From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 18:51:59 MDT
A while back Jef pointed out to us an extremely nice
summary history of Guatemala, told us to "make of it
what we would". Thanks! That's great, and I'm only
sorry that I ran out of time to pursue it.
Its greatest feature was the intensely objective stance
of the recent horrible history of Guatemala, and its
freedom from the usual rhetoric usually found in
extremist writings of the right or left (e.g. Chomsky).
Missing are all the give-away phrases and cliches.
Moreover, tellingly, both the guerillas and the
government were blamed for atrocities. (The government,
not surprisingly, having most of the control committed
most of the atrocities---just in the same way that
rebels against Castro simply couldn't commit as many
wrongdoings as he can.) Even more significantly,
the repeated drumbeat of laying each government atrocity
at the feet of the US government was missing.
Now that is great research and presentation!
Okay, so Jef now writes
> Lee Corbin is quoted thusly:
>
> U.S. "Atrocities"---the figures (was Obedience to Law)
> http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians/1776.html
>
> But averting my eyes and walking upwind hasn't worked,
> for once again it appears, to assault and insult.
>
> It is a perfect example of the kind of problem spike
> has been discussing regarding the accuracy of
> historical accounts. Lee's and Victor Hanson's views
> are strikingly at odds with the truth regarding the
> events of the Vietnam era.
Well, so say you.
> One need look no further than this quote:
>
> > This is the sort of leftist lie that we need to
> > completely expunge.
Well, so says I. I was hoping that the narration by
so many Vietnamese, and Victor Hanson's impressive
book (and the many sources he quotes) would have
allowed people like me to declare victory by now.
I guess not. :-)
> I won't bother to go into detail to respond to this
> 'stuff'--it's too wide, too deep, too twisted, is old
> news, and, in the end, my experience suggests that no
> one will hear or accept anything other than what they
> want to. Ah, well.
Perhaps so.
> But put in its simplest terms, it's where [the truth]
> you accept the existence of and FAIRLY CONSIDER the
> several sides to a story, and the supporting evidence,
> and then make your judgment.
Yes; per another thread, I'm glad you believe in the
existence of objective truth, and that like Socrates,
we'll hopefully find it between us.
> In the matter of Vietnam, the other side of the story
> has been thoroughly laid out by Chomsky. (I know this
> isn't pleasant news--cf the old truism,"The truth
> hurts", but bear in mind that if you're perfectly
> content with just one side of the story, then the
> person you see in the mirror is someone who has no
> interest in the truth.)
I am astonished that you can't find a better champion
than Chomsky. Surely you feel uncomfortable with his
writings. Egad. [Insert ranting description of Chompsky's
style, extremism, and alienation from reality.]
> As for Victor Davis Hanson, and his "Carnage and
> Culture", I refer you to reasononline's article/review
> at:
>
> http://www.reason.com/0204/cr.cb.torturing.shtml
That review, IMO, never laid a glove on Hanson. Here
is a typical piece from it:
>Let one more example stand in for the rest: At the battle of Roarke's Drift, Hanson tells
us, 139 British soldiers held off 4,000 Zulus with a storm of rifle fire, "all predicated
on a strict adherence to formal British military practice and discipline that would keep
men at the ramparts shooting continuously without respite." The British troops were
probably helped in their decision to stay at the ramparts and keep shooting without
respite by the fact that 4,000 Zulu warriors were trying to breach those ramparts and kill
them. As he does with Salamis, Hanson finds cultural and political motivations in the
actions of men who are fighting simply to stay alive.
<
Well, OF COURSE the men fighting for their lives had more
on their minds than political ideas. But they had been
impelled to make the choices that put them there that day
and to fortify their resolve before the battle began by
their total perception of who they were and what they
were there for. And this very well was conditioned
exactly in the way Hanson suggests. Surely you can see
that the reviewer's point is a bit weak here. (There
was one or two exactly similar points he made, e.g.,
about the rowers at Salamis.)
The reviewer also notes that by "the Greeks" Hanson
couldn't have meant or shouldn't have included the
Spartans. Well, every amateur historian knows that
the Spartan's were the 5th century version of the
Evil Empire. Why did the reviewer spend several
paragraphs upbraiding Hanson for that? It was *very*
obvious whenever Hanson was describing Greek liberty
and freedom that he meant the Athenians.
By the way,
I note that the reviewer does not argue the facts that
Hanson presents, e.g., my quote above that smelled so
badly to you.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:29 MST