 |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 02:02 am |
|
21st Post |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 02:47 am |
|
22nd Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Don't worry TD... unless I seve you up some roast beef and you can't find your dog. 
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 03:06 am |
|
23rd Post |
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 01:13 pm |
|
24th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
I started this thread to discuss something I find interesting, namely that at various times and for various reasons historians follow specific slants, filters or schools of thught when writing about history. I specifically mentioned an essay by Gail Jarvis that appeared on Lew Rockwell.com. To date, there have been 22 responses to that original post and not ONE has been on topic. The vast majority have been slamming Lew Rockwell and his site. It seems that I committed a sin of the first magnitude by mentioning the site.
Lwe Rockwell is simply a place where a divergent number of folks publish their thoughts. Some write satire, others report on the economy, yet others poke fingers at the government and still others discuss politics. One even writes about his love of food...
Johan admits he has not read the article and still dismisses it because it appears on LRC and goes on to declare the writers to be Anti US...HUH? Which ones?, why? do their articles appear elsewhere or is LRC the exclusive window to the world for these anti Americal folk?
Ole, when I state that Lincoln has become deified, does everything but pat me on the head and say "there there little boy, its all right, I know you aren't one of THEM". meanwhile everyone else is circling the wagons to protect Abe.
If I sound fustrated and angry, it is because I am.
Ed
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 01:33 pm |
|
25th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Let's all take a deep breath.
Bama, on one hand I understand your frustration, but you insinuate that you knew this website was controversial in your original post. Let's face it, conservatives will disregard anything written on the ACLU website, even if it's true. Liberals will discount anything reported by FOX news, even if it's true. It's the nature of the beast.
On the other hand, I think the thread would be more productive if the concentration was on 1) the qualifications of the author, and 2) the merits of the article on a factual basis.
It's a nice relaxing Father's Day weekend. Let's not stress.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
26th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Bama46 wrote:
Lwe Rockwell is simply a place where a divergent number of folks publish their thoughts. Some write satire, others report on the economy, yet others poke fingers at the government and still others discuss politics. One even writes about his love of food...
Johan admits he has not read the article and still dismisses it because it appears on LRC and goes on to declare the writers to be Anti US...HUH? Which ones?, why? do their articles appear elsewhere or is LRC the exclusive window to the world for these anti Americal folk? Yes, and often. On everything from a New Rebellion site that preaches outright support of the belief Timothy Macveigh was a martyr and goes so far as to support Al Queda, several White Supremist sites a couple neo nazi ones and my favorite is a staple of the Holocaust Denial movement. I see nothing credible from the site, ever. My opinion of the site is just that, my opinion but frankly I wouldn't spare the sweat from my left... arm. You are smarter than that and I have more respect for you. Whenever I see someone I know to be intelligent and decent link to that site I shake my head in disbelief and realize that even the best can be suckered.
Ole, when I state that Lincoln has become deified, does everything but pat me on the head and say "there there little boy, its all right, I know you aren't one of THEM". meanwhile everyone else is circling the wagons to protect Abe.
If I sound fustrated and angry, it is because I am.
Ed
Get frustrated get angry, now you understand how we who study history and the words of the people who were actually there feel about the nutbars at Lew Rockwell. Just don't try to post too much that might be viewed as positive toward the US, her history or the men who defend her (past and present). There are those that would call such a view a lie or ill informed... dare to praise the Emancipation Proclomation, the USCT or the accomplishments of the US soldier there and see what happens. And God forbid Lincoln be viewed as anything but the anti-christ there.
Yes I rank that site up there with klan, nazi & holocaust denial sites. I see little difference as all share one common thread; an absolute hatred of the US. Though they cloak it in something else, dig deep enough and it's there... and I have never had to dig very deep.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14th, 2008 03:10 pm |
|
27th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Are we reading the same site....
Fred Reed, US Marine, combat Veteran and exquisite satirist, Pat Buchannan former Nixon Speech writer,
Ted Rall constant critic of Bush, Becky Ayres who doesn't like the loss of liberty as put forth by TSA...neither do I.. Walter Williams, Economist; Bill Anderson, defender of the Duke Lacrosse students who were found to be Innocent of all charges.. some fellow who doens't like Castro..
Which one of these are the folks you describe?
Frankly I don't know what in he*l you are talking about. I have NEVER read a single author on that site making any of the claims you espouse and I would NOT denfend that sort of thing...either we are talking about different sites or you have LRC confused with something else
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 05:44 pm |
|
28th Post |
David White
Member
|
Bama:
Wow, Ted Rall does not further your argument that a rational argument may be found on that site. On the contrary anyone that wastes their time reading his drivel needs their head examined.
I always love the argument that you can't comment on the content without reading it. Well let's put the shoe on the other foot, if someone said there was an article about slavery and Lincoln by James McPherson, I could reasonably tell you what it says based on reading his material in the past. The same is true for LewRockwell.com.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 07:29 pm |
|
29th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
I put Ted Rall in the list intentionally as I believe he is as goofy as you do, but he certainly is NOT a conservative. I have absolutely no stock in, nor am I related to , nor have I ever met anyone even remotely associated with LRC. I do believe it is irresponsible and somewhat dishonest to tarr such a divergent group with the same brush simply because their writings all exist under the same banner.
I challenge you to tell me what Williams is saying based on what you read once about Rall, Reese, or Reed.
Guilt by association is BS always was and always will be MHO
If we are having a discussion about McPherson, then it is a conversation about McPheerson and not about a hundred other writers who may happen to write on other topics but are found in the same card catalog file.
Finally, I object to the argument that if I read things on LRC then I must be one of "them" or... that I can't be one of "them" because the writer has "too much respect for me" or other such drivel. If I read Playboy, that does not make me a pornographer.
Finally I would say that I have never read an article on that site that I wouold classify as Anti US unless the author was infact not an American...often Brit writings are found on the site and not all of them love us. Are we to shun all writings that are not complimentary?
I do frequently find authors who disagree with this or that government decree or idiotic policy. Many don't like the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but that does not make them un American.
Are arguments we don't agree with not allowed?
ED
Last edited on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 07:33 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
30th Post |
HankC
Member
|
Unless the libertarian Lew Rockwell tribe has changed stripes lately, I suspect a paraphrase of Jarvis’ 4 interpretations will be:
1) Slavery, but probably not,
2) Different economic systems in the North and the South, (but not based on 1) above
3) Trade deficit between the north and the south (the north was complicit and profiting from the non-issue of 1) above) who was forced, forced!, to pay for northern services it did not really need.
4) Political rigidity on both sides that refused compromise (about non-issue 1) above) and was a precursor to the global political failures leading to World War One
5) Nothing, including 1-4, above that libertarians would not have avoided…
The general tone at Lew Rockwell is to arrive at a conclusion and then find some (any) evidence to cling to...
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 08:35 pm |
|
31st Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Why don't you actually read the article and see how close you came.
Last edited on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 08:43 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:06 am |
|
32nd Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Well, I gotta say, this thread has me befuddled. Bama opened it with requests for feedback on an article. Instead, we've had nothing but criticism of the website itself. So I'm a liittle confused as to why, if for watever reason, you're not going to read the article, you even bother to respond?
I have of course heard about the website and never have visited it. So before I posted this I did. What I found was this: I didn't find it "Un-American. I did find it chock-full of your usual Liberterian drivel. I purposely didn't read the article because I have no desire to argue about the causes of seccession. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Having said all that, I would never presume that a particular article on there was crap if I wasn't willing to read it first. So let's go this route - agree that nobody is going to change anybody's mind about the website. Simply agree to disagree. But if anyone wants to actually read the article in question, then give your INFORMED opinion on it.
As usual, I've taken the route that will please no one. Therefore, I've done my job... 
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:20 am |
|
33rd Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
WOULD SOMEBODY...ANYDAMNEDBODY JUST READ THE ARTICLE
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, ANYTHING ANYONE HAS POSTED TO DATE....
JOE IS AIN'T ABOUT CAUSES OF SECESSION OR ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS DREAMED IT IS..
WHYINHELL IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID OF A FEW WORDS?
AS FOR ME....I AM DONE
GOOD LORD
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:36 am |
|
34th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
Actually Bama, I owe you a slight apology. I really was trying to be peace-maker, but I was working from memory and I recalled your original post as saying it was 4 interpretations of the causes of the war. I see now, upon checking, that you said "there is an excellent essay (MHO) by Gail Jarvis on the 4 interpretations of the war." So I apologize for that, but stand by my other comments which, by the way, agree with you. Namely, read the article if you want to debate the article, and don't judge it if you're not willing to.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 05:21 am |
|
35th Post |
ole
Member
|
Read the article and commented on it, as did izzy. Jarvis simply regurgitated the same stuff that's usually found on the site and others. Nothing new. I might have appreciated it more if he had something new to say. He didn't.
oleLast edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 05:22 am by ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
36th Post |
ashbel
Member
|
Bama
Read the article. It seems to me the "interpretations" are a justification for Jarvis's political agenda.
For those that haven't read the article the four interpretations for the causes of the War are:
1. Nationalism - saving the Union
2. Economic conflict - trade, tariffs, taxes, etc.
3. Inflexibility of the leaders - both North and South
4. "Social Justice"
Number 4 Jarvis explains in the following way:
"The decades preceding and following World War Two included a Marxian push for egalitarianism that wrought a significant change in the thinking of historians. They decided that history should be written in a way that promotes "social justice." So a fourth version of the causes of the war developed; a "neo-national" point of view. According to this interpretation, the War is portrayed as a collision of conflicting social values; a culture of stagnating, repressive traditions (the South) versus a progressive and virtuous culture (the North).
"This clash of disparate social values, especially views on how to deal with slavery, culminated in the War. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. maintained that the institution of slavery was so inhuman that the violence of war was necessary to end it. This school of historians claims that the War eliminated slavery in the South, dethroned an aristocracy; uplifted the less privileged and opened the door for the creation of a classless society for all races and groups.
"This is the version that is currently in vogue; favored by many contemporary historians, PBS, the History Channel and other media "experts." This version will be frequently cited during next year's Lincoln Bicentennial celebration."
Jarvis goes on to explain that teaching this interpretation has led to our government's use of armed forces to "impose its concept of democracy upon other nations" and to excessive Civil Rights legislation.
I think Jarvis's own words do justice to his own "misinterpretation." I don't blame those who have chosen not to take his article seriously.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
37th Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Bama, you asked why someone wouldn't read it. I told you. I've not been back to the site in years; never had a reason big enough to overcome the disgust I got from it the first time.
If it's changed for the better excellent, I wish them all the luck in the world. If it hasn't... I haven't wasted anymore of my time there.
I do not fear words, any more than I fear absurdity. What I fear is when absurdity is believed. And those who will believe absurdities will commit atrocity.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:19 pm |
|
38th Post |
Bama46
Guest
|
Johan et al,
I have learned all about disgust in the past few day. The disgust that I hold for the way this thread has played out holds no bounds.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:54 pm |
|
39th Post |
ole
Member
|
The kitchen is warm when dinner's in the oven. Pull up a chair, it won't take long.
ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
40th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
I've had enough. Watch for an announcement concerning the future of this board in the near future. Thread is locked.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 06:41 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
