« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The War of Northern Aggression
“History is written by the winners.”
"History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are
and why we are the way we are." (David McCullough)
The philosophy of history asks us who is the proper unit from which to learn history. The individual? A nation? A civilization? Culture? Or the whole of human life?
We’ve come to live in a society that views history as a line
ar thing. But the old world viewed history as
cyclical. Who is right? And how does our own views about the nature of
history affect how we teach it?
One area of education that interests me in particular is the variances in
the way single topic are taught, depending on your geographical location. For example, how does Civil War Education
vary from the North to the South? And
outside America’s
borders entirely?
In a brief perusal of the Internet, there are several items that caught my
eye.
Here is an educator who lays out his ideas for teaching the civil war as “A Southern View of History: The War for Southern Independence.”
Here is another site that lays out the causes of the w
ar as seen by
Southerners.
There is also continued debate over the naming of the Civil War. The Civil War, The War of Northern Aggression, The War over States’ Rights, The War between the States…each ‘name’ giving insight into the different views still held about the Civil War.
In my personal experience, primarily in the North, Civil War education was taught from the perspective of the Northerners.
I have not yet delved into the extensive research this topic could
cover. But as a precursor to that, I
pose a question to you. How did you
learn about the Civil War, and where did you learn it? Was it taught from the perspective of the Union or the Confederacy?
Was it a war over slavery or states rights or taxes (or etc.)? Does your memory of your education into the
period take into account the perspectives of all parties? Or of foreign views of the war?
"What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are 'the lessons of history'? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past." (Gerda Lerner)
Comments (107)
My apologies for the formatting.
July 8, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh. Good post. I love all these history discussions.
I've said elsewhere on this site that my history education was rather pitiful, and that I only became interested in history after leaving school. As I remember it, the things that jump out at me in remembering learning the Civil War were kind of like this dichotomy of North/Good and South/Bad. Slavery was the main issue of the war and yet we talked little about slaves or free blacks during the war.
It would be great research to sit in classrooms about the country and see how it's taught. And really cool if you could go overseas to see how this piece of American history is taught.
July 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's precisely what I'd like to do if I choose to pursue this further. Of course, it comes with its problems as well. We always act differently when being observed. Would the teachers change their normal methods or statements in light of being watched? I think I'd probably begin by sitting in university courses on American history. Hopefully, large ones that would allow me to blend in somewhat. Then work my way down, school districts permitting. Also taking into account the local curricula and reading materials. See which, if any, primary sources are focused on.
July 8, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like this lone very much:
"We always act differently when being observed."
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Would either of you help me learn the block quote format? Thanks.
July 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant "line" not "lone." Sorry. But the slip is interesting: Being observed vs. being alone. How are they different?
July 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we always act differently in front of others. The basic gist of the phenomenon is that the interaction between the observer and the observee already changes what will happen. They talk about it a lot in social sciences fields, psych and sociology. Linguistics too. Trying to study how people talk when they're not being watched becomes a catch-22. Good quote from the Wiki:
"“the aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain this data by systematic observation.”
I know I sing a lot louder in the car when I'm alone. :)
July 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the reason so many teachers use role-playing as a mode to move students beyond their preconceptions of themselves and over some invisible hurdle to reach new understandings. And this brings together theater experience in which the participant is both a new character and observed.
The dark side of that effort has been demonstrating that students can be convinced in some strange mass thinking to turn against a faux "other" type of person, made so by assigning a color to them.
July 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a class I'm going to be taking soon, and rumor has it that the professor has us choose to be either blind or deaf. You have to do it, I think, for either a full 24 hours or maybe even 48. An incredible way to get in someone else's shoes, though I have no idea how I'm going to pull that off with a toddler running around.
I remember them doing a simulation like that where they designated either blue or green eyes as the "minority". It was a weird experience.
July 8, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, and I forgot. Check out this place:
http://www.jaha.org/DiscoveryCenter/virtualtour.html
Cool, right? I'm hoping to make it there on my next trip back to Pa.
July 8, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this C:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/a-guide-for-users-of-tpm.php#comment-2871917
Ben knows how to tell you how to do it without in converting in the comment. I'm not that html saavy.
July 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In comments you use the blockquote tag. format it like this except use the less than and greater than symbols for the brackets [blockquote]quoted material[/blockquote]. It will look like this
July 8, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I love David McCullough. I love his approach of telling history as a story, rather than an accumulation of facts. That's one of the big problems with history education, it's so dry. All the emotion and drama and people are taken out of it.
I got started on him with The Johnstown Flood. Being from Pittsburgh, he'd probably been exposed to the stories of it for his lifetime, and he did an immaculate job of researching the details and building the story around it. It's riveting. I couldn't put the book down. And it helps keep that story alive, one I think is important.
July 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to reply with a comment about David McCullough's Cathedral, but a quick trip to Amazon saved me from that ignomy. Turns out David Macaulay is a different person. But since I got started... My sophomore year in high school, my Western Civilization teacher had us read Cathedral. It's mostly a book about the construction and layout of cathedrals, but of course that relates to the cultural implications thereof. So, this particular teacher, whom many suspected of sneaking a shot of "Scope" mouthwash between classes, told us that we would call out, "cathedral" during class, and then we would all run out on to the lawn and build a human cathedral. With a transept and everything.
I'm not sure how that relates to the original post, but that's my example of history brought to life.
July 8, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I meant to say, of course we DID make that cathedral, and it was glorious.
July 8, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paige! That's a great story. I'm absolutely filing that away in my brain somewhere to use as future inspiration.
July 8, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe what's tricky about teaching history in a non-linear fashion is that if you start with young kids teaching history, it's easier for them to grasp a timeline. So I wonder if there's ways to work around that.
July 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just look at the ordinances of secession and the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The former are focused exclusively on slavery; the latter's only differences with the then U.S. Consitution are about slavery and the line item veto. No one thinks the line item veto was the cause of the Civil War.
So I tend to believe what people said in 1860 & 1861, and not their after-the-fact romantic justifications about defending their way of life.
July 8, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this instance though, I suppose I'm more interested in seeing how it's taught than debating the causes of it. Curious to know what causes and perspectives are taught in the various corners of the country and world.
July 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me sat that this is the first piece that has interested me on TPM in a long time.
I want to make a couple of points:
(1) I don't claim any expertise and what I say has been learned from recent college courses. My first point is that things are changing. Many profs are teaching with new attitudes and breaking the chains of male and euro-centric domination.
(2) Feminist scholars have made a convincing case that until recent times all history has been written by men. This fact makes it vital for women to consider alternative books and ideas.
(3) Many courses that include the Israeli/Palestinian question have been slanted to the Israeli side. The suffering and the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause has been minimized. I say this as Jew and with relatives in Israel although they are "peacenicks."
I thank the poster for this piece.
July 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your points are excellent. I would add that most myths have been created by men (at least that is one theory) and communicated by men also. This should always have us thinking about fairy tales which are told to children at an early age.
July 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that education is evolving. At a slower pace than I'd like, but nonetheless. Teacher education schools are teaching much more broad-based teaching methods that account for things missing in the past.
Excellent point about the Israel/Palestine conflict. It's place in present day history and the story around it.
And then who is it that is forging these perspectives? If the curriculum is controlled to a degree by the government, local and beyond, it would be in the government's interest to shape the perspectives it would like to see in its citizens. So, the textbook companies and the like write to that audience, rather than to the audience who will learn from it.
How to counter this? And how much individual changes from specific educatorss? Is there room left for the presentation of different perspectives? Can we ever trust the government to control a curricula that accurately reflects any sense of truth in history?
July 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are quite the thinker Mr Mark Twain. But can you tell a joke? Come on. You know one. Here, I'll start and you finish.
Two teachers walk into a bar.............
July 8, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can attest to the fact that history is what the winners or the observers choose to recount. I wrote a history book once, as an insider. Because I was an insider, I wrote a mostly positive history of my particular industry. There is a lot I could have written that was less savory, but I didn't think it was necessary to make people feel bad. I didn't set out to write THE definitive history, but one that would be entertaining and informative, though not necessarily complete. I said as much in the foreword. But, because there have been only a few histories written in my field, mine has become a part of college courses and, as a consequence, has become one of THE histories. So to the extent that I left things out or smoothed out some controversies to protect people (and, truthfully, myself from ill feelings and loss of friendships), my history is somewhat flawed and less perfect that perhaps it could have been.
At any rate, I did learn that those who write or otherwise commemorate history have a lot of power, and those of us who read it often have no context by which to question it.
July 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your question as a southerner (Floridian)
In elementary school I was taught that the war was about slavery and nothing else.
In high school -- AP classes, no less _- I was taught that the war wasn't about slavery at all, but about economics, the industrial north against the agronomic south and states' rights. Salvery, i was taught, would have collapsed within a few years even without the war, because it didn't make economic sense as the age became more industrial.(I got a 4 on the exam). Really compelling arguements.
In college, at the University of Florida (Go Gators) I was taught that it was about slavery. Also really compelling arguements. Also about having free access to sex with slaves. Also real compelling arguements about the feminist role in the Confederacy.
So you blend all that together, and what do you get? It was about economic conflict and about state's rights. But mostly it was about slavery. And when they talk abotu defending their way of life, it's true, because slavery WAS their way of life. Even non-slaveholders had a vested and societal interest in maintaining slavery. It wasn't an economic model -- it was the fabric of their beings. Slavery would not have faded -- it was the coe of Southern philosophy.
Or so i was taught.
July 8, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really great answer, thank you so much. Your perspective is invaluable.
July 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was raised and educated in a Kentucky college town in the 70s. Border states have a perspective all their own on that war. Indeed, I'll bet it was taught a lot more differently in any two border states than in any two random Northern or Southern states. Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri each had profoundly different experiences in that war. Maryland got the iron fist, Kentucky got the kid gloves and Missouri got its own private civil war.
July 8, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great. Deviations in the perspectives not just in two geographical divisions but more. So would you be willing to tell a bit more about how it was taught in Kentucky? Or also what the views of most Kentuckians (is that the right word?) on the war are?
July 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only obliquely. How do you teach history to kids in the state where both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born (and where both have statutes in the capitol's rotunda--Lincoln in bronze in the center, beneath the dome, Davis in (smaller) stone looking on from the side)?
Thinking back on it, I think what we really got was both side's Disneyfied, prettified narrative amalgamated into one one sickly-sweet dish.
July 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe this is an Igbo proverb: Until lions start writing down their own stories, the hunters will always be the heroes.
July 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great one, 1849. I had forgotten about that one. It also occurs to me the need for heroes in history. History as it is kind of always insists on creating the right vs. wrong dichotomy. Win vs. lose. That kind of stuff.
There's a line from Braveheart that always makes me think of this...
"Historians from England will say that I am a liar. But history is written by those who have hung heroes."
I always wonder - Do you think people would know who William Wallace was if not for that movie? There are of course some, ah, flourishes taken with the accuracy of the story in the movie, but I generally think it does more harm than good if it creates interest in the story of Wallace. And the historians have essentially decried the stories told of him carried down in the verbal tradition as "inaccurate". So what is more true? The myth? The historians' accounts? The poet's accounts?
July 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, just encasing you in Blue.
1849, good to see you. I have nothing poetic to add.
July 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where the hell is the old guy? He loves history talk.
July 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you look to the sky, you may see it. Er, him.
July 8, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It had something to do with Molly Hatchet and Marshall Tucker vs. Ted Nugent and Boston.
July 9, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd say it is precisely the opposite. The "old world" had no access to information that would allow them to view history as anything "but" linear.
Good grief!
And?
Well, you could try going on one of those 'driving tours' thingys at Gettysberg. They have several versions of history recorded on tape to guide you. The selections range from ultra condescending PC North to Goddamn proud to be an American South. Or heck, buy them all and take the tour for a week on consecutive days, get a well rounded view.Just a suggestion.
Yes, my very narrow view is the correct one.
(sarcasm off)
July 8, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bee, he DID say "taught." Maybe he is talking about passive larn'n?
July 8, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please.
Do Not encourage me.
:D
July 8, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
sort off a beer hall now
kinda rude
July 8, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bee, he DID say "taught." Maybe he is talking about passive larn'n?"
You too.
July 8, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see a debate sparked! This is great. Ok, let me see where I can go with this.
I suppose I don't really know what you mean when you say that old societies didn't have access to information.
And today's view of history, in our society, is linear in the sense that when it is taught, it is taught as one thing happened after the other, one thing happened because of this other thing. But, in many ancient cultures, societies was much more fatalistic. Centered around the seasons, there was often a more cyclical view of history.
"That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages which were before us.
I've been to Gettysburg many times. And Chambersburg, Manassas, Sharpsburg. (I've got some civil war buffs in the family. I probably never would have gone if not for them.) What I meant about not delving into the research not about researching the war, but researching the teaching methods used in the schools, the sources used, the perspectives taught. The schools I've attended and taught in have all been in the North. I'd like to expand that experience and see how history varies depending on where it is taught.Bhavacakra is another good example. A lot of eastern religions in particular take a cyclical view of history and time and life.
July 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I see where you are coming from, but I disagree that history was "circular." Seasons, yes, but history was told by bards as was quite linear, this led to this which led to this.
Have you read very old manuscripts? See how history was de fato, taught?
The thing is, history is kind of fluid, and nowadays, quite manipulative. What I learned in school is not what my kid learns in school, and isn't what my parents learned in school.
To refer to history as "static" may be a mistake. I only object for I have found my self having to defend "what I have learned" and in the process found much I did not learn by design.
It just pays to be aware of these things.
I did recommend. Interesting post. Sorry for the noise.
July 8, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Well glad to see some debate in here, though I must admit I was wondering what I'd done to spark your ire. I assumed I'm just not up to speed on the norms of the site yet. But as to the cyclical nature. Here's the link to a theory that discusses it. I couldn't remember the name all day. And of course, for societies whose culture carried those beliefs, their forms of education would be influenced by their beliefs about history in general.
I don't think history is static at all. Quite the opposite. I've observed that too often the history education lags behind the speed with which history evolves, something I'd like to address.
July 9, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
July 9, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to hear that discussion. Frankly, It sounded to me like you were calling history this absolute "thing." I may have misread you.
As for why history lags, having worked on middle and high school text books, I might have a good insight as to why that is. There is "history" and there is "accepted history" and there is politically advantageous and nationalistic history.
In order for everyone to agree on one view to teach takes time as well as, taking in accepted norms.
One alarming thing I wouldn't mind discussing, is the role of "history" in politics. I mean we tend to see it right here on TPM, how people use alternative versions of history as a hammer to knock home a point. (Example: Reagan was good) One must be especially critical in their reading in order to sift fact from wishfulness.
I'll keep an eye out for another post, and try not to spark any discussion at all, if that is what you'd prefer.
;)
July 9, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You remind me of the brick manufacturer who imagines himself an architect...
July 9, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's up here? The guy writes a good post. Disagreeing with him shouldn't mean pissing on him. Really. The driving quip is really a rude thing to say to someone posting something food for TPM.
Crap-speak at in its fullest form. How kewl
July 8, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
and BTW, you and I had an agreement that you wouldn't post on a thread where I am. I never post on any thread where I see you. That was the agreement. Remember?
July 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
July 8, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You promised to stay off threads I posted on, but as you haven't, oh well.
July 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not going to fight with you. Your words here say it all. It's over for me.
July 9, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well. This avatar came here to start a fight. It says so at 10:26 at
http://www.lingr.com/room/TPM-aholics
it writes of itself:
"workerbee pleased and off to start a fight at TPM"
Check it out before it is erased.
Type in the password indicated (you will know it if you post here)
select archives and scroll up looking at the time code.
You know enough is enough already. This is really toxic, and the ones who came with it are toxic too.
July 8, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher, "start a fight" can have many meanings. Like "provoke comment," for example.
July 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. That is bullshit. You've started a good thing over there and this is not what you were going for. Let people read the whole conversation, OK. Don't take it down. They should know about the virulence and contempt that is written there about posters here.
Just let people read the whole thread at your site.
July 8, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree; anyone who wants to know the background should feel free to read the whole thread, both here and in the lingr room. (And, in fact, to join the discussion there, if they'd like to. Real-time conversation with other TPMers is quite a trip.)
I'm just pointing that my interpretation of bee's comments, both here and in the chat room, is that she was looking to provoke a discussion, to add some energy to a site where it's been flagging lately. I understood "fight" in that context to be more akin to "debate" than "argument."
And, from reading Vedere's response, I think that Vedere interpreted bee's comments (above) in the same way.
July 8, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
July 8, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let the the words speak for themselves. Especially those at your site. Being a peacemaker is good. An you, of all people, know that I have tried to help out.
July 9, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And she did try to make it seem "normal"-- after I posted. Read the time stamp. And what did you expect the blogger to do? He seems a nice guy. I]m sure he's confused why anyone would come here and be rude. And it's not fair to try and bring him into this to prove your point. He should be allowed to keep his dignity without taking sides.
July 9, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paige,
"Start a fight" has only one meaning.
Although I've only recently been exposed to the fact that Cypher is possibly a host of other personalities -- and for all I know that includes workerbee as well (who claims all kinds of secret knowledge on Cypher -- the point is clear.
I'll take the bee on face value here. Especially since in the past she likes to pretend to be the moderator of "facts" here. My first exposure to her was her talking about something called CSPAN boards (and accusing me of frequenting them) and how she had to clean those up, too. I tend to file those types of delusions under the "poor dear needs to get a life".
I will say this: for someone to deliberately try to stir something up makes me sad. The bee cheapens the TPM board with intentions like that. That she brazenly announces them to a group of regulars is, perhaps, more surprising.
July 9, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks clear thinker, not for taking sides, but for helping the history of this be recounted. Without that, I am left marginalized.
July 9, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The full conversation
quinn esq with the b-52's UP
that whole country is gorgeous. was there in 85-86. hard to keep from crying at the time though.
home. born london. grew up NS. prairies now. lotsa places in-between.
hoping to meet bee, actually, when she comes up to her wedding in august.
and y'all? from cali?
10:26pmdijamo quiero wine!
quinn has a british accent? This totally changes the way I read your posts now
workerbee pleased and off to start a fight at TPM:
h, I missed MassDems thread. I ought to go start a fight there, just to be
er,
something
Hi quinn
quinn esq with the b-52's UP:
no accent. i wish i had.
workerbee pleased and off to start a fight at TPM:
Fight started:
Actually, I'd say it is precisely the opposite. The "old world" had no access to information that would allow them to view history as anything "but" linear.
Good grief!
And?
Well, you could try going on one of those 'driving tours' thingys at Gettysberg. They have several versions of history recorded on tape to guide you. The selections range from ultra condescending PC North to Goddamn proud to be an American South. Or heck, buy them all and take the tour for a week on consecutive days, get a well rounded view.Just a suggestion.
Yes, my very narrow view is the correct one.
(sarcasm off)
view paste
quinn esq with the b-52's UP:
heya bee. what scrap?
workerbee pleased and off to start a fight at TPM:
We'll see it it fires up
Orlando has joined
10:27pm
workerbee pleased and off to start a fight at TPM
:
July 8, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of virulent and angry nonsense that has to stop. Enough. Stop. You came to a thread to start a fight. You say so.
You enjoy it. Stop.
July 8, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
your words
workerbee pleased and off to start a fight at TPM:
"We'll see it it fires up"
July 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...you fired it up alright. And don't you look so intelligent for having done it.
July 8, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm usually more of a reader than a commenter, but I think this is an especially interesting topic.
I learned Civil War history in a public residential magnet school in Louisiana as taught by a retired Army colonel, in the mid to late 90s.
I was taught that there was no sole cause - slavery as a moral aberration or material right, other economic factors, and states' rights to self-governance were all espoused either during or after the war, but what i came away from the class with was the conclusion that some slipperier cultural self-determinating urges probably fueled more soldiers to enlist than anything else. "Home defense", "patriotism", or gaining citizenship.
NCSteve further up the thread points out the variance among the border-states' histories during the war. My education did focus a bit on the local differences between LA's experience (LA, TX, and AR were hinterlands for the most part, and as a consequence were the last states to surrender, largely due to successful Confederate maneuvering during the Red River campaign - but vast swaths of the region were yet to be settled, including my hometown). Also discussed - French/Spanish culture and ideas about race, and how they reacted against Anglo-American racial identities (northern and southern both).
July 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cole, it sounds like you were blessed with a great educational experience!
July 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just so.
No need to willfully misinterpret
July 8, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you going to stick to our agreement or not. I don't come on your threads if I see you (I haven't) and you don't come on threads where I'm posting (you do it all the time). Sort of the Billy Glad agreement. I made it to keep peace, You broke it. Want to sign up again in public? I'll keep it.
July 8, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue. Isn't the agreement a bit too broad-brush? If you have a scrap with someone, just don't speak to THEM. Doesn't that work better? I don't get the whole "people leaving, banning, shunning" thing.
July 8, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, why not. I'll just stay off TPM here if that suits you.
You folks win, OK.
What about this nasty purposeful talk at your folk's other site.
How about we just let that stand on its own merits.
Apologize to the good people here trying to make a good discussion. Do the right thing.
July 9, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Blue. Isn't the agreement a bit too broad-brush? If you have a scrap with someone, just don't speak to THEM. Doesn't that work better? I don't get the whole "people leaving, banning, shunning" thing."
That is what I've done. I don't speak to her. But this is a nasty bit of business, and unprovoked. It speaks for itself.
July 9, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And quinn...she came here to just make a fight, and she directed that fight to the POSTER, not me. That is wrong. That cannot be explained away with crap speak.
She started this up with the blogger. Read it, dude.
July 9, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blue. It DOESN'T suit me for you to "stay off TPM." Just the opposite, actually. I'd like you here more.
But look. The chat thing got set up, and it seems to me that a lot of people come & go. One reason SOME people do it is because there's a lot of confusion over whether they're "real" people or not. As you know, being a (mouthy) newcomer, I was getting tagged as a "fictional creation" of others. I thought it best (living in a real-world remote location), to drop in and swap talk with people. I think you can see the dilemma here.
And PLEASE, go do a name search on me there if you like, read every word, and if I've been offensive to you, let me know. Because that's certainly not been my intention. I may have to apologize to Loki for teasing him about ending his last post with "eat shit" - which I found so rude that it was actually funny. If Loki turns out to just have been clowning, then I WILL apologize.
Personally, I have NO problems with what people's pictures look like, how much they hide their real lives, whether they use multiples or not. I'm happy to play in the pen, whether playmates are masked or not.
And yes, I see how tonight's scrap started. I've got my own views on history, which - funny enough - I posted on tonight, and that attempt ties in somewhat with the discussion above.
Personally, I come from a background where people were shunned, cut off, exiled - and silenced. Which is why I tend against that approach I guess. I don't like these you go here and I'll go there things. Maybe they're necessary, I donno.
Anyhoo. Stay please. If I've offended, let me know how and when. I'll own up. though I DO think poor Mr. Vedere and the others are owed an apology. They certainly have mine. It's astoundingly rude that this sort of thing has to block up their thoughtful words and discussion. I AM sorry about that. Maybe that'd be a good use for that chat room thing. A place where sometimes people could go to sort stuff out.
There. Too much said by me, again. Hell.
July 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do I care that she has a problem with "psueds" --the problem isn't about that. It's never directed at Monica or Ripper.
Why? You think on that on.
And it's astoundingly rude for a "persons" to write "going to start a fight" and then report back "Fight started."
That doesn't mean "provoked interesting discussions" or made things "more interesting.." That means she wanted to start a fight, and was proud that she did. Dude-it's on the other site. Can't you read? I'm tired of being stalked by this person. I am done/
July 9, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Verere. If possible, can someone start this discussion again?
July 9, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
My education in Civil War history in elementary school (in Colorado and Minnesota) was decidedly along the northern viewpoint of 'southern states seceding because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery and their economy depending on slave labor."
My middle and high school education (in New Mexico) was either pitiful or I wasn't paying attention, or both. I vaguely remember taking some world history - Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and such. I have not taken a college history class.
But I remember my mother and her mother talking about "Bloody Kansas" and the guerrilla war there (they were from Kansas and Nebraska), and I got the clear impression from them that anyone who fought in Kansas on the side of slavery was no better than a modern terrorist.
The abolitionist viewpoint was quite in harmony with the teaching of the Lutheran Church as manifested in that part of the midwest and passed on to me by my family. According to the Lutheran abolitionist view, John Brown was a hero who died a martyr to the cause of freedom for the slaves. Confederate general Robert E. Lee was a misguided military genius (never quite a traitor) who lost mainly because his cause did not have the righteous blessing of God.
As always, the truth in history is more than what any one viewpoint admits, for history is made of the stories of winners and losers, and everyone else who had to sit and watch each train wreck as it happened. As in quantum physics, the act of observing is participatory, and affects the outcome. But losers and watchers don't usually get to say what happened.
July 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
History is about perspective and being inclusive in that perspective. Remember, no one imagines himself evil and malicious -- every normal human does things out of a positive motivation.
I suggest two excellent books that may challenge some of the common thinking:
Howard Zinn's PEOPLES HISTORY OF THE US
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215587687&sr=1-1
July 9, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
and
James W. Loewen's LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/1595583262/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215587738&sr=1-1
Finally, with regards to the Civil War: the myriad of complexities, especially in the lead-up to the 1860 election, can be found in James M. McPherson's BATTLECRY OF FREEDOM:
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215587622&sr=8-1
July 9, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, we have to stop reading the same books...
:-)
July 9, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if you really want an education on the legislature, especially of the Senate, read Caro's MASTER OF THE SENATE. At 1000 pages, it's a tome -- and doesn't work well on the beach -- but it's damned rewarding.
Unless, of course, you've already read it!
July 9, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest one too, in case you have not read it -
The American Holocaust, David E. Stennard.
He uses sources that generally don't get used. Sometimes historians use the same source over and over and over again and then the history of an encounter gets normalized and fossilized. It becomes a hard, linear trajectory from which reality and the time-past cannot escape. Stennard sheds new light on things. Yes, he’s been roundly criticized for defending Ward Churchill, but don’t let that diminish his research abilities and his way around a source.
July 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wonderful irony of history is that it doesn't change at all, since it already happened, but how we see it (and what we choose to see) changes a great deal.
For what it's worth, in my experience (which I do not claim to be extensive) the view of the Civil War presented in European schools tends to match the Northern perspective, ie. that it was all about slavery and by extension economics (industrial North vs. agricultural South).
But real wars have a tendency to be complicated. It's rarely about any one thing. I would be surprised if different people hadn't fought the Civil War with different motivations.
July 9, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what of history's secrets? What guidance would you advise there? Should everything one knows be public?
July 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question.
I don't think there's any "should" there. People will make public whatever they think should be made public. It's up to everyone to decide what they want to remain secret.
I'm sure history is packed with secrets that no one will ever know.
July 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Georgia HS class of '67.
We were taught just the bare facts. Fort Sumter, Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln assassination. Discussion was discouraged. The subject was too inflammatory and too likely to draw a teacher into disputes with parents outside the classroom. Just as during the war, its discussion tends to divide families and communities -- even those that are 98-99% Southern white.
July 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink