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
 
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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-19 10:07:15 PM

jso2897: 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.


Close rip but, imagine if you could. All world problems.........
 
2012-11-19 11:53:07 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: If you want a fair, unbiased history of the U.S. from the perspective of


This does not make sense. "From the perspective of" completely contradicts "unbiased". Which is it?
 
2012-11-20 02:43:44 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


what you may consider wise warning may be perceived as oppression that is off-putting to your students. i had a therapist that made some sharp comments about kiddie diddling out of the blue the first time i met him - it was on his mind from his last session and he was obviously unhappy about it. but right off the bat it occurred to me - what if i had or felt i had problems with kiddie diddling? i would never be able to address it with that doctor. i question the wisdom of slamming a door in someones face as soon as you meet them. wise men tear down walls and walk around obstacles, they don't create them.
 
2012-11-20 06:50:39 AM

FLMountainMan: LOL. Read my original post. See how far you've taken it from there.


Why dont both of you threadshiatting fools read the headline and see how far you've both taken it?

Stone's show is fair, representative of the facts as they are now known, and not at all sensationalistic. Its also obvious that only two people posting in this thread have seen it. The rest need to STFU.
 
2012-11-20 10:26:55 AM

Madbassist1: FLMountainMan: LOL. Read my original post. See how far you've taken it from there.

Why dont both of you threadshiatting fools read the headline and see how far you've both taken it?

Stone's show is fair, representative of the facts as they are now known, and not at all sensationalistic. Its also obvious that only two people posting in this thread have seen it. The rest need to STFU.


Is there a legal excerpt online?
 
2012-11-21 04:20:43 AM

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."


He did gloss over old Uncle Joe a few times.
 
Displayed 106 of 106 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report