K-Mac Posted September 11, 2008 Report Share Posted September 11, 2008 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...3448e44a700308c Called "The People Speak,” the documentary will feature dramatic readings and live musical performances from the likes of Josh Brolin, Viggo Mortensen, David Strathairn, Marisa Tomei Jasmine Guy, John Legend, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Michael Ealy and Kerry Washington. The book, first published in 1980, presents American history through a bottoms up approach, focusing on voices seldom heard in history books such as defiant Indians, mutinous soldiers, striking workers, and rebellious women. It never ceases to amaze me how some of the most prosperous people in this country, the ones who are able to take full advantage of all of the advantages of being an American, are the first ones that fail to defend her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted September 11, 2008 Report Share Posted September 11, 2008 It never ceases to amaze me how some of the most prosperous people in this country, the ones who are able to take full advantage of all of the advantages of being an American, are the first ones that fail to defend her. Do you recall a line in AS that begins "The intellectuals are the first to scream when it's safe."? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted September 11, 2008 Report Share Posted September 11, 2008 There is a sense in which history is "mixed". Choose some typical famous person in history and chances are that he was not "perfect". Jefferson and Washington probably had their foibles. Hitler and Stalin might have had their softer moments. When studying them, one needs to extract what was predominant, essentials, history-making. Then, one can definitely end up saying "Jefferson was a good guy", or "Hitler was a bad guy", without implying that they never did any little thing that was bad or good, respectively. When one studies history, one needs to be cognizant of the exceptions; but, giving them undue weight is an error. It is a recipe for the suspension of judgment, and for "historical egalitarianism" that ends up saying: because Jefferson had some bad traits, and Hitler was mostly bad, they are pretty much the same! It is dis-integrative. One ends up with a view that history can be narrated, but cannot be judged morally. When one goes from judging individual people to judging groups and entire cultures, the variability is bound to be more. Giving everything equal weight is to end up as a multi-culturalist. I think there is some degree of journalistic sensationalism involved in highlighting the exceptions. "Mother Teresa was ascetic? Ignore her asceticism in most areas of life, let me tell you about her weakness for chocolate!" The exception becomes an interesting story. This sensationalism draws the viewer in with the promise: "there's more to the story than you thought you knew; here's the hidden side!" The motive is often to bring down heroes and elevate villains, with the classic moral: "nothing is good of bad; it's all grey". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.