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  
•       •       •

5938 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Nov 2012 at 9:20 AM (1 year 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 02:20:50 PM
I'm still pissed at him for Savages. I sat through that entire piece of crap because I didn't realize my girlfriend was hating it as much as I was. We should've walked out on it.
 
2012-11-19 02:38:35 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer:

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


That's like saying the Bolshevik revolution was about outlawing vodka.
 
2012-11-19 02:39:49 PM

DjangoStonereaver: considering that Jim Garrison was a mob bagman who engaged in his shenanigans to divert attention from his massive corruption and bribe taking.


and

Garrison was a nut, pure and simple. LINKS TO MCADAMS SITE LOL

....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.



HAHHAHAHAHAHAH cough HAHAHAHHAHAHAA

next you'll be blaming Obama....

Garrison was a lot of things but a "nut" wasn't one of them.
The guy with THE BIG MOB NUTS IN HIS MOUTH was Harry Connick Sr....

you know, reading and researching this is fun...you should try it.
 
2012-11-19 02:40:25 PM

Flappyhead: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

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

That's like saying the Bolshevik revolution was about outlawing vodka.


THOSE BASTARDS HOW DARE THEY!
 
2012-11-19 02:52:16 PM

Magruda: Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.


You sound biased.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:08 PM

leviosaurus: 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


Not that Ray Manzarek is above reproach, but his book Light My Fire blasts Stone pretty hard. he takes a lot of time to point out the inaccuracy of the movie.
 
2012-11-19 03:09:33 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Magruda: Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.

You sound biased.


Pointing out someones bias is biased
 
2012-11-19 03:20:12 PM

liam76: 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.


Symbols of American wealth and power = World Trade Center, Pentagon, White House. Even the 9/11 Commission report pointed out that the attack, though it killed civilians here and there, was an attempt to cripple the American government and economy. I would also argue that the Middle East very much views itself as oppressed, and that the United States and Israel are very much viewed as the oppressors. It isn't garbage; it's reality.
 
2012-11-19 03:25:15 PM
I followed a trail of links from a comment on that article that led me to a whole lotta WTF.
 
2012-11-19 03:32:49 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: StoPPeRmobile: Magruda: Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.

You sound biased.

Pointing out someones bias is biased


That's racist.
 
2012-11-19 03:45:29 PM
Doesnt sound like anyone in the thread has actually, you know, watched the program referenced.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:42 PM

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.


No, actually, a lot of them do make shiat up. And it's increasing because students are increasingly reliant upon them for any sort of in-depth comprehension. I've got three graduate degrees and endured a lot of bullshiat. Hemingway was a raging homosexual. The American Government gave out smallpox blankets. Arabs are incapable of non-dictator forms of government. Per student funding is the strongest factor in academic performance. You only use 10% of your brain.

However, it's certainly not an indictment of education as a whole, or even academia. I probably had seventy or eighty professors over my academic career. Maybe six or seven made shiat up. About 10% of any industry's workforce is going to be abject failures at their jobs.
 
2012-11-19 04:07:39 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.


There is bias, which everyone has to one degree or another, and then there is activism. Zinn was activist.

When activists write history, you get things like "Arming America" by Michael Bellesiles.

I'm not saying Zinn was an out-an-out fraud like Bellesiles, just that there is that danger there.
 
2012-11-19 04:15:20 PM
Did any of you actually watch the first episode?
 
2012-11-19 04:15:25 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.


You can not have "fair and unbiased" from the "perspective of the oppressed". Fair and unbiased must come from a third party watching it all and not having a side.
 
2012-11-19 04:19:52 PM

Need_MindBleach: 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."


"evacuation" is a word that doesn't belong in the history of mass deportations of ethnic groups.
 
2012-11-19 04:24:18 PM

wemedge: Did any of you actually watch the first episode?


Paywall!
 
2012-11-19 04:24:59 PM

FLMountainMan: 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.

No, actually, a lot of them do make shiat up. And it's increasing because students are increasingly reliant upon them for any sort of in-depth comprehension. I've got three graduate degrees and endured a lot of bullshiat. Hemingway was a raging homosexual. The American Government gave out smallpox blankets. Arabs are incapable of non-dictator forms of government. Per student funding is the strongest factor in academic performance. You only use 10% of your brain.

However, it's certainly not an indictment of education as a whole, or even academia. I probably had seventy or eighty professors over my academic career. Maybe six or seven made shiat up. About 10% of any industry's workforce is going to be abject failures at their jobs.


1) Hemingway wrestled with machismo and often spent considerable amounts of time with nude men. Does this make him gay? Hell no, but the door is open. If you had someone say "Hemingway is gay," that is wrong, but if they said "Hemingway wrestled with his sexuality" or "Some critics have wondered if he had latent homosexual tendencies," well, that's right.

2) Fort Pitt....

3) I have no idea why someone would say that.
 
2012-11-19 04:26:19 PM

Teknowaffle: Need_MindBleach: 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."

"evacuation" is a word that doesn't belong in the history of mass deportations of ethnic groups.


The Exodus of Katrina?
 
2012-11-19 04:31:33 PM

Haliburton Cummings: DjangoStonereaver: considering that Jim Garrison was a mob bagman who engaged in his shenanigans to divert attention from his massive corruption and bribe taking.

and

Garrison was a nut, pure and simple. LINKS TO MCADAMS SITE LOL

....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.


HAHHAHAHAHAHAH cough HAHAHAHHAHAHAA

next you'll be blaming Obama....

Garrison was a lot of things but a "nut" wasn't one of them.
The guy with THE BIG MOB NUTS IN HIS MOUTH was Harry Connick Sr....

you know, reading and researching this is fun...you should try it.


What's wrong with blaming Obama?
 
2012-11-19 04:37:13 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: FLMountainMan: 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.

No, actually, a lot of them do make shiat up. And it's increasing because students are increasingly reliant upon them for any sort of in-depth comprehension. I've got three graduate degrees and endured a lot of bullshiat. Hemingway was a raging homosexual. The American Government gave out smallpox blankets. Arabs are incapable of non-dictator forms of government. Per student funding is the strongest factor in academic performance. You only use 10% of your brain.

However, it's certainly not an indictment of education as a whole, or even academia. I probably had seventy or eighty professors over my academic career. Maybe six or seven made shiat up. About 10% of any industry's workforce is going to be abject failures at their jobs.

1) Hemingway wrestled with machismo and often spent considerable amounts of time with nude men. Does this make him gay? Hell no, but the door is open. If you had someone say "Hemingway is gay," that is wrong, but if they said "Hemingway wrestled with his sexuality" or "Some critics have wondered if he had latent homosexual tendencies," well, that's right.

2) Fort Pitt....

3) I have no idea why someone would say that.


1. My that standard, probably 40% of the American population then was gay.

2. Fort Pitt was a beseiged British General, in 1763, giving away two blankets in a "probably unsuccessful" attempt. This does not mean that the US Government gave out smallpox blankets.

3. It undercut GWB's "freedom" agenda. Honestly, ten minutes every class was spent talking about how inept the Bush administration was. I tended to agree, but would rather have been learning more specifically about International Business Strategy.
 
kab
2012-11-19 04:40:11 PM

jaybeezey: 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.

You can not have "fair and unbiased" from the "perspective of the oppressed". Fair and unbiased must come from a third party watching it all and not having a side.


And that's found... where exactly? Current history curriculum taught in schools?
 
2012-11-19 04:46:15 PM

FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer: FLMountainMan: 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.

No, actually, a lot of them do make shiat up. And it's increasing because students are increasingly reliant upon them for any sort of in-depth comprehension. I've got three graduate degrees and endured a lot of bullshiat. Hemingway was a raging homosexual. The American Government gave out smallpox blankets. Arabs are incapable of non-dictator forms of government. Per student funding is the strongest factor in academic performance. You only use 10% of your brain.

However, it's certainly not an indictment of education as a whole, or even academia. I probably had seventy or eighty professors over my academic career. Maybe six or seven made shiat up. About 10% of any industry's workforce is going to be abject failures at their jobs.

1) Hemingway wrestled with machismo and often spent considerable amounts of time with nude men. Does this make him gay? Hell no, but the door is open. If you had someone say "Hemingway is gay," that is wrong, but if they said "Hemingway wrestled with his sexuality" or "Some critics have wondered if he had latent homosexual tendencies," well, that's right.

2) Fort Pitt....

3) I have no idea why someone would say that.

1. My that standard, probably 40% of the American population then was gay.

2. Fort Pitt was a beseiged British General, in 1763, giving away two blankets in a "probably unsuccessful" attempt. This does not mean that the US Government gave out ...


1) My point is that Hemingway wrestling with closeted sexuality is not wrong unless the person said "Hemingway was gay" as a de facto truth. If they didn't say that, they are correct.

2) Like it or not, Fort Pitt is a part of American history as well. The blankets were delivered to the Native Americans and they were successfully infected, Although we can't say for certain, this was an initial attempt, basically at genocide. That is occurred before the revolution does not make it less of an American happening.

3) Oh, International Business. Well, those folks don't have much to talk about, I think. I sat in on an international business class once (long story), and the guy had a PPT presentation that lasted the entire class. Some of the slides shared wisdom such as "Countries have cultural differences" and "International business is business between nations."
 
2012-11-19 04:55:04 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: liam76: 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.

Symbols of American wealth and power = World Trade Center, Pentagon, White House. Even the 9/11 Commission report pointed out that the attack, though it killed civilians here and there, was an attempt to cripple the American government and economy.


It wasn't an attack on a symbol. It was a very real attack.


whizbangthedirtfarmer: I would also argue that the Middle East very much views itself as oppressed, and that the United States and Israel are very much viewed as the oppressors. It isn't garbage; it's reality.


Osama was a major anti-american player since the first Gulf war. His anger wasn't over "oppression" he didn't give a fark about the Palestinians (later on he put that in his speeches as an excuse to unite muslims). His beef was that we dared to have infidels in the Holy land. He didn't see that as opression, but as temptation that Saudi royal family fell for.

Look at the background of the bombers. They weren't the poor and downtrodden.
 
2012-11-19 04:58:09 PM

liam76: Look at the background of the bombers. They weren't the poor and downtrodden.


Engineers!
 
2012-11-19 05:00:26 PM
whizbangthedirtfarmer:

So the fact that a beseiged British general gave away two blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 makes it acceptable to say that the American Government attempted genocide by giving away smallpox blankets.

Ward Churchill commends your scholarship.
 
2012-11-19 05:08:47 PM

FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

So the fact that a beseiged British general gave away two blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 makes it acceptable to say that the American Government attempted genocide by giving away smallpox blankets.

Ward Churchill commends your scholarship.


Well the mistranslation of one word resulted in Catholicism.
 
2012-11-19 05:09:55 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: 2) Like it or not, Fort Pitt is a part of American history as well. The blankets were delivered to the Native Americans and they were successfully infected, Although we can't say for certain, this was an initial attempt, basically at genocide. That is occurred before the revolution does not make it less of an American happening.



The Fort Pitt incident was part of British Colonial history, and as there was already smallpox amoung the Delawares it is really unknown if those two blankets had any impact.
 
2012-11-19 05:33:21 PM

FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

So the fact that a beseiged British general gave away two blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 makes it acceptable to say that the American Government attempted genocide by giving away smallpox blankets.

Ward Churchill commends your scholarship.


I don't know what your professor told you, but you seem to be making it up as you go along to show that you had some teachers with "agendas." All I'm saying is that this is a part of American history. Parsing it and saying it is British Colonial history is a bit silly, as it is that sort of thinking that historians use to absolve colonial powers of their sordid past.

/what? we killed thousands of people?
//don't worry, that was "colonial" history, we're not responsible for that anymore
 
2012-11-19 05:36:01 PM

liam76: whizbangthedirtfarmer: liam76: 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.

Symbols of American wealth and power = World Trade Center, Pentagon, White House. Even the 9/11 Commission report pointed out that the attack, though it killed civilians here and there, was an attempt to cripple the American government and economy.

It wasn't an attack on a symbol. It was a very real attack.


whizbangthedirtfarmer: I would also argue that the Middle East very much views itself as oppressed, and that the United States and Israel are very much viewed as the oppressors. It isn't garbage; it's reality.

Osama was a major anti-american player since the first Gulf war. His anger wasn't over "oppression" he didn't give a fark about the Palestinians (later on he put that in his speeches as an excuse to unite muslims). His beef was that we dared to have infidels in the Holy land. He didn't see that as opression, but as temptation that Saudi royal family fell for.

Look at the background of the bombers. They weren't the poor and downtrodden.


If there was a bigger symbol of American capitalism than the WTC, I can't think of it.

I also don't think that Palestinians and feeling oppressed require one another. I think a lot of the Middle East, and many of the bombers/hijackers, were pretty tired of the U.S. sticking their finger in MidEast affairs, often to the detriment of their population. You can say they were wealthy and whatnot, but it doesn't de-legitimatize their politics.
 
2012-11-19 05:39:47 PM

liam76: Osama was a major anti-american player since the first Gulf war.


And before that he was on our payroll.
 
2012-11-19 05:42:49 PM

dittybopper: I'm not saying Zinn was an out-an-out fraud like Bellesiles, just that there is that danger there.


I'm pretty sure that the entirety of Zinn's work has been published at this point. If you don't find him to be an "out-an-out fraud" right now then i'm pretty sure the danger has passed.
 
2012-11-19 05:45:20 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I think a lot of the Middle East, and many of the bombers/hijackers, were pretty tired of the U.S. sticking their finger in MidEast affairs, often to the detriment of their population.


If you want to know what their motivation was you could take a look at what they have to say about it. You may not want to believe them but you should at least consider it as their main motivation.
 
2012-11-19 05:46:10 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

So the fact that a beseiged British general gave away two blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 makes it acceptable to say that the American Government attempted genocide by giving away smallpox blankets.

Ward Churchill commends your scholarship.

I don't know what your professor told you, but you seem to be making it up as you go along to show that you had some teachers with "agendas." All I'm saying is that this is a part of American history. Parsing it and saying it is British Colonial history is a bit silly, as it is that sort of thinking that historians use to absolve colonial powers of their sordid past.

/what? we killed thousands of people?
//don't worry, that was "colonial" history, we're not responsible for that anymore


Really? Here's how I see things:

I post an example of bs from professors, including that the American government gave out smallpox blankets to Indians

You mention an incident where a besieged British General did it, in 1763, with two smallpox blankets.

I point out that it was in 1763 and give it context.

You say, yeah, but it was still attempted genocide (seriously? Genocide is trying to kill people beseiging you? Talk about watering down a term...) and the fact that it wasn't the American government is irrelevant.

I mention that I was specifically referring to the American government giving out smallpox blankets.

You say I'm making it up as I go along (when I've never actually deviated from my Boobies) and that I'm trying to excuse genocide (WTF?).

Do you realize you're acting like a caricature of the "message is everything, facts are nothing, call your opponents racists" thinking that right-wingers use to denigrate academia?
 
2012-11-19 05:47:24 PM

Magruda: liam76: Osama was a major anti-american player since the first Gulf war.

And before that he was on our payroll.


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 
2012-11-19 05:47:33 PM

StoPPeRmobile: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: StoPPeRmobile: Magruda: Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.

You sound biased.

Pointing out someones bias is biased

That's racist.


Pointing out someone's racism is racist.

/and fun
 
2012-11-19 05:50:45 PM

FLMountainMan: Magruda: liam76: Osama was a major anti-american player since the first Gulf war.

And before that he was on our payroll.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


Until it bites the hand that funds it.
 
2012-11-19 06:04:15 PM

FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer: FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

So the fact that a beseiged British general gave away two blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 makes it acceptable to say that the American Government attempted genocide by giving away smallpox blankets.

Ward Churchill commends your scholarship.

I don't know what your professor told you, but you seem to be making it up as you go along to show that you had some teachers with "agendas." All I'm saying is that this is a part of American history. Parsing it and saying it is British Colonial history is a bit silly, as it is that sort of thinking that historians use to absolve colonial powers of their sordid past.

/what? we killed thousands of people?
//don't worry, that was "colonial" history, we're not responsible for that anymore

Really? Here's how I see things:

I post an example of bs from professors, including that the American government gave out smallpox blankets to Indians

You mention an incident where a besieged British General did it, in 1763, with two smallpox blankets.

I point out that it was in 1763 and give it context.

You say, yeah, but it was still attempted genocide (seriously? Genocide is trying to kill people beseiging you? Talk about watering down a term...) and the fact that it wasn't the American government is irrelevant.

I mention that I was specifically referring to the American government giving out smallpox blankets.

You say I'm making it up as I go along (when I've never actually deviated from my Boobies) and that I'm trying to excuse genocide (WTF?).

Do you realize you're acting like a caricature of the "message is everything, facts are nothing, call your opponents racists" thinking that right-wingers use to denigrate academia?


So...by your definition, Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with American history, either? He would be a part of "Spanish history" and nothing else?

Like I said, I don't know what you professor told you. If they said the American government did it, they were wrong, but you can't deny that it is a part of the fabric of American history. You can't switch the game and say, oh, that was BRITISH COLONIAL HISTORY, t'aint nuthin' to do with 'murica.

That said, I wonder why that British general was besieged...hmmm? Could it have had something to do with British government abuses of Native Americans? But that's okay. The poor, poor British general must have been randomly besieged and was pushed to the point of desperation that he had NO CHOICE but to try to infect the Natives with smallpox. What a swell guy he was!

Right now, you're sounding like a right-wing ideologue who believes that America has always been a victim of completely random, ill-defined hatred. Robert Leckie did this, too. I remember in a book about British colonial America (ironically, a part of his American history series), he wrote that the Native Americans were killed, sure, but they gave as good as they got. What? That's revisionism hard at work.
 
2012-11-19 06:40:23 PM
LOL. Read my original post. See how far you've taken it from there.
 
2012-11-19 06:50:44 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer: FLMountainMan: whizbangthedirtfarmer:

So the fact that a beseiged British general gave away two blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 makes it acceptable to say that the American Government attempted genocide by giving away smallpox blankets.

Ward Churchill commends your scholarship.

I don't know what your professor told you, but you seem to be making it up as you go along to show that you had some teachers with "agendas." All I'm saying is that this is a part of American history. Parsing it and saying it is British Colonial history is a bit silly, as it is that sort of thinking that historians use to absolve colonial powers of their sordid past.

/what? we killed thousands of people?
//don't worry, that was "colonial" history, we're not responsible for that anymore

Really? Here's how I see things:

I post an example of bs from professors, including that the American government gave out smallpox blankets to Indians

You mention an incident where a besieged British General did it, in 1763, with two smallpox blankets.

I point out that it was in 1763 and give it context.

You say, yeah, but it was still attempted genocide (seriously? Genocide is trying to kill people beseiging you? Talk about watering down a term...) and the fact that it wasn't the American government is irrelevant.

I mention that I was specifically referring to the American government giving out smallpox blankets.

You say I'm making it up as I go along (when I've never actually deviated from my Boobies) and that I'm trying to excuse genocide (WTF?).

Do you realize you're acting like a caricature of the "message is everything, facts are nothing, call your opponents racists" thinking that right-wingers use to denigrate academia?

So...by your definition, Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with American history, either? He would be a part of "Spanish history" and nothing else?

Like I said, I don't know what you professor told you. If they said ...


The point was that that was part of American history, but no American was involved. Just like Columbus' crimes were not the fault of his grandchildren, for example. Or that Anderson Cooper is responsible for founding a shiatty, overpriced university.

As to professors lying in order to get their point across, that happens all the time. Sometimes, it makes sense and is for good reason, such as in basic physics, where fictions are told to students in order to provide them with a beginning understanding of what we think we know. On the other hand, the lies can be pernicious as well. For example, in my class in '91 at Michigan, Bigotry and Maturity in Several Cultures (in case you want to look up who was teaching), the professor asserted that we nuked the Japanese because we were racist. Knowing this to be false (that that was the cause, not that we were racist - we soooo totally were), I confronted him about it, and he admitted that what he said was false, but that it "could have been true".

It's like an English professor claiming that the Merchant of Venice or Othello proves that Shakespeare was aggressively anti-semitic or racist. In both cases, he had was using existing stories and reflecting the attitudes of his time, in which Moors were extremely rare and Jews were not actually allowed in the country, hadn't been in centuries, and wouldn't be until Cromwell. In addition, by your logic of how guilt accrues, Shakespeare (and Queen Elizabeth the Second) is responsible for Edward the First's expulsion of the Jewish people in 1290.
 
2012-11-19 06:55:50 PM
I wasn't even trying to get into all that. The US Government's treatment of Native Americans was, generally, despicable. But the shiat that dirt farmer was coming up was just hilarious. Talk about living out a stereotype.
 
2012-11-19 07:01:42 PM

Magruda: dittybopper: I'm not saying Zinn was an out-an-out fraud like Bellesiles, just that there is that danger there.

I'm pretty sure that the entirety of Zinn's work has been published at this point. If you don't find him to be an "out-an-out fraud" right now then i'm pretty sure the danger has passed.


Well, up until Bellesiles was exposed, that sort of thing just wasn't done to history professors. And Zinn's book wasn't without its critics. Had Zinn gone up against forces willing and able to do the research to check everything he wrote, like they did with Bellesiles, one wonders what would have happened.

At this point, no one will bother, because there's no urgency, and it's not going to attract the ire of single-issue people like "Arming America" did.

Oh, and there was *MASSIVE* resistance among the "historian elite" against looking too closely at "Arming America", because they liked the idea of the book in the first place, and in the second, they couldn't imagine that someone who was one of their own would perpetrate a fraud like that.
 
2012-11-19 07:06:04 PM
Lincoln shot first.
 
2012-11-19 07:25:25 PM

grokca: Lincoln shot first.


that bastard
 
2012-11-19 08:33:03 PM
Has been. He hasn't don anything worth watching in over 20 years. Possible exception being Any Given Sunday. Sur he wrote the screenplay for Scarface, but that was over 30 year ago.
 
2012-11-19 09:21:56 PM
The completely made up history of America? that was what they tried to teach me in school.
F**k that - I went to the library.
 
2012-11-19 09:22:36 PM

Magruda: StoPPeRmobile: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: StoPPeRmobile: Magruda: Everyone has bias, few are honest about it.

You sound biased.

Pointing out someones bias is biased

That's racist.

Pointing out someone's racism is racist.

/and fun


You haven't been paying attention. I was racist when I pointed out bias. Duh.
 
2012-11-19 09:23:12 PM

jso2897: The completely made up history of America? that was what they tried to teach me in school.
F**k that - I went to the library.


And was told you can't photocopy the NT Times crossword.
 
2012-11-19 09:25:03 PM

StoPPeRmobile: jso2897: The completely made up history of America? that was what they tried to teach me in school.
F**k that - I went to the library.

And was told you can't photocopy the NT Times crossword.


I wouldn't know - but you can't tuna fish.
 
2012-11-19 09:47:37 PM
Oliver Stone's movies are dull, plodding, turgid, overwrought pretentious art-house pieces consistently ruined by terrible acting, pompous melodrama and unnecessary voice over narration.

Even after 30 years in the business, he still seems to keep making movies as if he's a first year film studies major, with no sense of timing, direction, pacing, subtlety or focus to any of his films.

He might have lucked out with a gem here and there, but by and large, the vast majority of his films are utterly unwatchable. They don't even feel like movies, they feel like 2 hour visual monologues where the main character is explaining to you, quite condescendingly, what the movie is about.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report