I know when I speak about gay or transgender authors or African American literature, I must sound like a raving liberal, but it's what I have to do to fairly depict the struggles of particular group of people in less than a week or so. It's not politicking at all, but I find myself REALLY having to close significant gaps in knowledge.


One of my classes, when politics was talked about, was not from a literary point of view but was actual politics. It had nothing to do with the class. Just him going off on a political tangent about politics. That kind of talk is what I had to deal with. Now there are ways to go into "sensitive" (I use that world cause there are few groups that don't like the idea) topics but that is what I would think be actual class material. Covering authors, personal and inspirational background, is important.
 
2012-11-19 12:38:37 PM  

Killer Cars: yves0010: Now the best "political" class I had was my Micro Economics class. The professor taught both sides and we all got a feel for how each side viewed the economy. The test were not based on politics either. Just facts and terms we learned from the class as well as scenarios that we had to write about. I really loved that class.

One of the electives I took in college was I believe called "Social and Political Philosophy" taught by someone who had recently ran for governor as a Republican. Some of us going into it were grumbling about what to expect (not surprisingly most of the class including myself had a liberal bent), but he was one of the best professors I had; truly open-minded, let class discussion meander in wild directions and only gently nudging us back "on-script". Really, really cool guy.

/liberal.


That was how my sociology class was. That was my favorite class of all time. Though we never really talked about politics. The class was built around his lecture unless someone wanted to debate a point. Then it became an open debate class in which we all got a great concept of what the lecture was about. Heck, the professor dared us day 1 to prove him wrong or challenge him.
 
2012-11-19 12:41:55 PM  

yves0010: whizbangthedirtfarmer: yves0010: dittybopper: yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.

What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.

I know. Seems like a trend to me. I think I have written 5 bad reviews about professors I had. Three of them were those English professors on the grounds of wanting to take an English class, not a political science class.

And yes, I know I have had a unique experience. But it does happen.

I think a part of that is that many rural students (at least where I'm from) tend to be completely underexposed to other cultures in general. I know when I speak about gay or transgender authors or African American literature, I must sound like a raving liberal, but it's what I have to do to fairly depict the struggles of particular group of people in less than a week or so. It's not politicking at all, but I find myself REALLY having to close significant gaps in knowledge.

One of my classes, when politics was talked about, was not from a literary point of view but was actual politics. It had nothing to do with the class. Just him going off on a political tangent about politics. That kind of talk is what I had to deal with. Now there are ways to go into "sensitive" (I use that world cause there are few groups that don't like the idea) topics but that is what I would think be actual class material. Covering authors, personal and inspirational background, is important.


I think the students sometimes demand the instructors become political, especially in this past election season. This semester has been brutal for the cutting Romney/Obama comments that people have inserted into basic discussions, as well as the neverending cycle of "who did you vote for?" questions.
 
2012-11-19 12:51:50 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: yves0010: whizbangthedirtfarmer: yves0010: dittybopper: yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.

What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.

I know. Seems like a trend to me. I think I have written 5 bad reviews about professors I had. Three of them were those English professors on the grounds of wanting to take an English class, not a political science class.

And yes, I know I have had a unique experience. But it does happen.

I think a part of that is that many rural students (at least where I'm from) tend to be completely underexposed to other cultures in general. I know when I speak about gay or transgender authors or African American literature, I must sound like a raving liberal, but it's what I have to do to fairly depict the struggles of particular group of people in less than a week or so. It's not politicking at all, but I find myself REALLY having to close significant gaps in knowledge.

One of my classes, when politics was talked about, was not from a literary point of view but was actual politics. It had nothing to do with the class. Just him going off on a political tangent about politics. That kind of talk is what I had to deal with. Now there are ways to go into "sensitive" (I use that world cause there are few groups that don't like the idea) topics but that is what I would think be actual class material. Covering authors, personal and inspirational background, is important.

I think the students sometimes demand the instructors become political, e ...


I got lucky this year and got out for an early winter break. Classes were 8 weeks long so I was done in October. But I have seen classrooms in election years and the professor always said no politics in this room during class time. Before or after is fine, but not during class. I respected professors who said that.
 
2012-11-19 12:59:14 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.


If you want a counter to a US education that skips a lot of our darker parts, it is a good read, but it is hardly unbiased or thorough.

Especially the latest edition where he says 9/11 was an assault on "symbols of American wealth and power".
 
2012-11-19 01:31:58 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: yves0010: dittybopper: yves0010: Actually, I had them in English classes. Usually the literature part of the class. And what bothers me is when it goes political, you need to allow both sides to be shown equally. Out of the 5 English classes I had. None of the English professor taught both sides of the political spectrum. Three of them taught their political views as fact and fail all those who don't agree with them by testing them on their political ideas.

What is it about college level English that encourages that? I've seen it myself. It's like they'd rather be teaching political science or something.

I know. Seems like a trend to me. I think I have written 5 bad reviews about professors I had. Three of them were those English professors on the grounds of wanting to take an English class, not a political science class.

And yes, I know I have had a unique experience. But it does happen.

I think a part of that is that many rural students (at least where I'm from) tend to be completely underexposed to other cultures in general. I know when I speak about gay or transgender authors or African American literature, I must sound like a raving liberal, but it's what I have to do to fairly depict the struggles of particular group of people in less than a week or so. It's not politicking at all, but I find myself REALLY having to close significant gaps in knowledge.


You know how this sounds, right? "Hey, I'm teaching gay, transgendered, and other minority literature because, hey, they were oppressed, and it's *GOOD* for you".

Good literature is good literature, and universal themes are, well, universal. If you have to spend any amount of time explaining the "back story" in order to inform students why a particular piece of writing is said to be "good", then it ain't that good.

It can also backfire: One of the books I had to read in college was Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez, and I got the distinct impression that Rodriguez wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He worked hard to become something, and was *SHOCKED* that he actually became what he wanted to become, and that people then treated him differently because of it.

Theoretically, I should have felt some sympathy for him: I've come from relatively modest means and a relatively insular culture, and despite my obvious differences with those people I grew up with, I still have friends in low places, as it were. That's because I still maintain contact and roots with where I came from. Yeah, I work at a college, in a professional capacity, but I still do rural things. I can do low-tech, high-tech, low-brow, high-brow. All same-same.

Oh, and I'd also point out that some of the most provincial attitudes I've seen are from people who pay the loudest lip-service to "diversity".
 
2012-11-19 01:33:14 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

As someone who likes history without the oppressor's narrative (DIAF, Robert Leckie!), this Oliver Stone stuff is little more than sensationalism.


I'm sorry, have you actually read Zinn? The amount of stuff he distorts, overlooks, and outright lies about is immense. You can play "find the bullshiat" on every single page of his People's History of the American Empire. He doesn't present the perspective of the "oppressed" (for example, terrorists like Eugene Debs are presented as heroes of the workers, regardless of how many of the poor they put at risk), he just presents history as he would have liked it to be.
 
2012-11-19 01:35:47 PM  

liam76: whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

If you want a counter to a US education that skips a lot of our darker parts, it is a good read, but it is hardly unbiased or thorough.


That's probably it's best place, as a bit of a counter-weight to the sort of Pollyanna history you get in grade school, but it does have a particular message, and as such should be immediately suspect as history, which should just report on who, what, where, when and how.
 
2012-11-19 01:45:22 PM  

dittybopper: Theoretically, I should have felt some sympathy for him: I've come from relatively modest means and a relatively insular culture, and despite my obvious differences with those people I grew up with, I still have friends in low places, as it were. That's because I still maintain contact and roots with where I came from. Yeah, I work at a college, in a professional capacity, but I still do rural things. I can do low-tech, high-tech, low-brow, high-brow. All same-same.



Huh. You and me both, brother. Here I set on campus doing web development but I'd rather be at home on the farm I inherited, same place I grew up. I work most nights doing farm chores until 10 or so, and all weekend, and it's a hell of a lot more interesting that cranking out more BS for some administrator's idea of a website.

The most overtly political professor I had was an actual Marxist - but he was up front about it, and he encouraged discussion and dissension. He was careful to ask students why they disagreed, but was never dismissive. He was the first teacher I encountered who taught the idea that your cultural and social background would influence your beliefs, and we discussed how an issue can have different perspectives and solutions. Learned a lot from him. Of course, he was denied tenure and is now head of an environmental conservation advocacy group, but that's another story. I don't think anyone minds politics, they just mind opinion being presented as the TRVTH.

Also, I'd like to join the queue for giving Oliver Stone a boot to the head for making The Doors movie so boring. What a waste.
 
2012-11-19 01:57:46 PM  

dittybopper: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

Although it is an entertaining read, I would not characterize Zinn as unbiased.

/or even that accurate

Yeah.

By definition, the "perspective of the oppressed" is biased.


Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.
 
2012-11-19 02:03:59 PM  

Magruda: dittybopper: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of the oppressed, buy A People's History of America by Zinn.

Although it is an entertaining read, I would not characterize Zinn as unbiased.

/or even that accurate

Yeah.

By definition, the "perspective of the oppressed" is biased.

Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.


That's pretty much it; Zinn made no bones about his bias, unlike 90% of "historians" out there. The People's History of the United States is a useful counterweight to the prevalent corrupt narrative, and succeeds in its mission of causing people to question "traditional" subjects.

/If 9/11 wasn't an assault on "symbols of American wealth and power," what the hell was it?
 
2012-11-19 02:14:13 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Donnchadha: I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"

Boooooooooo

Anyway, if you've seen JFK or The Doors, you already knew that Stone takes MASSIVE liberties with history for drama's sake.


You'd think if he was going to take liberties, he would make entertaining films. Both of those were snoozers.

Funny part is, if he'd stuck with a straight retelling of the facts, both movies would have been much more dramatic.

Best example: Jim Morrison on Ed Sullivan.
Real life: Perfect performance, capped with the brilliant line to Sullivan's representative "Hey, man. We just did the Sullivan show."
Stone's version: Childish screaming into the camera, didn't include the line
 
2012-11-19 02:14:40 PM  
I was expecting this thread to devolve into an argument about Zinn, and I'm glad to see I wasn't disappointed.

Zinn sucks. Revisionist, America hating communist who somehow got an audience. Never mind that his audience is naive college freshmen taking their first political science course.
 
2012-11-19 02:19:16 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: /If 9/11 wasn't an assault on "symbols of American wealth and power," what the hell was it?


A terrorist attack designed to kill as many civlians as possible.

An attackd esigned to strike fear, not at the "wealthy and powerful" as much as the average joe.

It was an assault on the "great Satan" in the view of Jihadi nutbags.

Him spinning it as an assault by the opressed on their opressors is complete garbage.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report