On 9 11

[sctmom 11]

Not a book for children, but if you want to read a great book about the founding of our country, read "John Adams" by David McCullough. I just saw it in paperback at Costco this week. It is well written and tells a lot of truths that are not normally mentioned.

 

Mud-slinging among politicians is NOT new!

 

The worst criticism I have heard about the book so far is that McCullough was biased toward Adams and not towards Franklin and Jefferson. Well, the book IS about Adams. He doesn't try to condemn any of the men of that time and doesn't sugar coat things.

 

[evmori 11]

Today is a day of rememberance. Pray for the families who lost someone on this day one year ago.

 

God Bless the USA

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[eisely 13]

I got the McCullough book on Adams for Christmas. It repays reading.

[Rooster7 11]

eisely,

 

You summed up my feelings in a nutshell (I'm sure some of my ideological opponents feel that my word choice is very fitting) Regardless, thanks.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I decided that yesterday was not a day for debate, and apparently most others agreed as well. But today is today.

 

eisely says:

 

I saw a quote from Napoleon recently to the effect that, "History is an agreed fable." Another quote from some source I saw a long time ago is that, "History is the propaganda of the victors."

 

As indicated by my quotation earlier, I have heard these sentiments in more pedestrian form as "The winners write the history books." But Napolean's quote does add something to it.

 

There is some truth to these, but we must rise above cynicism.

 

There is indeed some truth to these statements, meaning that not all history is embellished or bent or twisted or sugar-coated, but it's tough to know which is which. That means that history must be approached with a critical eye. I don't consider that cynicism, I consider it realism -- and realism is not something we should "rise above."

 

We can teach the facts without denigrating ourselves. There are unpleasant facts, such as slavery. One should also point out that the injustice of slavery was redeemed quite literally in white mens' blood.

 

Well, we should strive to teach (and learn) the truth. If the facts lead some to conclusions that may be "denigrating," so be it. But I believe, and I think you agreeing, that there should be an effort at "balance." In U.S. history, there is almost always an "other hand" to be considered -- and in a way you could say that this sets us apart from some other countries. In many nations, there are large portions of history that have to be completely ignored, massively rewritten or at least significantly "airbrushed" in order for their people to retain any national pride or self-respect at all. (One example being the apparent belief of many German people today that Hitler and his immediate followers were solely responsible for Germany's wartime conduct and that the population as a whole really had nothing to do with it. Talk about an "agreed fable.") I think there is much less of a need to do that here, though of course a descendant of Native Americans or slaves might see it differently. In the case of the treatment of Native Americans, there are some specific instances that can never be justified, but you can always debate whether the overall takeover of the continent is justified by the settlers' dreams of building a new nation based on liberty and democratic principles, and you can debate whether it really matters now that the deed is done. But you can't properly discuss any of that until you know what the actual facts are.

 

As for "the injustice of slavery was redeemed quite literally in white mens' blood," that's an opinion, or if you prefer, a conclusion you draw from the facts, but it is not a fact. It is a fact that white men (and black men) did die in a war effort that had the result of ending slavery. Historians have always debated (and always will) whether ending slavery was actually one of the original aims of the Union war effort or not. But even accepting that it was one of the aims, or became one of the aims, there is plenty of room for debate over whether the "injustice" was "redeemed." Again, I don't want to get into it, but I would point out that there is an increasing movement today that believes the "redemption" was so incomplete and inadequate that it needs to be supplemented by cash payments to the descendants of slaves. And while I don't agree with them, I personally don't agree with your statement, either. But this is all a great example of how careful we have to be about what is taught in the schools. We should be providing all the facts, and if we provide opinion as well, it should be clearly labeled as opinion and the existence of other opinions should be mentioned as well -- and the opinions probably should not be provided at all until kids are old enough to understand the distinction.

 

Referring to a book by Thomas Sowell, eisely writes:

 

One of his main points was that the United State was held up to ideal standards while other countries were held up to lesser standards. Too many people in the US today dismiss the achievements of their own country because it does not meet all their ideals.

 

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second. I think most Americans tend to ignore the "bad parts" and have a high opinion of their country. That may be partly a consequence of many years of teaching the "agreed fable" version of U.S. history in school, and it may partly be just national pride. What we are really talking about here is a discussion among historians and the relatively small portion of the population that actually pays any attention to history. As I have said, what I advocate is teaching all the facts as a precursor to drawing conclusions from them. I personally believe, having read some of the writings of William Bennett and Thomas Sowell (though not as much as some others here), that they do not really want to present a complete version of the facts, because some people might draw conclusions they do not favor. That does not mean that all of what kids are taught today is appropriate -- some textbook writers probably do go too far in the other direction and themselves draw conclusions without providing all the facts. But I think the correct balance is somewhere between these writers and their critics such as Bennett and Sowell, who come to the table with their own ideological agenda.

[ScoutParent 10]

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."

- James Branch Cabell

[Venturer2002 10]

For all those questioning history, how about the issue of William Fakespeare? Many still insist that it really wasn't Shakespeare, but really Christopher Marlowe, who wrote the body of his work.

 

The reason that no history book will be correct is that humans wrote it. The only 100% historically accurate account of historical events is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as they are the revealed word of God.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Venturer2002 says:

 

For all those questioning history, how about the issue of William Fakespeare? Many still insist that it really wasn't Shakespeare, but really Christopher Marlowe, who wrote the body of his work.

 

Or Francis Bacon, or Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), or even (in one of the less popular theories) Queen Elizabeth I.

 

And speaking of historical mysteries, what about Paul? Is he really dead, or what? (No, no, not the one in the New Testament...)

 

The only 100% historically accurate account of historical events is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as they are the revealed word of God.

 

Well, unless of course you are Jewish, in which case the Old Testament doesn't count at all; or Muslim, in which case parts of the Old and New Testaments are historical and parts aren't; or Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Zoroastrian or any of a number of others, which have their own sacred books; or Protestant, in which case you do not recognize some of the books in the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox versions of the Bible (to say nothing of the differing translations present in different versions of the Bible, sometimes differing on matters of significance); or a member of any of the various schools of thought (or just plain individual folks) within the Christian and Jewish religions that believe that portions of the Bible are allegorical, or that the Bible was "inspired by God" rather than being the "word of God." So except for them, yes, the Bible is 100 percent historically accurate.

[dan 10]

NJCS

The answer to your question is ....

 

Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Oops. Of course I meant that for Jewish people it is the New Testament that doesn't count. A Freudian slip if there ever was one.

[Rooster7 11]

So except for them, yes, the Bible is 100 percent historically accurate.

 

I understand that there are numerous faiths in the world and a multitude of interpretations of the same. I don't think anyone would deny this. However, a faith is not a faith if one must qualify it. Someone who feels he must recognize, acknowledge, and give credence to other faiths before he can speak of his own, does not know what he believes. If a person knows the truth, and he is noble, he will not give credence to anyone or anything that contradicts that truth. So, when someone acknowledges other faiths as "possible truths", he is in affect saying he's not sure about his own faith. Or worse, he doesn't care if you know the truth or not. This is particularly true if one is a Christian. The New Testament clearly states that Jesus Christ is the one and only way. There is no leeway for universalism. Humanistic approaches to God are denounced in the harshest terms.

 

As for "Christians" that believe the bible is "inspired by God" rather than being the "word of God", they are not reading their bible. Again, the New Testament clearly says otherwise (2 Timothy 3:16 & 17). Furthermore, I have to ask these so-called believers, if the bible is merely the word of inspired men then why believe any of it? Do inspired men have pure hearts and absolute knowledge? Of course, they do not. Why would anyone claim they know God and His will for us if their knowledge is based on the writings of imperfect beings? Christians that do not recognize the bible as being the "word of God" have a false faith. They are one well-reasoned argument away from having no faith at all.

 

If this offends you, I apologize. Nevertheless, simple logic supports my claim. Furthermore, I am just as offended by self-proclaimed Christians that discredit "God's Word" as the flawed teachings of men. If you claim to be a believer in Christ, then follow Him and all of God's word. If you pick and chose scripture from the bible, don't stake claim to Him. Christ has clearly defined the road to salvation. We can chose to follow it or leave it, but we do not have the power, wisdom, or righteousness to create another (Matthew 7:13 - 23).

 

As for the non-Christian, I do not have any malice in my heart for you. No doubt, someone here or elsewhere will claim differently. My response to this post is an expression of my faith. My statements lack disclaimers not because I seek to offend you, but because I do not want to offend God. Nor do I want to give the impression that my faith is something that I created. My faith is the result of God's Grace.

 

NJ, from the perspective of the world, your point is valid.