Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Should Bush be able to withhold documents from the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies to protect their legacies? Should he be able to withhold docs from his own presidency if it prevent us from "reading the truth"?
|
The "truth"??? Oh, I get it. Why don't you folks just cut to the chase. Impeach Bush if you think he lied, abused power, and committed crimes. With subpoena power you can get access to what you want.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i don't think you understand what history is, ace--not in the sense of history=stuff that happened in the past, but more history as what historians make, what they do.
|
You are correct I don't understand history as you define it - I don't even understand your definition.
Quote:
|
to stick with your analogy---a social historian, say, might look at the official document trail your marriage generated as elements within larger patterns that would be interesting or shaped by a bigger project or problem--this stuff is usually material for making inferences about type of activity done by folk who left no documentary traces behind. another type of project might be involve interviewing you about the reasons for your marriage. yet another--depending of course on who you are--might be set up so that the transcripts of your discussions leading up to the marriage are crucial.
|
Using Alex Haley's book "Roots" as an example. In his book he had documented history. The rest he made up, so if you call him a historian and his book history - we clearly disagree about what history is. In my view history is what really happened. Trying to document the feelings, motivations, stories behind the "history", and other abstract issues involving human decisions is an exercise in fiction. Even if you have, for example, "love letters", all you really have are words on paper. When you have a marriage, you have something of historic note. If you have a "love child" you have something of historic note.
In the context of the Bush Administration for example, we have the war in Iraq. Having documents of meetings indicating that Bush may have had second thoughts is not really material to the historic record in my opinion because the real point of interest is the fact he lead us to war.
Quote:
|
but the basic problem is that you are not george w bush and the analogy is basically flawed that would equate your decision to get married and what bush may have discussed or done while in office.
|
All analogies are flawed. So what. If an analogy was exactly in the context of reality it would not be an analogy. An analogy is used to amplify a point. If you don't get the point, I understand the failing of the analogy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
this seems the central problem or dividing line: conservative "history" is more a saint's life of the Powerful, a list of Glorious Deeds of the Great Man than anything even analytic (why did this happen?) not to mention critical (what were they thinking?)
|
Now there is "conservative" and "liberal" history?
I am conservative - What Monica did or didn't do to Bill Clinton in my opinion was not worth of historic record. Do you?
Quote:
|
conservatives seem to want amateur history. amateur history that affirms what they already believe. reagan was a great man--a claim by and for amateurs; jimmy carter was the worst president in history: a claim by and for amateurs: people are unfair to george w bush: a claim by and for the dissociative.
|
I think LBJ was a better President than Kennedy. I think Nixon was the most dishonest politician in modern times. I think FDR was the greatest President of the 20th century. Do these thoughts fit your preconceived notions?