posted
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ What are the thoughts of the forum members,in relation to "Post Modern theory" of society? Does this Essay make sense? Feel free to express your opinions.
IP: Logged
posted
Lee's umpteenth rule: Always look at the bottom line.
quote:The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Lee's umpteenth rule: Always look at the bottom line.
quote:The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
Although to be fair, it is often hard to tell with postmodernism whether of not it's been written by a real person or a piece of software. having said that, the disclaimer should have been a bit of a give away.
MM: If you want my opinion of postmodernism just go and read Arthur Marwick's The Nature of History.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Mountain Man
Ex-Member
posted
I hope this didn't ruffle your feathers. Opening the thread with the 'Random Post Modernist Generator' was Meant to lighten the mood. What I would really like to know is this. How much do the members here feel that this sort of thinking has affected how history has been taught in recent years? Are the Theories used today? Are any educators teaching that these Theories are valid? The question is a serious one, though I'm not a very serious type. A touch of Loki,and Coyote. No harm intended,all in good fun.
[ September 25, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
IP: Logged
posted
Not at all. Wraith for one has aparently looked into the subject. The subject has come up occasionally. The "Sokal Hoax" was one of the first real attacks on this school of thought to draw attention to the fact that the whole thing makes no more sense than the 'Random Essay generator'. Think about it. How many people have been affected by this sort of bull tripe in their daily lives? More than you might realize.
IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: MM: If you want my opinion of postmodernism just go and read Arthur Marwick's The Nature of History.
For mine, read The Pessimist's guide to History.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Mountain Man
Ex-Member
posted
Interpretation of history. The models used. This is the heart of the question. Take for example the fact that few Civil War buffs know that the Secession of Tennessee was not only illegal, non-binding,and an act of treason by corrupt confederate sympathizers,It was also a subject of great interest to Lincoln and his cabinet. Andrew Johnson who would replace Lincoln as president,tried with all his might to have the truth told, as did W.G.Brownlow Governor of Tennessee. Who prevented the truth from being told? The Democratic Party thats who. They used every trick at their command to prevent the guilty from being punished. So the history books simply state that Tennessee was Confederate without any explanation. Those who have studied the actual chain of events Know otherwise. Back to the main topic though Are these Theories being accepted today? and what effect does such thinking have on students of today?
IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
History books state what they state because the people who write them have Opinions.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Mountain Man
Ex-Member
posted
In too many cases their opinions mean nothing, because they never researched the subject well enough to form an opinion. An example of how lack of basic information can lead to error in evaluating a historical event. Most people believe that the Middle East was always dry dusty dessert landscape. Recent achaeological finds as well as research into the details of Roman military operations in that region paint a very different picture. Deforestation of Palestine began with the Roman Legions' need for wood. They stripped bare most of the region and helped set into motion the changes in the local ecology seen today. Europe was in the last stages of what is called a mini ice age. The journals of Arab explorers mention retreating glaciers where none are to be found today. Reading History books that give names dates and places gives little insight into the driving forces of Civilization. Why cultures change,why migrations and invasions take place, are the points often overlooked.
[ September 25, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
IP: Logged
posted
MM: I am forced to ask you exactly what kind of histoy books do you actually read? From your posts, I'd have to say pretty old ones; most of what you seem to regard as being 'covered up' (the Tennessee thing, for example) just isn't. I haven't read a single book about the US Civil War which doesn't discuss at least briefly, the voting in Tennessee.
Historical judgement does change over time, as new sources come to light or new methods are utilised, it's not a matter of people not researching the subject well enough. And the why factor is often the most important thing in any history book, the bit given the most consideration! Granted, the mass market books don't go into quite as much detail as true academic volumes and you do have to be careful which historian's books you buy but your contention that the 'why factor' is overlooked is pretty ludicrous.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Mountain Man
Ex-Member
posted
Wraith, you seem to have a bit better outlook than some people. I checked out the author you mentioned, and was impressed by a reply to the reviews of his book. Fact is though, most and I mean nearly all people, think Tennessee was a willing partner to the Confederacy. Its just not true. If it were not for loyal patriotic Tenneseans the War might well have gone the other way. Brief mentions just don't cut the mustard. Full and accurate accounts are needed. The names of all those involved and the part they played in derailing the democractic process in order to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the people of the United States, should be remembered in the same way as Benedict Arnold. If not for the belief that they could use Tennessee as a base of operations without contest, the Civil War might have be settled in months instead of years. Maybe if Hollywood made a few movies about the situation then more people would have heard about it. Instead the South always comes off as the brave underdog,instead of as the murdering traitors that they were.
IP: Logged
posted
1) Benedict Arnold was one of the good guys . 2) The US Civil War most decidedly did not depend on the people of Tennessee. The Union had 4 million men of combat age, half of whom joined up. The Confederacy had approximately 1,140,000 men of combat age, about 850,000 of whom fought. The north had 100,000 factories, employing more than a million workers. The South had 20,000 factories employing about 100,000 workers. Lowell, Mass. had more spindles turning thread in 1860 than the entire CSA. The North had 20,000 miles of railway, the South had 9,000. the North had $189 million in bank deposits and $56million in gold. The CSA had $47 million in bank deposits and $37 million in gold. The US outproduced the CS in every agricultural catagory except cotton. The USA had the advantage both economically and militaryily.
And in those areas of Tennessee with a slave population of 30% (in the centre and west of the state) voted for seccession by a margin of 7 to one. In the east, the seccession move was defeated 2 to one. As for murdering traitors, well that's debateable. Obviously I'm not in favour of slavery but were the confederates traitors? Or were they merely being loyal to their country, ie the south, and their states? Were they any more traitors than the rebels of the American War of Independance? As for murdering, yes I'm sure that went on in Tennessee on both sides and throughout the war on both sides. After all, even anit-slavery people could be brutal murderers- need I mention John Brown in Kansas?
Oh, and the liklihood of Hollywood making a historically accurate movie about anything is around nil.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
