SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
432
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 308:
Line 308: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History (view source)
Revision as of 07:10, October 22, 2012
, 07:10, October 22, 2012→point by point.: new section
colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
== point by point. ==
much as it pains me to have to even engage with this stuff I will deal with most of the points that I actually know about. (I mostly won't use sources as that would take hours but if you have a specific objection then I will find one.)
1. subjective and jingoistic if not actually false.
2. Maybe. This one is again pretty subjective, but has some merit. There would be a lot of textbooks that agree with you though.
3. Two points here. for the first one, I don't think that textbooks do deny that there were non-racist reasons to be against immigration. Second point I don't know enough about, but the North's larger population (a result of immigration) surely had some impact on the war.
4. I don't think that this is really a distortion, textbooks just have a tendency to focus on the positive elements of unions, such as the advances in workers rights that they won. And was the violence really so 'senseless'? particularly in the nineteenth century the working conditions were in fact abysmal, and I believe that you will find that a large proportion of the violence in labour conflicts was initiated by the employers or police trying to break up strikers (an american example of some of the worse violence would I think be in 1914, ludlow, colorado?) anyway again it's quite a subjective issue of how much weight to put on different interpretations.
5. Eh? Find me a book that denies this.
6. there were no public schools so this doesn't even need to be mentioned (I'm sure that specific biographies would mention how they were educated)
7,8,9,10. Too american for me to comment.
11. What history books say that? Perhaps they would say that Reagan was the beginning of a 'New Conservatism' or something but they don't say that there were no conservatives prior to that date.
12. The Philippine rebellion against the US was led by anti-imperialist intellectuals, mostly Catholics and while the Moro certainly supported the war, and were some of the last holding out, the majority of the Philippine manpower was Roman Catholic or following some syncretic version (see the Pulahan for instance). I would be very surprised if a majority-Catholic movement could be characterized as being 'against Christianity'
13. When has this been denied, and what's 'liberal' about that?
14. Ditto.
15. Subjective. Others would say that his policies did help.
16. I don't really know enough about this or the historiography around it.
17. May be true. most historians would I think put more emphasis on other factors.
18. Oh, so slave traders were just given slaves for free? the version of the triangle trade that appears in school textbooks may be an over-simplification, but it is a valid historical model.
19. This one is somewhat more valid. However you will find a number of history books that agree with this, and a number of occasions where the Catholic church was opposed to new science.
20. I have a more specific comment above. I don't agree with the premise of this. For instance, the bit about democracy, when in most cases the native population wanted independence, but the colonising power refused to grant it. I will say that I do find it ironic when Americans promote imperialism seeing as their own country is the result of an anti-imperialist revolt. (You did engage in a lot of colonialism on your own though)
21. Ha ha. lol.
22. Subjective.
General bias. this section is almost completely subjective and very vague.
1. Not anymore. the 'great men' theory of history is not used much any more. There is a lot more emphasis on social history, or greater trends that lead to events.
2. Are they really more important?
3. what is the 'true' importance of popularity?
4. How much significance is 'really' warranted by presidential elections?
5. Have they? A lot of this depends on your definition of 'conservative'.
6. when have textbooks ever done this? I don't think any do.
Specific truths.
1. correlation does not imply causation. I read a couple of posts defending this point, and they are predicated on the church always opposing slavery. This unfortunately was not true, the southern churches were great supporters of slavery.
3. In the broader sense yes, but it is not really something significant enough to be mentioned. While talking about medieval Europe chivalry in the traditional sense would be mentioned.
5. What about the working classes? And 'the world' is certainly an overstatement.
6. I think most textbooks would acknowledge this if they mentioned anything about education. I'm sure I've seen it a number of places.
7. This is a genuine difference in interpretation. Few historians would agree that atheism was the cause. This is an actual disagreement.
8. don't really know whether american books would mention this or not. no comment.
9. Very few people would agree that Lenin oppressed the russians 'as thoroughly as Stalin', and I would say that this is pretty subjective.
10. Nazi's are almost uniformly described as right wing. They were extreme nationalists and favoured capitalism. The number of people who disagree is very small, and they are almost universally American, and very recent.
11. What textbooks deny this? All the ones that I've ever read mention it, and about how Lincoln was the first Republican president and all that.
12. Ok, I'd never heard of that, so maybe that one is true.
If no one objects, I will take out some of the more ridiculous bits. Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:10, 22 October 2012 (EDT)