[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-April-20, 09:14, said:

Names do matter -- they have many associations, and it's hard to avoid the unconscious biases that they create. These days, it's hard for many people to avoid being prejudiced against Muslims because of the Muslim extremists who are engaging in terrorism. And why have we had to change the term used to refer to black people and homosexuals over the years? Because of the negative connotations associated with previous words.

And "socialist" has the same problem -- during the Cold War, it was generally considered here to be equivalent to communism, which was the enemy's ideology. That's why Bernie has to emphasize democratic, to reinforce that this is not the same as communist socialism.

In the 60s, a casual friend ran for governor of Minnesota on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. I have forgotten his name. He did not get many votes.

I do not confuse Bernie Sanders with my friend from back then. And I know he is not asking for a revolution in the sense of overthrowing the government. I doubt he sang the praises of Chairman Mao. Got all that.

In his speeches, he is far more of a "tear down the structure" sort than I am comfortable with. If he had always been a Democrat and had never described himself as a Socialist, after listening to him I would prefer Hillary. And, issues aside, I really dislike his style. At the last debate, I would not have wanted to be as physically near him as Hillary was. He looked as if he was having great trouble controlling his anger. He is really angry, he is really loud, he is really physical. I don't care for him.

He has had his say, but it's over.

[kenberg]

Ok, I think I have it.

Pres: Hillary Clinton
Senate: Chris Van Hollen
Rep: Jamie Raskin

All in all, a decent ticket I think.

And I still have six days to go, but the weather is nice, I think I am done.

You have all, no doubt, but awaiting this announcement with baited breath.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2016-April-19, 18:29, said:

You would be shocked how little Americans know of their own history. I am talking about basic stuff, very basic stuff. One example is ask who fought in the Civil War or even roughly when was it. A tricky question might be, who won the civil war.

Nobody.

The other day I saw one of those "ask the person on the street" things. Question: name as many US Presidents as you can. Most people were stumped after a couple, some couldn't even think of one! One woman rattled off the whole list (she missed Calvin Coolidge). "Cool," I thought, "she's memorized the names. Now ask her what she knows of their presidencies." In fairness, I couldn't say much about most presidents myself any more, though once I could at least talk generally about most of them.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-20, 15:29, said:

Nobody.

The other day I saw one of those "ask the person on the street" things. Question: name as many US Presidents as you can. Most people were stumped after a couple, some couldn't even think of one! One woman rattled off the whole list (she missed Calvin Coolidge). "Cool," I thought, "she's memorized the names. Now ask her what she knows of their presidencies." In fairness, I couldn't say much about most presidents myself any more, though once I could at least talk generally about most of them.

I can say at least a few words about those in the 20th century. Earlier? Not much. It would be, at best, "I maybe remember that I was told ,,,,"

I think when word got out that Silent Cal had died Dorothy Parker said "How could they tell?".

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-April-20, 10:32, said:

In the 60s, a casual friend ran for governor of Minnesota on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. I have forgotten his name. He did not get many votes.

I do not confuse Bernie Sanders with my friend from back then. And I know he is not asking for a revolution in the sense of overthrowing the government. I doubt he sang the praises of Chairman Mao. Got all that.

You've made it very clear that you try to be rational, so labels like these are less likely to confuse you.

But lots of people go with their guts. Think of all the people who were suspicious of Obama just because his middle name is Hussein, and how his political opponents tried to capitolize on it. Or how the popularity of the name Adolf waned after WWII. Try to imagine someone named Hitler getting elected to anything these days.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2016-April-20, 16:01, said:

Try to imagine someone named Hitler getting elected to anything these days.

https://www.youtube....h?v=8VSTzGwkMiM

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-April-20, 16:01, said:

You've made it very clear that you try to be rational, so labels like these are less likely to confuse you.

But lots of people go with their guts. Think of all the people who were suspicious of Obama just because his middle name is Hussein, and how his political opponents tried to capitolize on it. Or how the popularity of the name Adolf waned after WWII. Try to imagine someone named Hitler getting elected to anything these days.

Or rather I hope my gut is a little more sophisticated than hanging someone for his/her name. I imagine Cruz is wishing he had never said anything about New York values!

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-April-20, 16:44, said:

Or rather I hope my gut is a little more sophisticated than hanging someone for his/her name. I imagine Cruz is wishing he had never said anything about New York values!

While I am sure that the New York values comments didn't help Cruz, I don't think that he was ever considered a viable candidate in the North East

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2016-April-19, 18:29, said:

You would be shocked how little Americans know of their own history. I am talking about basic stuff, very basic stuff. One example is ask who fought in the Civil War or even roughly when was it.

Maybe the new $20 bill will get more folks to think about US history: Harriet Tubman: Former slave who risked all to save others

Quote

In 2020, Tubman will replace former President Andrew Jackson - a slave owner - on the front of the new $20 bill. Jackson will be moved to the back.

Of course Jackson is not the only slave owner pictured on US currency. Perhaps that's one reason that folks like to forget much of US history.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2016-April-21, 07:10, said:

Maybe the new $20 bill will get more folks to think about US history: Harriet Tubman: Former slave who risked all to save others


Of course Jackson is not the only slave owner pictured on US currency. Perhaps that's one reason that folks like to forget much of US history.

I think the reason history is disregarded is that its reality does not fit into many persons' belief system. The apotheosis of the "Founding Fathers" is a good example - which elevates the Constitution from a document arrived at by the action of ordinary men compromising to a holy relic, sacrosanct and unyielding in its message.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-21, 07:44, said:

I think the reason history is disregarded is that its reality does not fit into many persons' belief system. The apotheosis of the "Founding Fathers" is a good example - which elevates the Constitution from a document arrived at by the action of ordinary men compromising to a holy relic, sacrosanct and unyielding in its message.

Yes. It is only this year that the democrats will finally drop the name "Jefferson-Jackson" from their big annual dinner in Iowa, possibly with an eye to maintaining the base...

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-April-21, 07:44, said:

I think the reason history is disregarded is that its reality does not fit into many persons' belief system. The apotheosis of the "Founding Fathers" is a good example - which elevates the Constitution from a document arrived at by the action of ordinary men compromising to a holy relic, sacrosanct and unyielding in its message.

I prefer to understand history in context. These were men of their times, and slavery was an accepted part of society then. You can't judge people from 250 years ago by modern standards.

It's possible that without slavery fueling the prosperity of the southern plantations America would never have grown as quickly as it did, and we wouldn't have become the world power we are now. There's no way to prove this one way or the other. I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, but sometimes good does result from bad. And at the time, many of the perpetrators really didn't know any better, I'm sure many of them honestly believed that African "savages" were a lower species, not deserving the same respect as "cultured" men. And even some who didn't, probably saw it as a necessary evil.

The same goes for the inequality of women, gays, Jews, etc. in the past. We've progressed greatly in our understanding of human rights.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2016-April-21, 11:04, said:

I prefer to understand history in context. These were men of their times, and slavery was an accepted part of society then. You can't judge people from 250 years ago by modern standards.

It's possible that without slavery fueling the prosperity of the southern plantations America would never have grown as quickly as it did, and we wouldn't have become the world power we are now. There's no way to prove this one way or the other. I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, but sometimes good does result from bad. And at the time, many of the perpetrators really didn't know any better, I'm sure many of them honestly believed that African "savages" were a lower species, not deserving the same respect as "cultured" men. And even some who didn't, probably saw it as a necessary evil.

The same goes for the inequality of women, gays, Jews, etc. in the past. We've progressed greatly in our understanding of human rights.

Oh, I think that they knew better: Abolition of slavery timeline

As Winston pointed out, many folks still wrongly ascribe the status of holy writ to the decrees of those "men of the times."

[kenberg]

We should start by getting the history right, including the most important features. As a youngster, i was taught that the election of Jackson was part of a massive change in the US social structure. John Quincy Adams was the dignified past, Jackson was the uncouth but dynamic future. True enough, but of course not the whole story. The whole story is a big story, too much for a typical 13 year old, but slavery, and the slave trade, the conflict with our stated values, all this is not too much for a 13 year old to start thinking about. But I do not favor going from "The FF were extraordinary, wonderful in every way" to "The FFF were slave trading scumbags". They were extraordinary, I believe this, and they were slave owners and, in some cases, slave traders (Jackson, I think). 13 is not too young to start coming to grips with the fact that a close look at history, almost any history, can be upsetting. I think 8 and maybe 10 is too young, 13 isn't, but we need to keep the very substantial accomplishments in the story, and failings need to to be softened a bit, perhaps, by the fact that few people arrive at the Pearly Gates with nothing to regret. "Je ne regrette nien" is a fine song, but that's what it is, a song.

I know I have told this before. My oldest granddaughter, now in her 20s, was in elementary school studying WW II. This consisted of reading letters sent by soldiers about their feelings while at war. I asked if the subject of Pearl Harbor had come up. No.

Push people off the pedestal if need be, but let's not erase them from history.

I offer the following for entertainment
https://www.youtube....h?v=mTP7_sl8BBg

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-April-21, 12:26, said:

I know I have told this before. My oldest granddaughter, now in her 20s, was in elementary school studying WW II. This consisted of reading letters sent by soldiers about their feelings while at war. I asked if the subject of Pearl Harbor had come up. No.

Push people off the pedestal if need be, but let's not erase them from history.

I don't think that you can have a nuanced discussion about Pearl Harbor with the typical 5th grader...

My major memory of elementary school was being handed a bunch of SRA's in 3rd grade. I finished about a two year's worth by the end of October.
Mrs Lyons tried to figure out what to do and then handed me the Encyclopedia Britannica and told me to let her know when I was done with that.

I spent the rest of the year happily reading that instead.

Still never learned anything about Pearl Harbor, but I had a wicked facility with stuff that start with A-D...

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-April-21, 11:04, said:

I prefer to understand history in context. These were men of their times, and slavery was an accepted part of society then. You can't judge people from 250 years ago by modern standards.

It's possible that without slavery fueling the prosperity of the southern plantations America would never have grown as quickly as it did, and we wouldn't have become the world power we are now. There's no way to prove this one way or the other. I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, but sometimes good does result from bad. And at the time, many of the perpetrators really didn't know any better, I'm sure many of them honestly believed that African "savages" were a lower species, not deserving the same respect as "cultured" men. And even some who didn't, probably saw it as a necessary evil.

The same goes for the inequality of women, gays, Jews, etc. in the past. We've progressed greatly in our understanding of human rights.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying the founding fathers were wicked or evil but that many today make them out to have been godlike figures whose words should be read as if it were holy scripture. The founding fathers were as you say - products of their time. And so are the words they wrote.

[mike777]

I think many believe the Founding Fathers were men of wisdom, great wisdom and that their words were for the ages, not just their time. The fact they were not Gods but truly great men, men for all ages.
------


Winston raises the point were their words just words for their time only, their age only or words that continue to be guiding governing principles and governing values today?

We see the ongoing argument should the Constitution and laws be changed by legislature or the wisdom and brilliance of 9 people from Harvard and Yale.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-April-21, 12:26, said:

But I do not favor going from "The FF were extraordinary, wonderful in every way" to "The FFF were slave trading scumbags".

How about "George Washington was the head of a terrorist organisation"?

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-21, 15:39, said:

How about "George Washington was the head of a terrorist organisation"?

I realize that you are joking but I think that having a high school student write a paper on George Washington from the point of view of a 1776 British Lord would be a great assignment.

Benjamin Franklin: We must all hang together or we will all hang separately.
British Lord: Sounds like a plan.

Lawrence Markus, a wonderful guy on the Math faculty at Minnesota (and still alive at 90 something I think) , once told me he was assigned in school to write a paper on a dispute between the US and Canada over fishing rights. He was told he could write it either from the American point of view or the Canadian point of view. He (at least so he claimed) wrote the paper from the point of view of the fish.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2016-April-21, 15:33, said:

I think many believe the Founding Fathers were men of wisdom, great wisdom and that their words were for the ages, not just their time.

They do, and I suppose that's why you said a few posts ago that most of them know nothing about American history.