The term "fake news" gets thrown around quite a bit, and is probably on the way toward being meaningless because it means everything and nothing simultaneously.
I think it might be helpful to look at some types of "fake news", and the differences between them.
1. The "fake news" that comes from people, organizations, or governments who are masquerading as a legitimate news organization with the express purpose of posting stories on social media that are either false, or significantly distorted. This is essentially propaganda. Part of what makes these stories seem credible is the profusion of "news outlets" that live on the internet and are independent of traditional news organizations. Most of these are at least attempting to cover the news, although they likely have a bias that might slant their coverage. Many of these (Brietbart, Huffpo, etc) have gained some degree of credibility the longer they've existed. The existence of these types of news outlets, makes it relatively easy to manufacture sites that look and act like the more credible sites pretty easily. The difference is that they are simply trying to push a narrative with little regard for the accuracy of the "news" they report. Since social media will push things towards you based on your past consumption, these fake sites will likely align with the views of the reader, which makes them more believable. At this point, I will more than likely check anything I see on social media if it seems too good to be true. The spread of these sites is fairly easy to mitigate, as long as people are willing to do the research to verify the stories.
2. The other "fake news", which seems a bit more concerning, is when legitimate news organizations report legitimate news falsely. Now, I'm not talking about mistakes, those happen and are understandable. I'm talking about things like multiple news sources using edited video to support a story that the unedited video shows to be false. The other things we see are headlines that are intentionally misleading or that convey a version of the story that is either false, or contradicted in the body of the story. Of course, eventually there will be "apologies" and maybe "corrections/retractions", but because so much of the impact is in sharing the story on social media, the "correction" is seen by virtually no one compared to the false story.
Both of these are concerning, and both can be mitigated by actions of the consumer. In short, read the entire story no matter how difficult the ads and page clicks make it. Check other sources to compare the coverage. Don't re post things without verifying the accuracy of them. In short, read the "news" you see on social media with a healthy skepticism.
As far as the first category, you can certainly block/delete/report those sites, and should do so. Unfortunately, they'll likely pop back up under a new name with new graphics. As for the second, I'd suggest that (as with any business) it's your prerogative to patronize business that choose truth and accuracy over falsehood and sensationalism.
31 comments:
I'm wondering if I could get some feedback on an unrelated topic. On my post on my blog today, I noted how I've been talking with several conservatives who do not view the Confederates to have been traitors who waged a war against US citizens to defend slavery.
In looking into it, I was surprised at how common this view is, and it's not even necessarily limited to conservatives. I was wondering if you would be willing to say if you viewed the Confederates to be traitors or not. And if you view the Civil War to have been started by the Confederates to preserve their right to keep slaves or not.
Why sure Dan. I'll be happy to answer your totally unrelated an off topic question here, because you've banned me at your blog. Why wouldn't I jump to do so. You've been so charitable and full of grace recently that I'll gladly do anything you ask.
Or don't. Its just a reasonable question.
And, for what it's worth, it is on topic because the notion that the Confederates weren't traitors who killed to keep slavery is fake news. But do you recognize it as such?
In all seriousness.
Based on my study of that time period, I've reached a few tentative conclusions.
1. At the time, the US was much closer to the federal system of government envisioned by the founders, and most people felt allegiance to their state first, to the US second. I believe that this is due to the much more limited communication and intercourse between the states, and the fact that the southern states had significant cultural differences from the northern states. Therefore, while they probably fit the definition of "traitor" as it's used more recently, I'm not sure it 100% fits.
2. I believe that the CSA and it's defenders would argue that, since they had seceded, that they were a separate national entity. So you had two countries fighting, rather than two sections of one country.
3. While slavery was certainly an issue (probably #1 or 2), I'm not sure I can say with any confidence that it was 100% the only issue. I think that there were some who were legitimately pursuing the "states rights" issue beyond simply slavery. I think there were some who believed that they were fighting to protect their agrarian lifestyle against industrialization. Obviously slavery plays into all of those, and it's probably not incorrect to boil it down to slavery, but I think there's a bit more complexity than that.
4. It's absurd to try to make this a liberal/conservative issue. It's much more properly cast as a southern/northern or urban/rural issue.
5. Personally, I'm not sure I would use the term traitors because I tend to avoid imposing my 21st century biases on 19th century people, mindsets, and worldviews. Further, I see no value in retroactively branding people as traitors to score present day political points. As I said, I wouldn't say that it's 100% incorrect to use the term, but I don't see the point. The reality is, that in this current context, those who still "support" the CSA will probably conclude that you are referring to them as traitors, which seems like needless provocation.
6. If you are asking me what term I would use to describe those in the CSA, I see no reason not to use the term confederate, or rebels. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of history knows who won and who lost, and they know that the citizens of the CSA either became US citizens or they went to South America.
7. If I was referring to those from the CSA who chose to move to South America rather than to rejoin the US, I could see referring to them as traitors.
8. As I indicated earlier, I believe that limiting the cause of the Civil War to just slavery is a simplistic answer to a question that is probably not that simple. So, if someone was doing so in a casual conversation, I probably wouldn't argue with them, but I do think it oversimplifies things. The tension between the North and South predates the declaration and the constitution, and it would be short sighted to think that the fears of those in the South (that the industrialized/broader economies of the Northern states) would result in a power imbalance and that the interests of the Southern states (including, but not limited to slavery) would be overwhelmed by the growing power of the North.
9. If you've spent any time studying the period from roughly 1774-1783, it's hard to understand how different the attitudes of the two sections were, and how much compromise went into the crafting of the US. I think it's rational to conclude that all of those differences went into the causes of the war.
10. I honestly don't see the purpose in going to this much effort to label people who lived well over a century ago "traitors". It seems petty, vindictive, and counterproductive.
11. The Civil War ended in 1865. I suspect that the assassination of Lincoln markedly changed the nature of the reconstruction, and contributed to many of the lingering effects of the post war transition. (Obviously, not provable, but not unreasonable either) If you want to boil it down to being simply about freeing the slaves, then I don't see how it's possible to ignore the @360,000 Union soldiers and 10's of thousands of Union civilians that were killed or wounded, nor can the $5,000,000,000 in costs involved in freeing the slaves. This is the side of the ledger that gets short shrift as people jockey for 21st century political advantage. If the Union could welcome the confederates back to citizenship then, why are people so interested in stripping that away now?
I'd say that I hope that helps, but I really don't care. I suspect that you'll take my comments, offered in good faith, and try to label me as a traitor or as someone who supports traitors. I've offered my thoughts as a good faith effort to answer you questions, unfortunately my lack of trust regarding what you'll do with my answers tells me this was a mistake.
"And, for what it's worth, it is on topic because the notion that the Confederates weren't traitors who killed to keep slavery is fake news. But do you recognize it as such?"
I'll leave my response, but the fact that you pretended to ask a question in good faith, when you had already predetermined what the "correct" answer would be is just one more example of your disingenuousness and dishonesty.
The fact that you expect me to take every bit of shit you throw out, come over here and ask that I answer off topic questions (which you have to ask here because you banned me at your blog), then have the nerve to try to tell me what's on topic hers is simply the height of arrogance.
But, because I'm not a vindictive, petty, childish, asshole, I'll leave my response here. I suspect you'll freely copy it and misrepresent it at your blog. It's what you do.
Answering your question is what I do.
On topic, I just saw something that appeared too good to be true, I checked it out before I wrote about it, and didn't write anything. See, the whole fake news thing can usually be handled with a quick Google search.
Back off topic. I clearly should have read Dan's rant before trying to provide something that wasn't a full throated attack on those he clearly harbors animus towards.
""...In late February 1861, in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven breakaway states formed the C.S.A.; swore in a president, Jefferson Davis; and wrote a constitution..."
I hate to note the obvious, but the above statement doesn't support the claim of "traitor". Since the constitution is silent on secession, and the seceding states formed a national government, it seems as if it could be argued that their actions were at least as justified as those of the revolution.
But, I suspect that this (as are so many things) is in the eye of the beholder. If someone is so eager to label a bunch of people from 150 years ago as "traitors" in order to "score" rhetorical points in 2020, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says or not. They're convinced of the righteousness of their cause before they asked the question.
The reason I answered is BECAUSE it's a reasonable question. Unfortunately, it's the questioner that's unreasonable.
The only way the term is appropriate is one chooses to think in terms of the southern states being traitors to the notion of a United States of America. But there was never any widely held attitude of subordinating their sovereignty by uniting with the other colonies for their mutual benefit. Lincoln's primary objective was to maintain the union in its entirety for that mutual benefit, a faggot being stronger than an individual stick and all.
But even so, with the notion that each state was sovereign, to be mandated to do what any given state found to be untenable was cause for secession and they took an interpretation of the 10th Amendment to support the notion. Also, given that states were called to ratify what would otherwise be rejected without it, it's not hard to see why some, from the very beginning to the attack on Ft. Sumter, felt walking away from the union was an inherent right. If in their opinion this right existed, "traitor" obviously is an inappropriate term for their attempt to secede.
Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it.
Just because you've appeared to misunderstand SO much in answering a relatively simple question, I'll respond to some of your points, but you don't need to publish them, unless you want.
1. The term, Traitor, was irrelevant. Short hand for saying, "the bad guys," in the wrong, defenders of oppression. That's all I meant (although I think traitor is relevant, as well, they fired upon the US army and did not legally or Constitutionally leave the union (because I don't believe there's a way of doing that). If you'd like to answer this, you can, up to you:
Do you agree that the confederates were the oppressors, the bad guys, the ones who were doing wrong in defending slavery and killing hundreds of thousands of US citizens to do it?
2. I don't agree since they couldn't constitutionally leave the Union, but it's neither here nor there, except to say that IF one nation is oppressing and enslaving others, them killing others to defend the indefensible is still wrong.
3. I think that if you read the vast majority of historians, they'll say that slavery was the underlying and primary cause. The matter is settled, they say. The Confederates themselves identify slavery as why they were forming. But it's not my point to say slavery is THE primary cause. There were clearly multiple causes, states rights, economics, etc, but they nearly all tie back to slavery. The point being: I'm not saying it's the ONLY REASON!! It's a primary reason, according to scholars and historians.
4. I'm not making it a liberal/conservative issue, other than to say that conservatives today (the ones I spoke to) don't agree with the conclusions of historians (which I think clearly conforms with reality). It came up in the context of me asking these conservatives to help me understand how they can defend the Confederacy or say it's part of "our culture." The answer was, "Because we don't think (we know) that the CW was not about slavery at all, and these confederates WERE/ARE heroes who fought back the northern aggressors.
Which is just so weird, to me. It's the language of the Klan, not of historians. But I didn't say that, i was just trying to understand.
10. Traitors, bad guys, the oppressors, the slavery defenders. They were clearly in the wrong. Why call them that? Because it matters. Black Americans are still suffering the consequences of our original sin and we owe it to them to call the slavers for what they were or, at the least, NOT to honor them as heroes. They were simply not heroes, any more than Nazi soldiers were heroes.
Do you disagree?
If you want to answer. Either way, thanks for the response.
1. As I pointed out, you're very own citation demonstrates that they intended to form a new and separate country, not "betray" the US. By this definition, the founders were "traitors". If the term was "irrelevant" why go to such lengths to use it? Why specifically ask me about the specific "irrelevant" word? As I said in my original response to your question, their actions were much more of a rebellion, than a betrayal.
"Do you agree that the confederates were the oppressors, the bad guys, the ones who were doing wrong in defending slavery and killing hundreds of thousands of US citizens to do it?"
And here I thought you were actually interested in the answers to your questions instead of more rhetorical questions.
1. Do I think slavery as practiced in the American South was wrong, yes.
2. Do I think that the slaveholders and defenders of slavery were wrong, yes.
3. Do I think that engaging in a war to further this wrong was wrong, yes.
4. Do I think that you don't actually give a shit about anything except being able to verbally bludgeon anyone who disagrees with you in the tiniest degree, yes.
5. Do I think that you confuse people not jumping on your bandwagon of vitriol and character attacks, with people disagreeing with you, yes.
2. Actually the constitution is silent on secession from the union, so it's incorrect to say categorically that it's not possible "constitutionally". The reality is that they behaved pretty much exactly the way the founders did when they broke from England. As I pointed out, the view of the US was different then, and It's stupid to try to impose a 21st century politically driven worldview on events from the past,
3. I'm pretty sure that I said " While slavery was certainly an issue (probably #1 or 2), I'm not sure I can say with any confidence that it was 100% the only issue.". You're just nitpicking in order to disagree for the sake of being a disagreeable asshole.
4. So, you're not making this a "liberal/conservative" issue, except that you specifically are claiming that it's "conservatives today" who you have a problem with. Further, we've talked many times about the foolishness of extrapolating your (small sample size) anecdotal experience out to try to broad brush large groups. Yet, your response to me specifically NOT saying what your "conservative" small sample size group are saying, is to try to suggest that I am. Like I said, since you're likely drawing your small sample size from the south, it's possible (maybe likely) that you're hearing a southern response. not necessarily a conservative response. I know that even entertaining the though that you could be wrong, is virtually impossible for you, but it's not a stretch for the rest of us.
10. Thank you ever so much for making my point. I've never suggested any sort of blanket honoring every single member of the CSA military as "heroes". Of course, I'm also not obsessed with this bizarre crusade to label them traitors either.
I disagree with your obsessive desire to apply the most pejorative label possible to anyone you judge harshly. I do disagree with your obsession of the label "traitor", as I pointed out "rebel" is probably the more accurate term.
I love how your response to my fairly lengthy and detailed answers to your questions is to passive aggressively try to imply that I "don't" answer questions is typically lazy of you. I also love how you insist that I'm wrong or "don't understand", yet you don't actually demonstrate where I'm wrong or offer any counter to my answers.
I take no pleasure in noting that I was correct in suspecting that you had no desire to hear anything except your own prejudices repeated back to you.
I suspect, I'll see my words paraphrased in a way this misleads, falsely characterized, or lied about in the comments section of your blog at some point.
Dan,
Given your characterization of the CSA as "traitors" and "terrorists", are you suggesting that Lincoln was correct in the measures he ordered to defeat the CSA?
Which measures?
Are you unaware of what actions Lincoln engaged in which led to the ending of the rebellion and the end of slavery?
I'm generally familiar with the actions leading up to the end of the war, yes.
It appears you have something specific in mind. Why not ask me about what specifically you have in mind, rather than me guessing?
Here's one timeline of Lincoln's and the Union's actions throughout the Civil War and this reads pretty much as I recall history being taught. Are you speaking of one of these actions?
https://millercenter.org/president/abraham-lincoln/key-events
"Given your characterization of the CSA as "traitors" and "terrorists", are you suggesting that Lincoln was correct in the measures he ordered to defeat the CSA?"
I asked you a specific question, but Ill elaborate.
From the point that the CSA fired on Ft Sumpter, Lincoln engaged in or ordered a number of actions that resulted in the ultimate defeat of the CSA. You either agree with his choices and decisions and think that He took appropriate actions or you don't.
It's almost like you have something that makes you want to be as vague, ambiguous, and non committal as possible.
Okay, with ALL the measures that Lincoln and the Union took in fighting the war. That was not clear to me.
No. Since I lean pretty pacifist-ish, no, of course, I don't approve of all the efforts taken to stop slavery. I don't agree with attacks upon civilians or civilian property, for instance. I don't approve of suspending habeas corpus.
I do approve of the Emancipation Proclamation. I do approve of striving to keep the Union together and not allowing a nation dedicated to slavery exist just to our south.
Does that answer your question? or do you want me to talk about each and every decision/action he made? (I probably won't do that, just fyi.)
It's almost like you have something that makes you want to be as vague, ambiguous, and non committal as possible.
My asking you which SPECIFIC actions is an indicator to you that I want to be vague and ambiguous?
Do you understand how words work? You DO understand, don't you, asking for what SPECIFIC action you're speaking of is a way to give a SPECIFIC answer, sort of the opposite of vague and ambiguous, yes?
Thanks again for your answers.
Here's a few follow up questions on that same topic, if you feel like addressing them. You said...
2. Do I think that the slaveholders and defenders of slavery were wrong, yes.
3. Do I think that engaging in a war to further this wrong was wrong, yes.
Given that we agree that slavery was wrong and engaging in a war to defend slavery were wrong, do you support removing statues that honor Confederates, at least the ones in public spaces?
Also, why do you think that something like half the nation (including many black people) don't agree with historians that slavery was a primary reason for the Civil War?
Why do so many people in the South identify and feel a need to venerate their ancestors (or sometimes, not even their ancestors, if they weren't from the South) and think of them as victims of "northern aggression," where the north attacked them for no good reason other than forcing them to remain in the Union against their will (according to my cousins and many other conservatives I've been speaking with)?
Is it "fake news" and falsely remembering/repeating history to say that slavery was not a primary reason for the CW?
"No. Since I lean pretty pacifist-ish, no, of course, I don't approve of all the efforts taken to stop slavery. I don't agree with attacks upon civilians or civilian property, for instance. I don't approve of suspending habeas corpus."
Earlier, I believe that you said that it was a sin to not be a pacifist, does this mean that you are renouncing the strict pacifist line you've held to in the past?
I appreciate your efforts dodge around the actions taken to end slavery. I'm thrilled that you approve of the Emancipation Proclamation, even though it was limited. One can only conclude that the only problem you might have had with Lincoln's effort to end slavery in the US, is the fact that the pesky confederates had the temerity to fortify and defend cities without removing the civilians and the civilian property.
It's interesting that you and yours have seemed less concerned about the destruction of "civilian" and public property recently.
Just to be clear, you do believe that the slaughter on the various battlefields was an appropriate course to take in order to end slavery.
"My asking you which SPECIFIC actions is an indicator to you that I want to be vague and ambiguous?"
Unlike you, I prefer to either ask yes or no questions or general questions that allow those who answer plenty of leeway in their answer. Obviously, one would be insane to think that my question was intended to elicit detailed analysis of every single action Lincoln took or ordered. I apologize if you felt overwhelmed in unable to speak about the Civil War in generalities.
"Do you understand how words work?"
Yes.
"You DO understand, don't you, asking for what SPECIFIC action you're speaking of is a way to give a SPECIFIC answer, sort of the opposite of vague and ambiguous, yes?"
Do YOU understand that giving you plenty of leeway to determine how you'd like to answer, is a courtesy?
"Here's a few follow up questions on that same topic, if you feel like addressing them."
Unlike you, I'm happy to.
"You said...
2. Do I think that the slaveholders and defenders of slavery were wrong, yes.
3. Do I think that engaging in a war to further this wrong was wrong, yes."
Yes I did. I'm surprised that with your mastery of copy/paste that you are so rarely able to copy/paste actual quotes of mine and feel it appropriate to make shit up instead.
"Given that we agree that slavery was wrong and engaging in a war to defend slavery were wrong, do you support removing statues that honor Confederates, at least the ones in public spaces?"
1. I fully support cities and states making their own choices regarding the removal of these sorts of statues on public property. If a city or state chooses to do so, I completely support their decision. The local baseball team made the choice to remove a statue of a previous owner because of his views on race. I support them having the ability to make that choice.
2. I do not support rampaging mobs destroying public and private property indiscriminately.
3. In our current federal system of government, I do not believe that the federal government has the authority to force the removal of, or destroy city or state statues.
4. If you agree that it IS appropriate to force the removal of "monuments" (statues, plaques, buildings, parks, etc), what is the criteria to determine what gets removed.
5. Do your support the destruction by the mob of statues of; abolitionists, suffragettes, soldiers who fought to end slavery, etc?
6. Do you think that the absolute best way to make these types of decisions is in the heat of emotion, or to appease a mob?
"Also, why do you think that something like half the nation (including many black people) don't agree with historians that slavery was a primary reason for the Civil War?"
Because, as I said earlier, " While slavery was certainly an issue (probably #1 or 2), I'm not sure I can say with any confidence that it was 100% the only issue.". Since we appear to agree, "a primary reason", why would you ask such a pointless question?
"Why do so many people in the South identify and feel a need to venerate their ancestors (or sometimes, not even their ancestors, if they weren't from the South) and think of them as victims of "northern aggression," where the north attacked them for no good reason other than forcing them to remain in the Union against their will (according to my cousins and many other conservatives I've been speaking with)?"
Are you really suggesting that only people from the South "feel a need to venerate their ancestors"? Unfortunately, I can't speak authoritatively speak on the motivations of people that I've never met and spoken to. I'll point out that "venerating ones ancestors" is a phenomenon that literally takes place in every civilization and culture through history. Hell, up here they venerate the people who invented Spam. I truly apologize that I am unable to whip up a treatise on the specific motivations of people I've never talked to, or the motivations of the entire human race. It's not that I don't want to answer, it's that I'm not a sociologist or a mind reader.
"Is it "fake news" and falsely remembering/repeating history to say that slavery was not a primary reason for the CW?"
By definition, history is not "news", therefore it can't be "fake news". Is it distorting history to suggest that, sure. What's strange is that we see all sorts of people who distort history on a much grander scale and people like you don't get particularly worked up.
Is it distorting history if...
One denies the holocaust?
One insists that Israel was the aggressor in 1948, 1967, 1973?
One insists that Che Guevara was someone worthy of idolizing?
One ignores the logical conclusion of Darwin's writings?
One ignores to culpability that Africans and Muslims have for the transatlantic slave trade?
I know this'll be a shock to you but humans have a long history of distorting history in order to make their losses/failures more palatable. It's much easier to portray oneself as a victim, than to take responsibility for ones actions.
I might be wrong, but maybe that's why they distort history. Maybe it's easier to believe that they were victims, than the alternative. Maybe victim-hood is attractive that way, in that it provides an explanation for our circumstances that circumvents responsibility for our actions. Maybe Flip Wilson was on to something.
Is it fake news to intentionally leave out video of an event, in order to portray a victim as the aggressor?
My question was not asking if you supported the notion of local cities removing them or if you support mobs taking them down. I asked if YOU supported removing them? If it was put to a vote, would YOU VOTE TO REMOVE THEM?
I hope that helps.
I don't support mobs removing them.
Craig... Because, as I said earlier, " While slavery was certainly an issue (probably #1 or 2), I'm not sure I can say with any confidence that it was 100% the only issue.". Since we appear to agree, "a primary reason", why would you ask such a pointless question?
Because I didn't ask you if slavery was 100% THE ONLY ISSUE. What I'm wondering is why more people don't consider it a primary cause of the CW, given that historians are nearly entirely united on the topic (and because it's what the slaver/traitors claimed themselves? Are you aware of the attempts by many Confederate sympathizers to re-write history to make the CW the Noble Lost Cause to protect the Southland from the War of Northern Aggression, instead of what the war actually was about, primarily slavery and the South's defense of it?
It appears that this effort has gone a long way towards misinformation and I see it regularly with my conservative family and friends from the South in their defense of the South by repeating such claims. My friends from the South truly believe that the Confederates were actual heroes, not the villains of the story. I'm wondering who to do better at teaching history, especially with so many actively dedicated to this false narrative.
"Given that we agree that slavery was wrong and engaging in a war to defend slavery were wrong, do you support removing statues that honor Confederates, at least the ones in public spaces?"
I apologize if my multiple answers weren't good enough.
If you are asking if I would vote for a blanket removal of every single statue that someone, somewhere considered to "honor Confederates", my answer would probably be no.
If you are asking if I would vote for a removal of certain specific statues, my answer would be a qualified yes.
"What I'm wondering is why more people don't consider it a primary cause of the CW, given that historians are nearly entirely united on the topic (and because it's what the slaver/traitors claimed themselves?"
Unfortunately, I'm not a sociologist, nor am I versed at all in why people choose to do things. Given that reality, and the reality that I don't/can't/won't speak for people I don't know/never met/ haven't interacted with, I really have no basis (beyond the speculation I've offered) that will help you with what you are wondering about. My suggestion is that you find some individuals who hold those beliefs, approach them with genuine interest and a desire to understand, and explore this topic with them. I suspect, if you approach them as you have this thread, that you won't get the answers you seek, because people often get defensive when things they believe are attacked.
"Are you aware of the attempts by many Confederate sympathizers to re-write history to make the CW the Noble Lost Cause to protect the Southland from the War of Northern Aggression, instead of what the war actually was about, primarily slavery and the South's defense of it?"
Yes, so? Are you aware of the many attempts to rewrite history such as the examples I gave you above?
"It appears that this effort has gone a long way towards misinformation and I see it regularly with my conservative family and friends from the South in their defense of the South by repeating such claims."
Again, my first response is, "So what". Maybe you need to do a better job of explaining your truth to your friends and relatives. Maybe you need to stop assuming that since some (small sample size) number of your friends and family say X, that you can extrapolate that out to the entire country. I pointed out earlier that this might not be a political issue as much as a regional issue.
"My friends from the South truly believe that the Confederates were actual heroes, not the villains of the story."
And that's my problem how? Maybe you should herd them into a reeducation camp and force them to believe the right way.
"a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities."
"A hero is a real person or a main fictional character who, in the face of danger, combats adversity through feats of ingenuity, courage or strength."
I think that part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the definition of "hero". According to the definition, a hero is "a person", an individual, not a group or a cause. I have absolutely no problem with the notion that people can be "heroes", while doing so in the name of a cause that isn't particularly noble.
FYI, before you bitch, the first definition doesn't say that all three attributes must be present for heroism, it's pointing out that any of the three can be considered heroic.
Perhaps the problem you are having is that you don't fully understand what they are really saying. Perhaps your prejudices, biases, and all around bad feelings for those you consider conservative are clouding your judgement.
"I'm wondering who to do better at teaching history, especially with so many actively dedicated to this false narrative."
That's a great question. Especially since I've noted multiple other false narratives that are readily accepted by some.
Since you tend to make many issues political, I'll leave you with this to consider when it comes to teaching history.
Perhaps it would be instructive to explore the political leanings of those who teach history. For that matter, of teachers across the board. That might be a good place to start.
Of course, you'll need to eradicate the problem of parents, grandparents, and great grandparents passing along "history" and family hagiography as well.
Perhaps it would be helpful to take this same sort of look at the false narratives that have allowed Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao, and Lenin, to become heroes to so many.
I apologize again, that my inability to be able to read minds, speak for people I don't know, lack of sociology education, and failure to live in the South have prevented me from given you the answers you demand. Perhaps the problem is that you're asking the wrong person.
Also, perhaps the problem (as I mentioned earlier) isn't confined to this one issue/group.
Post a Comment