And you have no idea of our biology. If anyone is an idiot, it's you. Racism is rooted in ignorance. That's YOU. not Matt Damon or Howard Zinn.
Your genetic make up is over 99% identical to those of African descent and any other ethnic group. that makes YOU a "nigger" too. There's a reason scientists do not label humans in subgroups, because there is no empirical difference that subgroups humans. Black and white is not a "race," Human is. I feel sorry for you and your stupidity.
@fjerins * "Plain and simple" is YOU.Do you know the education he has ? NO, I thought not.And not once during his interview,did he find the need to use the word,"fucked".I too do not agree with his slant on history,and what he believes peoples "duty" is.He is not an idiot,I think he was playing a part,and not really saying what he feels.
Don't you mean "helicopter and simple"? You are such a moron! LMFAO! People who don't know their OWN history are simply amusing! You should be speaking on camera for the Tonight Show's on the street interviews asking idiots simple historical and political facts.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The main message of A People's History of the United States is one of class war. Zinn is so warped that he sees everything in terms of class war. The American Revolution? It was all about rich people trying to exploit the poor. The Civil War? It was all about rich people trying to exploit the poor. World War I and II? It was all about rich people trying to exploit the poor. A terrible book. I recommend "A Patriot's History of the United States". One of the best history books ever!!!
@galactica1981 How does that make it a terrible book? Why not read both books & read Clement Wood's A Complete History of the United States, while you're at it? Also, you should read A Peoples History before you comment on it.
@Fuctmentality It's a terrible book because it's not true! I've read detailed reviews of a People's History so I know what's in it. I'd rather not subject myself to such torture.
@galactica1981 Did it ever occur to you that reading other peoples opinion of a book doesn't qualify you to criticize it? You say the book isn't rue, can you name one part of it that isn't true? Of course not because you would need to read ti in order to do so.
@Fuctmentality Actually, I don't need to read the book because I've read numerous excerpts as well as book reviews which give an honest account of what's in it. Just as I don't need to read Hitler's Mein Kampf to know that it's false and anti-semitic, I don't need to read a People's History to know that it's full of things that simply aren't true. The FBI released it's records on Zinn and revealed he was a member of the Communist Party. Clearly, this is a man who cannot be trusted.
@galactica1981 So even though you can't name one thing Zinn claims that is false, you still know he is lying because, you claim he's a commie & ergo not to be trusted? Are you trollin' opr just that fucking retarded?
@Fuctmentality You people on the left are all the same. You can't have a civil debate without getting nasty. As I've said before, Zinn portrays almost every major event in American history through the lens of class war. According to him, the Amerian Revolution, the Civil War, and both World Wars all occurred simply because rich people wanted to exploit the poor. There. I've just named four things in the book that are false. Satisfied?
@galactica1981 Actually, you mentioned 4 things that are absolutely true. I mean, if you look at all the wars that have been undertaken by Western Nations, not just America, they are all fought in the interest of the elite sector.
The civil war was fought for economic reasons, whether the slaves were emancipated or not was not of the utmost importance, as the mainstream history books will have you believe.
Besides, how many rich people have you seen fighting wars?
@toseeornot2see Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union above all else. If he had tried to end slavery early in the war, it would have resulted in more states seceding. He certainly wasn't thinking much about the economics, as the Civil War was economically devastating in the short term.
Zinn would have you believe that every major war was about the rich exploiting the poor. This is absurd. Some of the Founders lost their freedom and fortunes because they supported the Revolution.
@galactica1981 Actually, the northern states(the manufacturers) wanted to end free trade with England, as it was hurting their business. The Southern states were happy with free trade, as they were already pretty competitive in terms and didn't mind cheaper imports coming in. That was one of the driving forces behind the war.
If Zinn was the only one that said that, then i would be a little dubious, but this fact is agreed on by not only historians, but also economists.
@galactica1981 That's not an answer. Are you trollin or just fucking retarded? Becuase you make claims about a subject you admit you are ignorant of. You can not state that you have never read someones book & then claim to know how it potrays every event in history. So which is it, retarded or trollin'?
@galactica1981 He was a socialist. He even admits it his book: "Howard Zinn on Democratic Education". What is wrong was with Communism though? You must not under the true concepts of Communism.You probably just associate it with Stalin, Mao Zedong, and countless other dictators who claimed to run Communist states while in reality they were totalitarian. To believe what the FBI tells you is foolish. Also your post about Zinn on the American Rev., Civil War, etc. is also false.
@ASentinel2 lol, something darkly funny about someone saying something so shitty towards a good decent person. just my humour i guess. Anyway Zinn was awesome
American citizens do not have a "DUTY" nor a "RESPONSIBILITY" to "MAKE HISTORY" as this communist oligarch would have people believe. They may study as they wish (or not), they may pursue any career they wish. They have the Rights bestowed on them by the Constituition. This play actor is telling people what they "WILL" do?! Since when does this vapid, detached Hollywood product have the authority to issue orders to people? Make history? Whose version? Hair-brained communist.
Ha! As of July 30th the FBI has released through the Freedom of Act, that Howard Zinn was a card carrying communist, attending the Soviet funded CPUSA meetings. Funny, he complains about America because he hates capitalism but goes to CPUSA meetings funded by Moscow as Stalin was murdering, starving, and locking up more of his own citizens than Hitler did in WWII. Way to go Zinn! You will forever go down in history as the debunked communist propagandist who trashed America to prop up socialism.
@ToSeeThingsClear Not sure but marxism and chomsky but I do remember that in that movie, Good Will Hunting, one of the books that he is reading ( a glimpse of the book is shown) is howard zinn's book
@ToSeeThingsClear How about the USA pulls out of NAto you dead beats do not pay your fair share to protect EU ! Let Russia run over Poland again - The Brits will be crying with your tails between your legs again !
@ToSeeThingsClear Yea I have seen EU - Average wage in the USA higher than EU - The average poor person lives in a larger house than the Average person in EU !
You want to talk about the rationed care under the NHS ? you call it free at point of use - I call it heavy tax b4 BEing denied care !
You want to talk about the Debt owned by EU to America that has never been repaid to America WW! and WW2 ~ dead beats!
the main reason i dont like noam and howard is because they always rant to discredit free market libertarians and fail to look into the philosophical scientific economic and political origins of these ideas. also because absolute democracy is not possible and social (anarchistic) democracy does not work. look at canada and europe and tell me whose better off in the long run them or free market socieites like singapore, hong kong and soon to be china
Hey uh Matt Damon. You do know that Howard Zinn is a self described socialist. He gives flawless historical accounts of socialist nations and trashes the united states. No wonder your so screwed up!
Name one thing that Howard Zinn made up. To be a propagandist, you have to lie. PR and the 'news' is propaganda. They push the agenda of corporations and government, and get you to acquiesce by keeping you ignorant. How has Zinn done that?
When referring to things like the 8 hour work day, civil rights, ensuring that the things in the constitution are actually applied to all citizens... he is absolutely right.
@vatoencabronado Type in "Descover the Networks" on Google and search for "Zinn". There you will not only find his propaganda but the reason behind his propaganda. To describe capitalism as evil in an effort to promote his marxist ideals. Its funny that even though the USSR murdered, starved, and sent people to jail without due process, he sided with them over the U.S. every time.
@CWSmith1982 Sorry, neocon schills don't count as good sources of information in my book. Howard Zinn was a great American, Horowitz gave Ann Coulter a job after she got fired from the National Review.
@CWSmith1982 In this case they are one in the same. Relying on Horowitz to give you accurate information on Zinn is a bit ridiculous, but good for you. Read his books, come back to me with the issues you've found, and let's discuss. Letting strawmen built by Horowitz cloud your view is one way of going about things, but I personally don't have time for it.
@vatoencabronado Once again. You cant attack the information so you attack the source. Name one thing that Horowitz is wrong about. Zinn is a socialist that tries to use American wrongs (far less than that of the historically socialist countries wrongs) to premote socialism. He uses the declaration of independence to talk about human rights but neglects the fact that the document is founded on natural law and negative (not positive) liberties.
@vatoencabronado I'll tell you one thing he lied abt: the A-bomb on Japan He claims that the invasion of Japan would've cost, at best, 46,000 American lives, completely neglecting the stats of Andrew Goodpaster, the chief stats guy for the military, who said it would cost half a million. He claims that Japan would've surrendered, in theory, by September. In a war that was claiming 7,000 American casualties A WEEK, Mr. Zinn seems awfully cavalier abt. the costs of NOT dropping the A-bomb.
@spitfire71068 That's not a lie. You have the OPINIONS of two very different people. We'll never know how many lives or what timeframe it would have taken for Japan to surrender. For you to say that you're a good enough judge of the OPINIONS to be able to make a determination on which hypothetical outcome is accurate suggests you have omniscience not passed on to us mere mortals. From whence flows your great wisdom, being able to see and know the unseeable and unknowable?
@vatoencabronado It IS a lie. To not quote Andrew Goodpaster, chief military stats guy, when quoting potential casualties of the invasion of Japan is dishonesty. But let's play by your rules w. regards to numbers. Here are the casualty figures AFTER the dropping of the SECOND bomb (Aug. 9 through surrender on the 15th): USS Bonefish sunk-all sailors perished, USS Underhill-sunk, USS Callaghan-sunk, eight flyers captured on 8/12/45-executed by decapitation. So, if Zinn wants to say (cont.)
@vatoencabronado ...that the war would've ended in a few weeks, fair enough. But to say that the invasion of Japan would've cost 46,000 lives, when Okinawa cost 50,000, is an absurd OPINION. What also isn't in dispute is that the Pacific war was costing 7,000 casualties a WEEK, on avg. Not disputable. What Zinn is de facto saying is that it would've been better for the US to take the casualties and deaths instead of the Japanese. Conclusion: this man is not a serious historian. And you know it.
@spitfire71068 No, I don't know it. What is common knowledge is that the Japanese were looking for a way to end the war. Taking into account this fact, even if we didn't drop the bomb, we wouldn't end up having to invade each and every island, until we eventually occupied the emperor's palace. He was a very serious historian, and you're overlooking an entire body of work with one instance that you interpret to your benefit. Good for you.
@vatoencabronado It is "common" knowledge the Japanese were trying to end the war? The emperor could've ended with one decree. He didn't. And when he did contemplate it, there was a coup attempt to keep him in power and the war going. It didn't work, and it resulted in the deaths of thousands of Japanese officers. Hardly a leadership contemplating surrender, this. This is revisionism of the worst kind.I don't dismiss Zinn completely, but history w. an agenda isn't history: it's propaganda.
@spitfire71068 While the coup was quickly and easily put down, your idea that the emperor didn't have to take into account the right wing hawks within his own government and bureaucracy is a bit revisionist itself, isn't it? There were overtures to both us and the Soviets before we dropped the bomb, and we could have pushed for peace instead of insisting on unconditional surrender. If we were so concerned with peace, we could have had it without the Bomb, but we weren't.
@vatoencabronado Not insisting on unconditional surrender would mean a.) the mass genocide in China could've continued unabated. b.) None of those who were perpetrating these mass slaughters, such as the Rape of Nanking (which the Japanese STILL insist never happened) wouldn't have been prosecuted. I've heard this "unconditional surrender prolonged the war" argument, w. regards to the Nazis, too. The Japanese were as bad/worse. So by your standard, you're unconcerned w. genocide. Fair enough.
@spitfire71068 Way to construct a strawman, and throw out a few ad hominems to boot. Do you have anything interesting to say about how he was a liar, or are you done, now?
@vatoencabronado I've given you several historically factual instances, none of which you've remotely refuted, on this A-Bomb thing. And no, these are no "strawman" arguments. The Japanese were as genocidal and ruthless as the Nazis, only in Asia; that can be statistically and anecdotally backed. (Read Iris Chang's book on Rape of Nanking.) You say that allowing them concessions for peace would be okay, so you are saying you're okay w. their genocidal operations. That is ghoulish and inhumane.
@spitfire71068 I'm very familiar with the Rape of Nanking, your arrogance in assuming things about other people is astounding. You don't hold all the facts, I'm afraid, other people read too! You're creating a straw man and trying to attack me on it, when I've never shown any support for Japanese atrocities. Your original proposition was that Zinn lied on the number of soldiers that would have died if we didn't drop the bomb. I'm saying that's an unknowable, and you've not proved your point.
@vatoencabronado No...my sharpest contention, and you made this charge too in addition to Zinn, was that insisting that unconditional surrender of the Japanese was what prolonged the war. Maybe so, but by making it conditional, as Zinn said we should, then the genocide being perpetrated throughout Asia would've continued. Pt. 2: Zinn claims it would've taken no more than 46M lives to take Japan. To NOT quote Goodpaster's numbers, or the numbers of Okinawa, is a lie by omission.
@vatoencabronado Additionally, the Emperor, as a man-god, had absolute authority. He could've ended it at any time, as he did after Nagasaki. As for surrender, when would it have happened? A week? A month? J.K. Galbraith said it would've happened by November '45 at the latest. Well, that's 7000 casualties X 4 months=28,000 dead/wounded Americans. How humane of you. That doesn't account for slaughters of POWs or those in occupied Asian territories. You're quite the humanitarian. How good of you.
@spitfire71068 Zinn was a humanitarian, I'm not sure what your personal agendas swing towards, but you've not laid out one thing that Zinn lied about. One must knowingly deceive in order to lie. Offering a different point of view is not a lie, it is a different point of view. If that challenges your world view, so be it. In terms of him saying that it is impossible to be neutral, he's simply being honest, again, not a characteristic of a seasoned liar.
@vatoencabronado There's lie by commission, and lie by omission. Zinn lies by omission. If you want to classify him as a "humanitarian", fine. But he's not a historian. If you can't tell the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, then you can't tell the difference between a historian and a polemicist. Clearly you can't. Prey tell-have you ever read any history other than Zinn? I'm getting the feeling that you haven't, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be occurring.
@spitfire71068 You readily admit that historians cannot be completely impartial. Your issue is that Zinn admits this, and others don't. I read tons of history, and see value in Zinn's writing. There are entire subjects more or less ignored by many historians that are important to understand the world we live in, and Zinn has made great contributions. Did you have any other personal attacks you'd like to levy, or are you done not proving your point?
@vatoencabronado Per E.H. Carr: times, locations, and current events alter the the historians' perspective unwittingly. This is different than DELIBERATELY altering history through cherry picking, as Zinn does. He also has a preconceived theory before even putting type to paper. I don't deny that Zinn has shone some light on topics overlooked by others.His goal is not a fair reading of history; it is social change. (His words!) Again, this is polemicism, not historical scholarship.
@vatoencabronado (cont.) And if you read "tons" of history, and I do as well, you'd know all of this. Take Zinn for what he is, and concede the following: he's a polemicist and a social crusader, not a historian. Anyone who says, as Zinn did, that he's more concerned about altering the future than retelling the past automatically disqualifies himself as a historian of note. You yourself called him a "humanitarian". I disagree, but if you think he is, than abandon the idea that he's a historian.
@spitfire71068 So, unable to prove your original point, you deviate into ad hominem... cool. History is rife with interpretations and opinions. No one is immune from it. What Zinn did in the People's History is report facts that are often forgotten, purposefully left by the wayside by 'historians', to have us forget the importance of social revolution and all the benefits it has brought. Someone has to bring it up, and if there purpose is to make our future better, I see no issue.
@vatoencabronado I think I proved my point pretty emphatically, evidenced by your failure to engage in virtually none of the contentions that I made. History is not "interpretations and opinions". That's polemicism, not history. And while you're correct that no one is "immune from it", you are incorrect that it is something to strive for. As for "making our future better", that is not the job of a historian. Ergo, Zinn is not a historian. Nor are you capable of understanding true history.
@spitfire71068 Why are you so vitriolic in your disdain for Zinn? What preconceived notions does he challenge that make you pick him, out of so many historians, to attack and slander?
@vatoencabronado Well, for one, he's not a historian. He has said himself, "It is impossible to be neutral". Fair enough. But this isn't history; this is pushing an agenda. All historians have biases (explicitly discussed in E.H. Carr's excellent "What Is History?"), but to actively pursue one is to cherry pick facts and inconvenient truths that supersede an already pre-determined point of view. Historian, no. Propagandist, yes. There's some validity to him, but he was actively dishonest.
@vatoencabronado Preferably someone who doesn't actively pursue a personal bias or agenda, for starters. Preferably someone who doesn't bypass facts that don't fit a preconceived theory. Preferably someone who practices, as best they can, Socratic detachment. In other words, someone other than Zinn.
@spitfire71068 Yes, and who is it that you read and find to be Socratically detached, besides not Zinn? Or perhaps he challenges your preconceived notions about the world we live in and you reject him, and others like him, categorically?
@vatoencabronado No...not really. I have no illusions abt. history, or the personalities that have made it. So Zinn doesn't challenge me at all. I merely state, yet again, that he is not a historian-he's an agit-propaganist/polemicist- by his own words, "Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable... it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” Basically, "People's History" is one big op-ed screed. Q.E.D.
Do you actually believe the military and the government have given us all of our freedoms, or did we get them from the struggles and bloodshed of the common people...
so hollywood, which is a collection of corporations like viacom, sony, fox entertainment, etc., is left wing propaganda?
and it's interesting that you protest this deviation by the history channel; the hstory channel seems to crank out documentaries about roswell conspiracies, the freemasons, the illuminati, and features about guns. if that's the kind of programming you prefer, then ok.
but one deviation from the norm and peope like you froth and sputter.
I knew leftists were stupid, but this post is just retarded.
"Hollywood, which is a collection of corporations like viacom, sony fox." Too bad you forgot to mention actors like Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Martin and Charlie Sheen. or the inconvenient truth that Hollywood is a fountainhead of liberal activism, what with their inconceivably, dastardly abhorrent movies about gays, AIDS, ethnic minorities and environmentalism
And about deviation what about it? The West is built on dissent (contd)
so no loss there. Unlike your Eastern terrorist socialist sorry shithole excuse for a country, where dissent will get you tortured, imprisoned and killed. So please don't think you are so special just because you "deviate from the norm" when Muslim apostates (like myself) face death threats for daring to convert out of Islam.
no argument, just insults and assertions. sure, sean penn and sheen and all that have their little activisms on the side, but they're basically owned by the guys signing the paychecks, which is the people who own "hollywood."
people like you basically hate hollywood bc there're gays and vegans there, and then you generalize from one or two outspoken liberal actors to characterize the whole crowd.
james woods, john malkovich, john voight, there're lots of conservative hollywood actors.
I think you are trying too hard. What the bloody fuck are you even talking about since when did I hate gays and vegans? Hollywood being owned by corporations? Really? Producing right-wing films like Apocalypse Now? And what happens if the "guys signing paychecks" are left-wing "liberals"? Then what? And without the actors, without the audience, do you think they'd survive? No, they wouldn't. Of course they wouldn't.
So the people and actors are the true owners of HollyWood over which (contd)
corporations have no control. And you can see it in the certain movies that the actors CHOOSE to portray. It's true money is important, but money isn't king in Hollywood. Politics is. Why do you think Gregory Peck had reservations about playing General MacArthur? Why is it Charlie Sheen coincidentally plays lead actor in Apocalypse Now?
And as for those conservative actors; so you don't deny that Hollywood is the fountainhead of liberal activism. And as for being pro-conservative, (contd)
please. Name me some of the movies with a conservative undertones to them? Or actors who espouse conservative viewpoints. I came name you lots of "liberal" ones: Milk, Apocalypse Now, Inconvenient Truth, Hurricane Katrina: the Requiem, Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, Wallace Shawn, Barbara Stresiand, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jerry Seinfeld, Matt Damon, etc, etc.
what do you mean by liberal activism? if you mean animal rights, gay rights, abortion, whacky environmentalism, etc, then sure. if you're talking about fighting inequality, minority exploitation, imperialism, or any of the serious stuff, then hell no.
no one but the clueless claims that corporations have complete control, but to say they have no control is just willful blindness. you look at the way the govt. works, and it generally works in the highest bidder's interests, and that usually means corporations. the govt. has the POWER to control corporations, but it doesn't. if our govt. ever exercises control over a corporation, it will be at the bidding of another corporation. you can look at energy or health reform, etc
when it comes to persecution of jews, christians have a much worse record and that's not even disputed. any idea that theres this history of jewish and christian cooperation and alliance against the barbarian muslims is fiction. in fact, islam has a mixed record, just like christianity and judaism. muslims like avicenna and averroes preserved the ancient greek texts which were destroyed when rome fell.
averroes and avicenna - but esp. avicenna - are considered among the fathers of modern medicine and influenced guys like galileo, descartes, locke, saint albertus magnus, aquinas, and physican william harvey. to focus selectively on events here and there in ancient history to justify current interpretations of relations with the muslim world is just plain dishonest.
for every "apocalypse now" there were 10 films painting the vietnamese as yellow rats worthy of extermination. you can look at the history of looney tunes or disney films, which prior to the 60's were blatantly racist in portraying asians as yellow monsters and blacks as dancing sambos.
the guys signing paychecks may believe in gay marriage and abortion and be vegan, but u ask them if they support the estate tax or increasing taxes on the rich and they'll say no.
the things you focus on as examples of "liberalism" are the typical inconsequential stuff that bill o'reilly likes to rant about. does tom hanks donate his $20 million paycheck from each film to charity or insist that he be taxed more to feed hungry children? no, he says things like "you expect me to insist that my pay be lowered because its too high?"
you're trying to portray liberal democrats in california as zinn-like leftists, when that is absurd
and i'm not particularly trying to defend islam either - i think it's idiotic nonsense. but i think the same of christianity and judaism. if you're going to complain about barbaric statements in the koran, then you should also complain about similar passages in t he bible that talk about massascreing the enemy's women and children and livestock.
for every one movie like "milk" or "inconvenient truth" or something, there're 10 movies which pain arabs and any other brown or black-skinned peope as evil degenerates who want to rape your sister and drink your blood. kiefer sutherland aka jack bauer is quite leftist, but he's torturing people on screen while his audience (like cheney) masturbate. well, that's also hollywood.
this view that hollywood is involved in some socialist conspiracy is based on too many hours watchin bill o'reilly
Well, we could always talk about the portrayal of Westerners and non-Muslims in the Arab media, but since they're somehow always the perennial victims of colonialism, I guess we're going to have to let that one pass.
As for the 10 movies for every "liberal" one. Really. Where did you get that statistic? Did CAIR give it to you? Or did Muhammad whisper this into your ear? You talk about Hollywood licensing torture, but you forget to mention the (contd)
following qualifications: torture is banned in the Western world, unlike in the Middle East where if you're a women caught without clothes, you will get lashes; Bauer is only tortuing terrorists, and the torture method itself is only used as a last resort; Sutherland has gone on TV publicly reminding the American audience that "Muslims are a great ally in America's war on terror." (Look it up on Wikipedia. And the whole thing is sourced.)
Did you know that during the 2008-9 Gaza war (contd)
torture is banned in the western world, which is why we've been torturing "terrorists" - most of whom havent even been charged. and fox news anchors and guys at the washington post and wall street journal cheer on the war? why is it that the MSM consensus on obama's nobel is that it was right that he defended the wars in his acceptance speech? fox news gave coverage to israel? so what.
muhammad whispering things in my ear. good one. i can tell you're a white guy who doesnt know any minorities
Yes I am sure torture is banned in the West it's written in the Geneva Convention that goddamned Zionist-controlled document unlike in the Middle East where, following Muhammad's tradition of tortuing the Jews at Banu Quaryzna, women are killed for not wearing the headscarfe and Christians are tortured and murdered for being, you guessed, Christian.
As for Obama, I don't care if he won the Nobel Peace Prize because he's not my president. And as for Muhammad, I think he's whispering (contd)
Howard Zinn's advice of self-enlightenment is great...until you think it through logically. He says people (presumably Americans) should look @ "sources independent from mainstream education," but then wouldn't this mainstream education be an independent source for some other person in some other country (say Venezuela) hostile to the country propagating the "mainstream education?"
So in the end, the mainstream education is as much a system of propagnda as an independent source of info.
he's saying don't just take what they teach you in school for granted - go look at the primary sources. for example, you could pick up howard zinn's "people's history" and go over to the nearest major library (like perhaps a nearby university) and look up the sources he quotes in the bibliography and index for yourself. i've done it. you should try, unless you think it's too much trouble to do some reading
So you read American history books great good for fucking you. And am I supposed to be impressed or something? I'm not even American! And as for primary sources, what about them? Yes, they are facts. And no they aren't the truth definitions of truth ("Don't take what they teach in school for granted" - like socialism is good in Venezuela) are always exercises of subjectivity. But then, how the hell does that undermine the premise of my argument?
your mention of venezuela is also interesting since it's basically repeating the partyline on venezuela. sure, hugo chavez is the most popular president in the hemisphere, was elected by a majority in a fair (even by critics' standards) election, and in polls venezuelans show the most satisfaction with democracy, and you're basically implying that he's a dictator. why, because he took media licenses away from an outlet that called for a coup against him? what if the NYT did that to bush? THINK
And your implication of the American education system as propaganda is "basically repeating the partyline of Venezuela," but like some neutered vassal you are to the Chavez government, i doubt you would have realized that by now.
So your main arguments of justification for Chavez's legitimate rule is that: a) he was elected in a fair election and b) he is the most popular president (what source) in the Western hemisphere.
As to point a): So would you defend Bush's presidency? (contd)
After-all, he won in a free and fair election in which most citizens supported him.
As for Point b): would this not be a case of manufacturing propaganda? Surely, this is what you would say about the American 'sheeple' who voted for Bush. So as a matter of principle, you'd also have to say the pro-Chavez supporters are robotized zombies living in a state-controlled jailhouse with a state-controlled media.
And those people in New Orleans, are dumb fucking Niggers.
fjerins 4 months ago
@fjerins holyLoL way to be the bright shining example of Humanity there. epic fail
zaphear 3 months ago
@fjerins
And you have no idea of our biology. If anyone is an idiot, it's you. Racism is rooted in ignorance. That's YOU. not Matt Damon or Howard Zinn.
Your genetic make up is over 99% identical to those of African descent and any other ethnic group. that makes YOU a "nigger" too. There's a reason scientists do not label humans in subgroups, because there is no empirical difference that subgroups humans. Black and white is not a "race," Human is. I feel sorry for you and your stupidity.
DivinelyMochaDipped 3 months ago 4
Matt is an idiot. Plane and simple. He has no idea of our history. He is fucked.
fjerins 4 months ago
@fjerins * "Plain and simple" is YOU.Do you know the education he has ? NO, I thought not.And not once during his interview,did he find the need to use the word,"fucked".I too do not agree with his slant on history,and what he believes peoples "duty" is.He is not an idiot,I think he was playing a part,and not really saying what he feels.
billy1212ist 2 months ago
@fjerins
Don't you mean "helicopter and simple"? You are such a moron! LMFAO! People who don't know their OWN history are simply amusing! You should be speaking on camera for the Tonight Show's on the street interviews asking idiots simple historical and political facts.
JoebooSauce 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
The main message of A People's History of the United States is one of class war. Zinn is so warped that he sees everything in terms of class war. The American Revolution? It was all about rich people trying to exploit the poor. The Civil War? It was all about rich people trying to exploit the poor. World War I and II? It was all about rich people trying to exploit the poor. A terrible book. I recommend "A Patriot's History of the United States". One of the best history books ever!!!
galactica1981 6 months ago
@galactica1981 How does that make it a terrible book? Why not read both books & read Clement Wood's A Complete History of the United States, while you're at it? Also, you should read A Peoples History before you comment on it.
Fuctmentality 5 months ago
@Fuctmentality It's a terrible book because it's not true! I've read detailed reviews of a People's History so I know what's in it. I'd rather not subject myself to such torture.
galactica1981 5 months ago
@galactica1981 Did it ever occur to you that reading other peoples opinion of a book doesn't qualify you to criticize it? You say the book isn't rue, can you name one part of it that isn't true? Of course not because you would need to read ti in order to do so.
Fuctmentality 5 months ago
@Fuctmentality Actually, I don't need to read the book because I've read numerous excerpts as well as book reviews which give an honest account of what's in it. Just as I don't need to read Hitler's Mein Kampf to know that it's false and anti-semitic, I don't need to read a People's History to know that it's full of things that simply aren't true. The FBI released it's records on Zinn and revealed he was a member of the Communist Party. Clearly, this is a man who cannot be trusted.
galactica1981 4 months ago
@galactica1981 So even though you can't name one thing Zinn claims that is false, you still know he is lying because, you claim he's a commie & ergo not to be trusted? Are you trollin' opr just that fucking retarded?
Fuctmentality 4 months ago
@Fuctmentality You people on the left are all the same. You can't have a civil debate without getting nasty. As I've said before, Zinn portrays almost every major event in American history through the lens of class war. According to him, the Amerian Revolution, the Civil War, and both World Wars all occurred simply because rich people wanted to exploit the poor. There. I've just named four things in the book that are false. Satisfied?
galactica1981 4 months ago
@galactica1981 Actually, you mentioned 4 things that are absolutely true. I mean, if you look at all the wars that have been undertaken by Western Nations, not just America, they are all fought in the interest of the elite sector.
The civil war was fought for economic reasons, whether the slaves were emancipated or not was not of the utmost importance, as the mainstream history books will have you believe.
Besides, how many rich people have you seen fighting wars?
toseeornot2see 4 months ago 3
@toseeornot2see Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union above all else. If he had tried to end slavery early in the war, it would have resulted in more states seceding. He certainly wasn't thinking much about the economics, as the Civil War was economically devastating in the short term.
Zinn would have you believe that every major war was about the rich exploiting the poor. This is absurd. Some of the Founders lost their freedom and fortunes because they supported the Revolution.
galactica1981 4 months ago
@galactica1981 Actually, the northern states(the manufacturers) wanted to end free trade with England, as it was hurting their business. The Southern states were happy with free trade, as they were already pretty competitive in terms and didn't mind cheaper imports coming in. That was one of the driving forces behind the war.
If Zinn was the only one that said that, then i would be a little dubious, but this fact is agreed on by not only historians, but also economists.
toseeornot2see 4 months ago
@galactica1981 That's not an answer. Are you trollin or just fucking retarded? Becuase you make claims about a subject you admit you are ignorant of. You can not state that you have never read someones book & then claim to know how it potrays every event in history. So which is it, retarded or trollin'?
Fuctmentality 4 months ago
@galactica1981 He was a socialist. He even admits it his book: "Howard Zinn on Democratic Education". What is wrong was with Communism though? You must not under the true concepts of Communism.You probably just associate it with Stalin, Mao Zedong, and countless other dictators who claimed to run Communist states while in reality they were totalitarian. To believe what the FBI tells you is foolish. Also your post about Zinn on the American Rev., Civil War, etc. is also false.
LordVerdo 4 months ago 2
ASentinel2, I bet you're a Christian!
VladimirBrtn 1 year ago
Good...finally...he's dead.
Now rest in piss...
ASentinel2 1 year ago
@ASentinel2 ASentinel2, I bet you're a Christian!
VladimirBrtn 1 year ago
@ASentinel2 lol, something darkly funny about someone saying something so shitty towards a good decent person. just my humour i guess. Anyway Zinn was awesome
thenoorys 10 months ago
American citizens do not have a "DUTY" nor a "RESPONSIBILITY" to "MAKE HISTORY" as this communist oligarch would have people believe. They may study as they wish (or not), they may pursue any career they wish. They have the Rights bestowed on them by the Constituition. This play actor is telling people what they "WILL" do?! Since when does this vapid, detached Hollywood product have the authority to issue orders to people? Make history? Whose version? Hair-brained communist.
nothingsfree 1 year ago
Ha! As of July 30th the FBI has released through the Freedom of Act, that Howard Zinn was a card carrying communist, attending the Soviet funded CPUSA meetings. Funny, he complains about America because he hates capitalism but goes to CPUSA meetings funded by Moscow as Stalin was murdering, starving, and locking up more of his own citizens than Hitler did in WWII. Way to go Zinn! You will forever go down in history as the debunked communist propagandist who trashed America to prop up socialism.
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
@ToSeeThingsClear Not sure but marxism and chomsky but I do remember that in that movie, Good Will Hunting, one of the books that he is reading ( a glimpse of the book is shown) is howard zinn's book
andyx1205 1 year ago
@ToSeeThingsClear How about the USA pulls out of NAto you dead beats do not pay your fair share to protect EU ! Let Russia run over Poland again - The Brits will be crying with your tails between your legs again !
kim8040 1 year ago
@kim8040
"The Brits will be crying with your tails between your legs again !"
When did that ever happen ? Never !
fortnightshowcase 1 year ago
@ToSeeThingsClear Yea I have seen EU - Average wage in the USA higher than EU - The average poor person lives in a larger house than the Average person in EU !
You want to talk about the rationed care under the NHS ? you call it free at point of use - I call it heavy tax b4 BEing denied care !
You want to talk about the Debt owned by EU to America that has never been repaid to America WW! and WW2 ~ dead beats!
kim8040 1 year ago
@kim8040
The UK only just a couple of years ago ended debt payments for
American "help"in WWII we paid hundreds of millions for 60 years
some kind of solidarity !!
fortnightshowcase 1 year ago
the main reason i dont like noam and howard is because they always rant to discredit free market libertarians and fail to look into the philosophical scientific economic and political origins of these ideas. also because absolute democracy is not possible and social (anarchistic) democracy does not work. look at canada and europe and tell me whose better off in the long run them or free market socieites like singapore, hong kong and soon to be china
stjimmy111111 1 year ago
Hey uh Matt Damon. You do know that Howard Zinn is a self described socialist. He gives flawless historical accounts of socialist nations and trashes the united states. No wonder your so screwed up!
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Howard Zinn is a marxist propagandist. I love Matt Damon in the Borne Identity series but this is truly disappointing.
midlantica 2 years ago
@midlantica
Name one thing that Howard Zinn made up. To be a propagandist, you have to lie. PR and the 'news' is propaganda. They push the agenda of corporations and government, and get you to acquiesce by keeping you ignorant. How has Zinn done that?
vatoencabronado 2 years ago 34
@vatoencabronado
He said the socialist and the anarchist have given us all the freedom we have. This is a lie.
AmericanDominance 1 year ago
When referring to things like the 8 hour work day, civil rights, ensuring that the things in the constitution are actually applied to all citizens... he is absolutely right.
vatoencabronado 1 year ago 2
@vatoencabronado Type in "Descover the Networks" on Google and search for "Zinn". There you will not only find his propaganda but the reason behind his propaganda. To describe capitalism as evil in an effort to promote his marxist ideals. Its funny that even though the USSR murdered, starved, and sent people to jail without due process, he sided with them over the U.S. every time.
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
@CWSmith1982 Sorry, neocon schills don't count as good sources of information in my book. Howard Zinn was a great American, Horowitz gave Ann Coulter a job after she got fired from the National Review.
vatoencabronado 1 year ago
@vatoencabronado Sure. Sure. Cant attack the information, attack the source.
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
@CWSmith1982 In this case they are one in the same. Relying on Horowitz to give you accurate information on Zinn is a bit ridiculous, but good for you. Read his books, come back to me with the issues you've found, and let's discuss. Letting strawmen built by Horowitz cloud your view is one way of going about things, but I personally don't have time for it.
vatoencabronado 1 year ago
@vatoencabronado Once again. You cant attack the information so you attack the source. Name one thing that Horowitz is wrong about. Zinn is a socialist that tries to use American wrongs (far less than that of the historically socialist countries wrongs) to premote socialism. He uses the declaration of independence to talk about human rights but neglects the fact that the document is founded on natural law and negative (not positive) liberties.
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
@vatoencabronado I'll tell you one thing he lied abt: the A-bomb on Japan He claims that the invasion of Japan would've cost, at best, 46,000 American lives, completely neglecting the stats of Andrew Goodpaster, the chief stats guy for the military, who said it would cost half a million. He claims that Japan would've surrendered, in theory, by September. In a war that was claiming 7,000 American casualties A WEEK, Mr. Zinn seems awfully cavalier abt. the costs of NOT dropping the A-bomb.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 That's not a lie. You have the OPINIONS of two very different people. We'll never know how many lives or what timeframe it would have taken for Japan to surrender. For you to say that you're a good enough judge of the OPINIONS to be able to make a determination on which hypothetical outcome is accurate suggests you have omniscience not passed on to us mere mortals. From whence flows your great wisdom, being able to see and know the unseeable and unknowable?
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado It IS a lie. To not quote Andrew Goodpaster, chief military stats guy, when quoting potential casualties of the invasion of Japan is dishonesty. But let's play by your rules w. regards to numbers. Here are the casualty figures AFTER the dropping of the SECOND bomb (Aug. 9 through surrender on the 15th): USS Bonefish sunk-all sailors perished, USS Underhill-sunk, USS Callaghan-sunk, eight flyers captured on 8/12/45-executed by decapitation. So, if Zinn wants to say (cont.)
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado ...that the war would've ended in a few weeks, fair enough. But to say that the invasion of Japan would've cost 46,000 lives, when Okinawa cost 50,000, is an absurd OPINION. What also isn't in dispute is that the Pacific war was costing 7,000 casualties a WEEK, on avg. Not disputable. What Zinn is de facto saying is that it would've been better for the US to take the casualties and deaths instead of the Japanese. Conclusion: this man is not a serious historian. And you know it.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 No, I don't know it. What is common knowledge is that the Japanese were looking for a way to end the war. Taking into account this fact, even if we didn't drop the bomb, we wouldn't end up having to invade each and every island, until we eventually occupied the emperor's palace. He was a very serious historian, and you're overlooking an entire body of work with one instance that you interpret to your benefit. Good for you.
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado It is "common" knowledge the Japanese were trying to end the war? The emperor could've ended with one decree. He didn't. And when he did contemplate it, there was a coup attempt to keep him in power and the war going. It didn't work, and it resulted in the deaths of thousands of Japanese officers. Hardly a leadership contemplating surrender, this. This is revisionism of the worst kind.I don't dismiss Zinn completely, but history w. an agenda isn't history: it's propaganda.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 While the coup was quickly and easily put down, your idea that the emperor didn't have to take into account the right wing hawks within his own government and bureaucracy is a bit revisionist itself, isn't it? There were overtures to both us and the Soviets before we dropped the bomb, and we could have pushed for peace instead of insisting on unconditional surrender. If we were so concerned with peace, we could have had it without the Bomb, but we weren't.
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado Not insisting on unconditional surrender would mean a.) the mass genocide in China could've continued unabated. b.) None of those who were perpetrating these mass slaughters, such as the Rape of Nanking (which the Japanese STILL insist never happened) wouldn't have been prosecuted. I've heard this "unconditional surrender prolonged the war" argument, w. regards to the Nazis, too. The Japanese were as bad/worse. So by your standard, you're unconcerned w. genocide. Fair enough.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 Way to construct a strawman, and throw out a few ad hominems to boot. Do you have anything interesting to say about how he was a liar, or are you done, now?
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado I've given you several historically factual instances, none of which you've remotely refuted, on this A-Bomb thing. And no, these are no "strawman" arguments. The Japanese were as genocidal and ruthless as the Nazis, only in Asia; that can be statistically and anecdotally backed. (Read Iris Chang's book on Rape of Nanking.) You say that allowing them concessions for peace would be okay, so you are saying you're okay w. their genocidal operations. That is ghoulish and inhumane.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 I'm very familiar with the Rape of Nanking, your arrogance in assuming things about other people is astounding. You don't hold all the facts, I'm afraid, other people read too! You're creating a straw man and trying to attack me on it, when I've never shown any support for Japanese atrocities. Your original proposition was that Zinn lied on the number of soldiers that would have died if we didn't drop the bomb. I'm saying that's an unknowable, and you've not proved your point.
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado No...my sharpest contention, and you made this charge too in addition to Zinn, was that insisting that unconditional surrender of the Japanese was what prolonged the war. Maybe so, but by making it conditional, as Zinn said we should, then the genocide being perpetrated throughout Asia would've continued. Pt. 2: Zinn claims it would've taken no more than 46M lives to take Japan. To NOT quote Goodpaster's numbers, or the numbers of Okinawa, is a lie by omission.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado Additionally, the Emperor, as a man-god, had absolute authority. He could've ended it at any time, as he did after Nagasaki. As for surrender, when would it have happened? A week? A month? J.K. Galbraith said it would've happened by November '45 at the latest. Well, that's 7000 casualties X 4 months=28,000 dead/wounded Americans. How humane of you. That doesn't account for slaughters of POWs or those in occupied Asian territories. You're quite the humanitarian. How good of you.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 Zinn was a humanitarian, I'm not sure what your personal agendas swing towards, but you've not laid out one thing that Zinn lied about. One must knowingly deceive in order to lie. Offering a different point of view is not a lie, it is a different point of view. If that challenges your world view, so be it. In terms of him saying that it is impossible to be neutral, he's simply being honest, again, not a characteristic of a seasoned liar.
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado There's lie by commission, and lie by omission. Zinn lies by omission. If you want to classify him as a "humanitarian", fine. But he's not a historian. If you can't tell the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, then you can't tell the difference between a historian and a polemicist. Clearly you can't. Prey tell-have you ever read any history other than Zinn? I'm getting the feeling that you haven't, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be occurring.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 You readily admit that historians cannot be completely impartial. Your issue is that Zinn admits this, and others don't. I read tons of history, and see value in Zinn's writing. There are entire subjects more or less ignored by many historians that are important to understand the world we live in, and Zinn has made great contributions. Did you have any other personal attacks you'd like to levy, or are you done not proving your point?
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado Per E.H. Carr: times, locations, and current events alter the the historians' perspective unwittingly. This is different than DELIBERATELY altering history through cherry picking, as Zinn does. He also has a preconceived theory before even putting type to paper. I don't deny that Zinn has shone some light on topics overlooked by others.His goal is not a fair reading of history; it is social change. (His words!) Again, this is polemicism, not historical scholarship.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado (cont.) And if you read "tons" of history, and I do as well, you'd know all of this. Take Zinn for what he is, and concede the following: he's a polemicist and a social crusader, not a historian. Anyone who says, as Zinn did, that he's more concerned about altering the future than retelling the past automatically disqualifies himself as a historian of note. You yourself called him a "humanitarian". I disagree, but if you think he is, than abandon the idea that he's a historian.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 So, unable to prove your original point, you deviate into ad hominem... cool. History is rife with interpretations and opinions. No one is immune from it. What Zinn did in the People's History is report facts that are often forgotten, purposefully left by the wayside by 'historians', to have us forget the importance of social revolution and all the benefits it has brought. Someone has to bring it up, and if there purpose is to make our future better, I see no issue.
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado I think I proved my point pretty emphatically, evidenced by your failure to engage in virtually none of the contentions that I made. History is not "interpretations and opinions". That's polemicism, not history. And while you're correct that no one is "immune from it", you are incorrect that it is something to strive for. As for "making our future better", that is not the job of a historian. Ergo, Zinn is not a historian. Nor are you capable of understanding true history.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 Why are you so vitriolic in your disdain for Zinn? What preconceived notions does he challenge that make you pick him, out of so many historians, to attack and slander?
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado Well, for one, he's not a historian. He has said himself, "It is impossible to be neutral". Fair enough. But this isn't history; this is pushing an agenda. All historians have biases (explicitly discussed in E.H. Carr's excellent "What Is History?"), but to actively pursue one is to cherry pick facts and inconvenient truths that supersede an already pre-determined point of view. Historian, no. Propagandist, yes. There's some validity to him, but he was actively dishonest.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 Then who should I read that gives wholly factual accounts with no personal bias or agenda?
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado Preferably someone who doesn't actively pursue a personal bias or agenda, for starters. Preferably someone who doesn't bypass facts that don't fit a preconceived theory. Preferably someone who practices, as best they can, Socratic detachment. In other words, someone other than Zinn.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
@spitfire71068 Yes, and who is it that you read and find to be Socratically detached, besides not Zinn? Or perhaps he challenges your preconceived notions about the world we live in and you reject him, and others like him, categorically?
vatoencabronado 9 months ago
@vatoencabronado No...not really. I have no illusions abt. history, or the personalities that have made it. So Zinn doesn't challenge me at all. I merely state, yet again, that he is not a historian-he's an agit-propaganist/polemicist- by his own words, "Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable... it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” Basically, "People's History" is one big op-ed screed. Q.E.D.
spitfire71068 9 months ago
thank you Howard Zinn for all that you've done for your work made me think.
Meloman0001 2 years ago 2
Surprise, more left wing Hollywood propaganda. lol.
What a crock of shit. Damon is a tool.
nozzghoull 2 years ago
Ha, have you ever read Zinn's book?
Do you actually believe the military and the government have given us all of our freedoms, or did we get them from the struggles and bloodshed of the common people...
bjarczyk 2 years ago
so hollywood, which is a collection of corporations like viacom, sony, fox entertainment, etc., is left wing propaganda?
and it's interesting that you protest this deviation by the history channel; the hstory channel seems to crank out documentaries about roswell conspiracies, the freemasons, the illuminati, and features about guns. if that's the kind of programming you prefer, then ok.
but one deviation from the norm and peope like you froth and sputter.
boing3887 2 years ago
I knew leftists were stupid, but this post is just retarded.
"Hollywood, which is a collection of corporations like viacom, sony fox." Too bad you forgot to mention actors like Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Martin and Charlie Sheen. or the inconvenient truth that Hollywood is a fountainhead of liberal activism, what with their inconceivably, dastardly abhorrent movies about gays, AIDS, ethnic minorities and environmentalism
And about deviation what about it? The West is built on dissent (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
so no loss there. Unlike your Eastern terrorist socialist sorry shithole excuse for a country, where dissent will get you tortured, imprisoned and killed. So please don't think you are so special just because you "deviate from the norm" when Muslim apostates (like myself) face death threats for daring to convert out of Islam.
How's that for courage?
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
no argument, just insults and assertions. sure, sean penn and sheen and all that have their little activisms on the side, but they're basically owned by the guys signing the paychecks, which is the people who own "hollywood."
people like you basically hate hollywood bc there're gays and vegans there, and then you generalize from one or two outspoken liberal actors to characterize the whole crowd.
james woods, john malkovich, john voight, there're lots of conservative hollywood actors.
boing3887 2 years ago
I think you are trying too hard. What the bloody fuck are you even talking about since when did I hate gays and vegans? Hollywood being owned by corporations? Really? Producing right-wing films like Apocalypse Now? And what happens if the "guys signing paychecks" are left-wing "liberals"? Then what? And without the actors, without the audience, do you think they'd survive? No, they wouldn't. Of course they wouldn't.
So the people and actors are the true owners of HollyWood over which (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
corporations have no control. And you can see it in the certain movies that the actors CHOOSE to portray. It's true money is important, but money isn't king in Hollywood. Politics is. Why do you think Gregory Peck had reservations about playing General MacArthur? Why is it Charlie Sheen coincidentally plays lead actor in Apocalypse Now?
And as for those conservative actors; so you don't deny that Hollywood is the fountainhead of liberal activism. And as for being pro-conservative, (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
please. Name me some of the movies with a conservative undertones to them? Or actors who espouse conservative viewpoints. I came name you lots of "liberal" ones: Milk, Apocalypse Now, Inconvenient Truth, Hurricane Katrina: the Requiem, Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, Wallace Shawn, Barbara Stresiand, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jerry Seinfeld, Matt Damon, etc, etc.
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
dirty harry - pretty much all old clint eastwood films, all john wayne films. pretty much all the old war movies, much of the current war movies.
you're seeing what you want to see when it comes to mainstream pop culture.
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
what do you mean by liberal activism? if you mean animal rights, gay rights, abortion, whacky environmentalism, etc, then sure. if you're talking about fighting inequality, minority exploitation, imperialism, or any of the serious stuff, then hell no.
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
no one but the clueless claims that corporations have complete control, but to say they have no control is just willful blindness. you look at the way the govt. works, and it generally works in the highest bidder's interests, and that usually means corporations. the govt. has the POWER to control corporations, but it doesn't. if our govt. ever exercises control over a corporation, it will be at the bidding of another corporation. you can look at energy or health reform, etc
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
when it comes to persecution of jews, christians have a much worse record and that's not even disputed. any idea that theres this history of jewish and christian cooperation and alliance against the barbarian muslims is fiction. in fact, islam has a mixed record, just like christianity and judaism. muslims like avicenna and averroes preserved the ancient greek texts which were destroyed when rome fell.
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
averroes and avicenna - but esp. avicenna - are considered among the fathers of modern medicine and influenced guys like galileo, descartes, locke, saint albertus magnus, aquinas, and physican william harvey. to focus selectively on events here and there in ancient history to justify current interpretations of relations with the muslim world is just plain dishonest.
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
for every "apocalypse now" there were 10 films painting the vietnamese as yellow rats worthy of extermination. you can look at the history of looney tunes or disney films, which prior to the 60's were blatantly racist in portraying asians as yellow monsters and blacks as dancing sambos.
the guys signing paychecks may believe in gay marriage and abortion and be vegan, but u ask them if they support the estate tax or increasing taxes on the rich and they'll say no.
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
the things you focus on as examples of "liberalism" are the typical inconsequential stuff that bill o'reilly likes to rant about. does tom hanks donate his $20 million paycheck from each film to charity or insist that he be taxed more to feed hungry children? no, he says things like "you expect me to insist that my pay be lowered because its too high?"
you're trying to portray liberal democrats in california as zinn-like leftists, when that is absurd
boing3887 2 years ago
@Rocketeer1001
and i'm not particularly trying to defend islam either - i think it's idiotic nonsense. but i think the same of christianity and judaism. if you're going to complain about barbaric statements in the koran, then you should also complain about similar passages in t he bible that talk about massascreing the enemy's women and children and livestock.
boing3887 2 years ago 23
for every one movie like "milk" or "inconvenient truth" or something, there're 10 movies which pain arabs and any other brown or black-skinned peope as evil degenerates who want to rape your sister and drink your blood. kiefer sutherland aka jack bauer is quite leftist, but he's torturing people on screen while his audience (like cheney) masturbate. well, that's also hollywood.
this view that hollywood is involved in some socialist conspiracy is based on too many hours watchin bill o'reilly
boing3887 2 years ago
"there's 10 movies which pain arabs"
Well, we could always talk about the portrayal of Westerners and non-Muslims in the Arab media, but since they're somehow always the perennial victims of colonialism, I guess we're going to have to let that one pass.
As for the 10 movies for every "liberal" one. Really. Where did you get that statistic? Did CAIR give it to you? Or did Muhammad whisper this into your ear? You talk about Hollywood licensing torture, but you forget to mention the (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
following qualifications: torture is banned in the Western world, unlike in the Middle East where if you're a women caught without clothes, you will get lashes; Bauer is only tortuing terrorists, and the torture method itself is only used as a last resort; Sutherland has gone on TV publicly reminding the American audience that "Muslims are a great ally in America's war on terror." (Look it up on Wikipedia. And the whole thing is sourced.)
Did you know that during the 2008-9 Gaza war (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
Fox News gave as much coverage to Israel as al-Jazeera to Palestine?
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
torture is banned in the western world, which is why we've been torturing "terrorists" - most of whom havent even been charged. and fox news anchors and guys at the washington post and wall street journal cheer on the war? why is it that the MSM consensus on obama's nobel is that it was right that he defended the wars in his acceptance speech? fox news gave coverage to israel? so what.
muhammad whispering things in my ear. good one. i can tell you're a white guy who doesnt know any minorities
boing3887 2 years ago
Yes I am sure torture is banned in the West it's written in the Geneva Convention that goddamned Zionist-controlled document unlike in the Middle East where, following Muhammad's tradition of tortuing the Jews at Banu Quaryzna, women are killed for not wearing the headscarfe and Christians are tortured and murdered for being, you guessed, Christian.
As for Obama, I don't care if he won the Nobel Peace Prize because he's not my president. And as for Muhammad, I think he's whispering (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
shit into your ear. He told you when I'm, when in fact I am black. Did he also tell you I am American when in fact I am British?
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
Howard Zinn's advice of self-enlightenment is great...until you think it through logically. He says people (presumably Americans) should look @ "sources independent from mainstream education," but then wouldn't this mainstream education be an independent source for some other person in some other country (say Venezuela) hostile to the country propagating the "mainstream education?"
So in the end, the mainstream education is as much a system of propagnda as an independent source of info.
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
he's saying don't just take what they teach you in school for granted - go look at the primary sources. for example, you could pick up howard zinn's "people's history" and go over to the nearest major library (like perhaps a nearby university) and look up the sources he quotes in the bibliography and index for yourself. i've done it. you should try, unless you think it's too much trouble to do some reading
boing3887 2 years ago
"go look at the primary sources"
So you read American history books great good for fucking you. And am I supposed to be impressed or something? I'm not even American! And as for primary sources, what about them? Yes, they are facts. And no they aren't the truth definitions of truth ("Don't take what they teach in school for granted" - like socialism is good in Venezuela) are always exercises of subjectivity. But then, how the hell does that undermine the premise of my argument?
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
your mention of venezuela is also interesting since it's basically repeating the partyline on venezuela. sure, hugo chavez is the most popular president in the hemisphere, was elected by a majority in a fair (even by critics' standards) election, and in polls venezuelans show the most satisfaction with democracy, and you're basically implying that he's a dictator. why, because he took media licenses away from an outlet that called for a coup against him? what if the NYT did that to bush? THINK
boing3887 2 years ago
And your implication of the American education system as propaganda is "basically repeating the partyline of Venezuela," but like some neutered vassal you are to the Chavez government, i doubt you would have realized that by now.
So your main arguments of justification for Chavez's legitimate rule is that: a) he was elected in a fair election and b) he is the most popular president (what source) in the Western hemisphere.
As to point a): So would you defend Bush's presidency? (contd)
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
After-all, he won in a free and fair election in which most citizens supported him.
As for Point b): would this not be a case of manufacturing propaganda? Surely, this is what you would say about the American 'sheeple' who voted for Bush. So as a matter of principle, you'd also have to say the pro-Chavez supporters are robotized zombies living in a state-controlled jailhouse with a state-controlled media.
Also: you heard about Yon Goicoechea?
Rocketeer1001 2 years ago
cool
glo5lima 2 years ago