tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post4289532967716039843..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Howard Zinn, the Boston Bombers, and school propaganda. Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-77703818438161782662013-10-01T18:28:12.055-07:002013-10-01T18:28:12.055-07:00And over the same period, government has grown eno...And over the same period, government has grown enormously. <br /><br />The weird thing is, liberals seem to think that is a coincidence -- that rich people who can hire rich lawyers and bribe congressmen, get even richer when the congressmen take more money from the folks, and the poor become ever more dependent on Big Brother. <br /><br />But maybe we actually agree that government should get out of the business of subsidizing businesses? <br /><br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-24614742979420634322013-05-03T11:47:15.329-07:002013-05-03T11:47:15.329-07:00Jgmachen2, I object to the fact that over the las...Jgmachen2, I object to the fact that over the last 30 years the share of national income going to corporations and profits has exploded, while the share of income going to wages and workers has collapsed - living standards and incomes for large parts of the populace have stagnated or declined, and reliable middle class jobs are becoming a thing of the past, making normal family life increasingly impossible for a larger and larger proportion of the population. Meanwhile, the top one percent have become massively wealthier while the middle class slowly bleeds to death. All of this happened as a result of deliberate policies that favour the wealthy corporate sector. And you are happy about this? <br /><br />I presume you are talking about the theft of the financial organisations, corporations and the wealthy in general, who rig the system to their own benefit and profit from the existing system of socialism for the rich - and free-markets for everyone else? Your reference to totalitarianism is perhaps a reference to our system of corporate tyranny, an essentially feudal system where profit-making organisations are legally obliged to behave like psychopaths while simultaneously receiving massive state support, as was clearly seen during the recent massive government bailout of banks? Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6941906115166381932013-05-03T09:11:40.645-07:002013-05-03T09:11:40.645-07:00Another consideration: even if they do get you the...Another consideration: even if they do get you the results you want, the ends do not always justify the means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45763108970351598182013-05-03T09:09:54.406-07:002013-05-03T09:09:54.406-07:00"Since I am a deeply conservative person who ..."Since I am a deeply conservative person who abhors revolution, I favour relative wealth equality combined with extensive state programs to help the poor and disadvantaged."<br /><br />So you think your idiosyncratic fears and preferences justify theft and totalitarianism? That's nuts. Why do you think that's the only solution? Why do you think that will get you the results you hope for?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-18182169538086877282013-05-03T02:14:28.278-07:002013-05-03T02:14:28.278-07:00I am quite a fan of Howard Zinn and all of the res...I am quite a fan of Howard Zinn and all of the rest of his fellow truth tellers that can be found on this site.<br /><br />www.thirdworldtraveler.com Frederick Frothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318304600140946026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-14212151234250460402013-05-02T19:42:33.067-07:002013-05-02T19:42:33.067-07:00I know you're a liberal, not a Marxist. We'...I know you're a liberal, not a Marxist. We'll see how Europe and America do in the coming years in dealing with the unforseen consequences of your favored policies. But certainly, I don't ascribe the particular form of evil to statist liberals that I ascribe to Marxist revolutionaries -- whether in poor Third-World countries, or in liberal, wealthy Boston or Seattle. (Apparently they were out in the streets again, last night.) David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-67385701012890067992013-05-02T09:01:31.645-07:002013-05-02T09:01:31.645-07:00Revolutions and their aftermaths are nearly always...Revolutions and their aftermaths are nearly always terrible – the way to avoid revolutions is to avoid excessive inequality and injustice within a society, since that is what creates the circumstances that make revolution likely. My guess is pre-Revolutionary China was an extremely unjust and unequal society where a tiny elite lived lives of unbelievable luxury while the rest of the population starved or lived as serfs in conditions of near starvation. That is what created the conditions where violent revolution became likely, if not even inevitable. And the trouble with revolutions is that it’s impossible to predict what will happen afterwards – it can be even worse than what it replaces.<br /><br />Since I am a deeply conservative person who abhors revolution, I favour relative wealth equality combined with extensive state programs to help the poor and disadvantaged. That helps to avoid the circumstances that give rise to revolutions. Societal stability can be increased, and revolution avoided, if there is moderate redistribution of income, as well as extensive social welfare, free healthcare for everyone, free education for everyone, strong trade unions, strong employee rights, high taxes (especially on the wealthy) and so on.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-4248436416997796492013-05-02T07:56:23.031-07:002013-05-02T07:56:23.031-07:00Brian: I'm glad that Zinn had his good qualiti...Brian: I'm glad that Zinn had his good qualities: so does his book: <br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/review/R2VZ28J089YIEJ<br /><br />I don't have a copy of the book in my office, so I can't quote him on the USSR. But his comment about China is bad enough. Here's an account of those wonderful early years:<br /><br />http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=1081&catid=2David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-36562891498429537912013-05-02T07:25:34.643-07:002013-05-02T07:25:34.643-07:00I’m not sure where do you get the notion that Zinn...I’m not sure where do you get the notion that Zinn supported the tyranny in the Soviet Union.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-16409042678319260012013-05-02T07:22:56.861-07:002013-05-02T07:22:56.861-07:00As far as I know, Zinn had a blameless family life...As far as I know, Zinn had a blameless family life (married faithfully to the same woman for his entire life). He fought for his country in WWII and appears to have fought bravely and honourably, although he was always tormented about whether it was morally right to bomb innocent civilians. He was a strong supporter of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Within a US context Zinn always stood up for the poor, the vulnerable, the exploited and the powerless, and he criticised the wealthy, the exploiters and the powerful. So, yes he was on the side of the ordinary people against the powerful and the privileged. All in all then, he was a really good person.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73222060719762433082013-05-02T07:22:08.479-07:002013-05-02T07:22:08.479-07:00Brian: Zinn was also from the most powerful "...Brian: Zinn was also from the most powerful "religion" of his time, and more committed to it than to his nation. So I'm afraid that excuse doesn't wash. Or if he took a gun out and shot a bunch of Americans, would you regard that as an act of self-abnegation, since he was also an American? The imagination plays funny tricks with the word "we," often involving cant and sanctimonious hypocricy. <br /><br />I've admitted, though, that America does need its critics, so Zinn can be helpful, if one takes his claims with a grain of salt. But take him too seriously, and one becomes just a different kind of bigot, and a mad form of hypocrite, because you pluck the mite out of your own country's eye, and leave the log in your enemy's eye, without being so crude as to mention it. A morally serious person would have stood up against the communists, who were murdering millions of people in Gulags around the world. It's unconscionable to pass by on the grounds that the folks starving in the Gulag were mostly not American, or persecuted by Americans. And it's dishonest not to recognize the great good the Anglo Alliance did by standing up against so many tyrannies. <br /><br />We're never going to agree about the Palestinian Arabs. Of course I think our real sins are against the Jews, while the Arabs have been pampered beyond justice or sense. But you got my main point with Said, so Heaven keep us off that topic on a Thursday morning / evening. (Especially if the weather is as nice in Ireland as it is in Seattle right now.) David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25931304943167198132013-05-02T06:53:02.494-07:002013-05-02T06:53:02.494-07:00The more powerful a country is the more sins it is...The more powerful a country is the more sins it is likely to have – and even small failings in the powerful can have terrible consequences. Given that Zinn was from the most powerful country in the world at the time, his critique was even more valuable and admirable, since the powerful always have an even greater tendency than others to think too well of themselves, and to be blind to their own crimes and failings.<br /><br />As for Said and Palestine, the crimes of the West against the Palestinians are enormous, so the first thing any Westerner has to do is acknowledge that, which is why decent Westerners are partial to Said. Said himself was American as well as Palestinian, but you might say that, by my own criteria, Said himself should have focused on criticising Palestinians – well, as far as I recall he was a relentless critic of the Palestinian political leadership i.e of any Palestinians who had even a modicum of power. All the same, I do think that if one comes from a largely powerless and oppressed group of people, as is the case with the Palestinians, then it is far more forgiveable not to be endlessly criticising that group, since they will be oppressed and relentlessly condemned enough as it is by far more powerful forces.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-69639493821375230442013-05-02T06:44:12.026-07:002013-05-02T06:44:12.026-07:00Sorry, Brian, but other people in your nation are ...Sorry, Brian, but other people in your nation are still other people. And if you're committed to a class warfare religion, then "your people" are yourself and your comrades, first. This is clear from the very title of Zinn's book: "Peoples' history." If, like other Marxists, Zinn is claiming to speak for "the People," then by your logic, he ought to speak first of "the Peoples'" sins (well, first, his own, if you're going to evoke Jesus' teaching on this). Plus, a lot that Zinn says is BS, as I recall. <br /><br />Why do you suppose the Left loves Said so much? Said wasn't examining the sins of the Palestinian Arabs. He was examining the (alleged) sins of the West. Like Zinn, he hated the right people, and therefore was cool to the Left. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-28473010303255720702013-05-02T06:37:28.461-07:002013-05-02T06:37:28.461-07:00If one is talking about politics and history then ...If one is talking about politics and history then that means focusing first on the sins of your own country, which is precisely what Zinn did, to his great moral credit.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-26014651959331801362013-05-02T06:24:40.980-07:002013-05-02T06:24:40.980-07:00Brian: Poppycock. If Zinn were following that goo...Brian: Poppycock. If Zinn were following that good advice, he would (a) begin by describing his OWN sins; (b) move on to the sins of his family; (c) then the sins of the faculty he is a part of; (d) then, and spend most of the book on this, the sins of the Marxism religion he is committed to. On Marxist premises, we are first of all a part of our class, not our nation. <br /><br />What it really becomes for Zinn, is "You are guilty," the "you" being "people I despise in the nation I happened to have been born within." He ignores communist evils that were magnitudes greater than the evils he focuses on, because the commies were on his side, and because in that context, the American response (at times) not only doesn't look so bad, but often looks positively necessary, even morally praiseworthy. <br /><br />Jesus was not talking about some phony collective we that is used as a bludgeon to attack one's own enemies, rather than to confess one's own sins. <br /><br />But you'll notice that even so, my review of his book was not entirely negative. We do need our critics, as do (even more) the communists, and in some cases Zinn makes good points. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-59724962522462152722013-05-02T06:10:34.054-07:002013-05-02T06:10:34.054-07:00Zinn is clear why he focuses primarily on the evil...Zinn is clear why he focuses primarily on the evils and crimes perpetrated by the West and by America. The reason is actually very simple: it is hard to criticise yourself (or your own group) and easy to criticise other people. Anyone with even elementary moral self-awareness knows this. For example, Jesus says, “why do you behold the mote in your brother's eye, but do not consider the log that is in your own eye? First cast out the log from your own eye.” One is not in a position to criticise others without hypocrisy unless one has first fully acknowledged one’s own sins – the primary responsibility consists of acknowledging one’s own sins (including the sins of one’s own tribe or group, if one is talking about politics) where such acknowledgement might even have some positive effect, by raising understanding. In contrast, hypocritically condemning others it has no effect on them at all, since they instantly see the hypocrisy and completely ignore what is being said, or they even become enraged at the hypocrisy, thus producing a negative effect. <br /><br />But there will, of course, always be more people who condemn others while going easy on themselves, since doing so is easy and pleasurable and allows one to feel good about oneself - also most people are largely blind to their own faults (i.e. they cannot even see their own crimes or the crimes of their own tribe).<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6443196940327229292013-05-01T15:20:09.476-07:002013-05-01T15:20:09.476-07:00Thanks! Now I'm really ticked off.
You make ...Thanks! Now I'm really ticked off. <br /><br />You make a very good point, the assumption that attacks on Christianity will humble Christian students, rather than provoke anti-Christian bigotry among non-Christians. <br /><br />See my Amazon review of Oxford History of Islam, for more in the same key. <br /><br />I'd love to hear from other students, or recent grads. (But not, necessarily, from my employers!) David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-58638599923807703912013-05-01T15:08:47.116-07:002013-05-01T15:08:47.116-07:00I'm a high school senior who took A.P. World H...I'm a high school senior who took A.P. World History last year. We watched a documentary produced by P.B.S. about the rise of Islam and the Islamic empires that followed. I am not exaggerating when I say it literally refused to acknowledge any intolerant act ever done by Muslims, except al-Hakim's burning of churches, but he was dismissed as being insane and the exception. The worst, most horrible thing about the film was the portrayal of the Ottoman Empire's confiscation of children from Christian subjects for the Jannisaries.<br /><br />I cried during the documentary--Christians were portrayed as terrible, backwards people and Muslims universally good. I hate it that teachers act like they need to inform us students that we shouldn't hate Islam whenever the subject comes up, often aiming this admonition exclusively at Christian students, when the school has many secular students who hate Christianity. They're never told to remember all the evil atheists of history--never. It's very stupid.GreekAsianPandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02197787940733271998noreply@blogger.com