Fiction vs History?

[Bekah]

At 8:57 AM -0400 10/24/04, Paul Mackin wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 01:50, Bekah wrote:
>> At 4:38 PM -0400 10/23/04, Paul Mackin wrote:
>> >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.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> **********************************
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you going on about "truth?" None of the posts you quoted did that. Were you responding to them?
>
>I was agreeing with points made by you and Ghetta and emphasizing their
>implications.
>
>If the press can and should tell the truth about politician's lies,
>
>if teachers can and should tell the truth about who Columbus was,
>
>this implies:
>
>that there is some truth to tell,
>
>that there is way to find out what that truth is,
>
>that people have a right to know that truth.
>
>In other words, Up with Truth.

*********************************************


No, I don't think we agree because I'm suggesting that history simply be presented as what we now hold to be verified evidence yet open to discussion, examination and more information and analysis.  I'm not suggesting that the poor maligned historians are spouting "T" ruth.  Them's your words and I suspect that's why you're disillusioned with history teachers; there was no Santa Claus.

Nevertheless, you are suggesting that you know the "T"ruth and I think that you ought to print that package up and look for a publisher. I'd be interested - you never can tell.

It's really too bad you were apparently taught that Columbus was next to God. I sure wasn't and I'm probably older than a lot of you here. In grade school I learned about the Indian genocide (and small pox blankets) from a very early age. I was told about labor unions and yellow journalism and a whole lot of negative things about the US and its leaders. (I had a great 6th grade teacher!) I also learned a lot of good things. It never occurred to me that all this was a closed book now and that I had learned the "T"ruth. 

Are you also disillusioned with your 5th grade science teacher for not teaching you about black holes and quarks and string theory? Think of where you'd be now if you'd known about that! Did they omit important information and tell you lies?
Do we need a Howard Zinn of science? (lol)


Bek