Left Wing Historical Revisionism

CCIP · 02-03-12, 11:59 AM

No, really, I don't see how

It's an opinion piece about the failure of socialist welfare policies in Europe and how Obama is wrong to look up to them. It has nothing to do with historical revisionism, America-bashing, or the causes of war with Japan.

The only thing it has in common with the OP is that the author sees red the moment the terms "left wing" and "socialism" appear on the horizon, although unlike the OP the article at least rationalizes its disdain for the left.

Other than that, I'm not seeing it.

mookiemookie · 02-03-12, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

No, really, I don't see how

It's an opinion piece about the failure of socialist welfare policies in Europe and how Obama is wrong to look up to them. It has nothing to do with historical revisionism, America-bashing, or the causes of war with Japan.

The only thing it has in common with the OP is that the author sees red the moment the terms "left wing" and "socialism" appear on the horizon, although unlike the OP the article at least rationalizes its disdain for the left.

Other than that, I'm not seeing it.

I'm with you. I'm not really seeing the connection here....

tater · 02-03-12, 12:42 PM

Yeah, the topic is about bias in history texts. For example, A People's History Of The United States by Zinn is terribly biased to the left. Zinn said as much about it. He claimed it to advance a social goal. It is also used as a standard text all over. THAT is bias in history.

"Histories" that make the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan have time and time again, repeated partial information, making it look as if Japan was trying to surrender, and we knew it. What they had was 1/2 the conversation. The Ambassador to the CCCP was cabling home to say they SHOULD surrender, what they do not tell the reader is that the cable back to him basically said, "No. We will bleed them on the beaches first to secure a better deal." So bias gets in there sometimes, and unfortunately, you need to be well read to see it sometimes.

BTW, up the thread someone mentioned Costello's book. I read about 1/3 to 1/2 through one of his, and had been correcting so many errors in my head as I read, I decided I knew more than he did (some of it really dumb stuff like the wrong types of planes being named, etc).

Tchocky · 02-03-12, 12:45 PM

Quoted off th'article.

Quote:

. It is bizarre that Obama should be regarded (or should regard himself) as a kind-of European

He's only regarded as such by political opponents who use it as a perjorative.

See Romney, Gingrich, et al

Quote:

...who is trying to bring a sophisticated kind-of socialism to American economic life, complete with government-run health care and ***8220;fair***8221; (high) taxes on the wealthy. If his European credentials were up to date, he would know that this was precisely the social model that is causing the EU to implode, and whose hopeless contradictions the best economic minds on the Continent are attempting, unsuccessfully, to resolve.

The current EU problems have little to do with tax rates and nothing at all to do with healthcare policy. As a percentage of GDP goes, the generic EU share for healthcare is massively below that of the US. Problems of fiscal independence conflicting with political and monetary union (and with a inflationary hawkish central bank) are totally unique and can't be handwaved away as a "social model". Nevermind the exact details of the Greek tragedy or the Irish/Portugese bailouts.

This writer does not know what she's on about. Standard Torygraph.

EDIT - Tater, just saw your post. I liked Zinn's History. Pretty clearly biased, but I learned about a couple of new things in it that a lot of other books skip over.

August · 02-03-12, 12:50 PM

Well at least I broke the circle jerk.

CaptainHaplo · 02-03-12, 03:42 PM

History is written by the "victor". This doesn't necessarily mean facts are written in or out - though that does happen - it primarily goes to the issue of what perspective the facts are viewed in.

WW2 is a perfect example. Many point to the end of WW1 as sowing the seeds of WW2. In some ways it did. But to claim the Versaille treaty was "THE" cause of the war negates a big picture view. Japan is viewed as imperialistic and aggressive - and in many ways this was accurate. To dismiss the policies of the US however does remove valid factors from the equation.

No singular perspective of history, especially the history of a major conflict, is going to be entirely accurate. The wise scholar realizes this, and weighs the various factors in detail. This does mean that one opinion can be vastly different from the next when learned men discuss such topics, but to call a historical perspective "revisionism" can only be accurate if it intenionally denies / skips over relevant, documented facts.

02-03-12, 11:59 AM	#1
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	No, really, I don't see how It's an opinion piece about the failure of socialist welfare policies in Europe and how Obama is wrong to look up to them. It has nothing to do with historical revisionism, America-bashing, or the causes of war with Japan. The only thing it has in common with the OP is that the author sees red the moment the terms "left wing" and "socialism" appear on the horizon, although unlike the OP the article at least rationalizes its disdain for the left. Other than that, I'm not seeing it. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

02-03-12, 12:42 PM	#3
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, the topic is about bias in history texts. For example, A People's History Of The United States by Zinn is terribly biased to the left. Zinn said as much about it. He claimed it to advance a social goal. It is also used as a standard text all over. THAT is bias in history. "Histories" that make the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan have time and time again, repeated partial information, making it look as if Japan was trying to surrender, and we knew it. What they had was 1/2 the conversation. The Ambassador to the CCCP was cabling home to say they SHOULD surrender, what they do not tell the reader is that the cable back to him basically said, "No. We will bleed them on the beaches first to secure a better deal." So bias gets in there sometimes, and unfortunately, you need to be well read to see it sometimes. BTW, up the thread someone mentioned Costello's book. I read about 1/3 to 1/2 through one of his, and had been correcting so many errors in my head as I read, I decided I knew more than he did (some of it really dumb stuff like the wrong types of planes being named, etc). __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

02-03-12, 12:50 PM	#5
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,199 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Well at least I broke the circle jerk. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

02-03-12, 03:42 PM	#6
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	History is written by the "victor". This doesn't necessarily mean facts are written in or out - though that does happen - it primarily goes to the issue of what perspective the facts are viewed in. WW2 is a perfect example. Many point to the end of WW1 as sowing the seeds of WW2. In some ways it did. But to claim the Versaille treaty was "THE" cause of the war negates a big picture view. Japan is viewed as imperialistic and aggressive - and in many ways this was accurate. To dismiss the policies of the US however does remove valid factors from the equation. No singular perspective of history, especially the history of a major conflict, is going to be entirely accurate. The wise scholar realizes this, and weighs the various factors in detail. This does mean that one opinion can be vastly different from the next when learned men discuss such topics, but to call a historical perspective "revisionism" can only be accurate if it intenionally denies / skips over relevant, documented facts. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo