Talk:Essay: Worst Liberal Books

Origin of species?

Darwin was wrong, but not about everything. Newton was wrong about a few things as well. Darwin didn't set out to destroy God, he waited for 20 years to publish because he didn't want to upset the religious community, and even now that we know more than Darwin possibly could have many of his contributions are still of great importance. --DrDean 23:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Fictional vs. Non-fictional

I question the categorization of these works into fiction and non-fiction works, for a few reasons, perhaps inappropriately phrased as questions. 1) Are we labeling them as such based on the categories the publishers assign them? 2) If so, should we not also consider that these classifications are incorrect? For example, Zinn's work is considered by most reputable historians --and even many less than reputable ones-- as primarily a work of fiction. This criticism stems from his highly flawed approach to historical research that displays numerous examples of sampling error. Is this something we should consider in this article? Kevin Davis ^Talk 23:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I think it's a useful distinction, so I added "published as" before the category titles, hopefully this is an acceptable compromise to you. --DrDean 23:31, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

That appears fine to me. Thank you very much for the quick action! Kevin Davis ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

The Good Earth

Although classifying the book as liberal may be questionable to some, I listed it for similar reasoning to that of The Dispossessed. Having studied the book several times and researched 20th century China for several reports, the book has clear ties to early Communist movements in China, as well as other portions of Asia. This merits inclusion on the list, in my eyes. Does anyone have any objections? Kevin Davis ^Talk 23:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

My apologies on the omission; I forgot to mention that the author of The Good Earth, Pearl S. Buck, had strong political, multicultural leanings. She spent most of her early life in China, without having any significant and/or stated reasoning for doing so, which should immediately draw suspicion. Many businessmen lived in China around that time or in the years prior, but without a valid reason, her political leanings are certainly open to further inspection. This should label her work as initially suspect until further review. Kevin Davis ^Talk 23:33, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Pearl S. Buck's parents were Presbyterian missionaries who were stationed in China, and she was raised there with her family. She came to the US for college, then returned to China and married her first husband, John Buck, who was also a missionary. Hardly suspicious reasons for being in China, would you say? --SharonW 00:23, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

I responded to your comments on my talk page. Please let me know if you need any information. Unless you can provide a credible reason to remove the work, I believe it should remain. I stated numerous supporting reasons, with loose textual support, in my reply on my talk page. Let me know if you need anything else; thank you! Kevin Davis ^Talk 19:15, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Avoided? Why should any of these books be avoided?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Art of War, Chapter 3)

Should then we be reading selected works carefully, not because we want to emulate them, but because its information we necessarily have to have? Progressingamerica (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm not sure if even reading the selected works carefully would work, considering that a lot of the horrors that occurred were precisely BECAUSE people have read them, and they would have been the types to be careful readers regarding their professions' job descriptions, like Robespierre, Marat, and Saint-Just. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2017 (EDT)

You bring up a good point, but I think the distinction is that the Jacobins wanted what Rousseau was peddling. Likewise with how Vladimir Lenin read Karl Marx and decided that this was what he wanted to be. Reagan was asked once about communists, and famously answered that "Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." I feel confident without a doubt that Reagan read the Communist Manifesto, or he read Das Kapital, or perhaps both. I'm also confident that Edmund Burke read Jacobin works. Maybe not Rousseau specifically, but he was too specific and knowledgable to simply be making uneducated, surface level observations.

Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals is quite possibly the best example. Every tea partier I ever met has read that book, and many own their own copy. I do. I've lent it to others for this specific reason. We need to know what kinds of devious things they are up to.

The thing is, they are studying our works and not for emulation purposes. Marx himself made it clear that he read Wealth of Nations. Progressingamerica (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2017 (EDT)