Fiction vs History?

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 13:55, Bekah wrote:
> At 6:12 PM +0000 10/22/04, Ghetta Life wrote:
> >
> >In this present US election cycle an analogy of the difference between history and fiction might be seen in the political coverage of a news journalist.  When Bush says something exaggerated or completely fabricated about Kerry, and in the same news cycle Kerry points to a recorded fact about the Bushs misdeeds, should the reporter proceed to just parrot both statements in a he-said/he-said manner?  I guess the answer depends on what the journalists mission is.  Does he have a responsibility to point out which statements are contrary to fact?  I think so.  Are lies indistinguishable from fact?  No,  Neither is history indistinguishable from fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Getta. If it were otherwise we could teach the kids that Columbus was the first woman on the moon and it would be accepted as being as likely as any other story. 
> 
> Revisionist thinking has shaken some folks a bit too much and now, out of  disillusionment with their 5th grade history teachers, they're ready to throw the babies out with the bath water.
> 
> "History is more or less bunk." (Henry-the-Fascist  Ford) is not necessarily an example to follow. Revisionist thinking is not necessarily a better bet.


The inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence should be
rewritten to include the right to truth.

Terry Eagleton in "After Theory" spends a fair bit of time on the
subject of Truth in his attempt to lay a foundation for pushing beyond
Postmodernism, whose day he believes is over. 

"[The truth] matters, for one thing, because it belongs to our dignity
as moderately rational creatures to know the truth. And that includes
knowing the truth about the truth. It is best not to be deceived if one
can possibly help it . . . . "

E is still high on Theory, but not on Po-Mo, which he thinks is not up
to the job that needs to be done.