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 28
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-19 11:21:54 AM
4 votes:

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 01:33:14 PM
3 votes:

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 01:31:58 PM
3 votes:

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 02:19:16 PM
2 votes:

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 02:14:40 PM
2 votes:
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 11:38:38 AM
2 votes:
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 11:25:39 AM
2 votes:

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 11:09:20 AM
2 votes:
A 50 word "article" with an embedded Youtube video?

This is journalism now a days?
2012-11-19 09:37:14 AM
2 votes:

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 05:09:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:26 PM
1 votes:
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 04:55:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:15:25 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:59 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:50 PM
1 votes:

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 12:38:37 PM
1 votes:

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 12:35:58 PM
1 votes:

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 11:48:36 AM
1 votes:

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 11:43:57 AM
1 votes:

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 11:43:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:28:51 AM
1 votes:

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 11:17:52 AM
1 votes:

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


Single Female Lawyer?
2012-11-19 11:08:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:03:47 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:12 AM
1 votes:

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 09:24:53 AM
1 votes:

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 08:33:10 AM
1 votes:
I'm looking forward to his history of the Democratic Party coming out soon -- it's called "Back and To The Left"
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report