[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: now, which one is bad again? (history)
In a message dated 6/22/01 10:19:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
fionaeval at yahoo_com writes:
<< the revisionists are no more underhanded
with bias than are the great white fathers of our
esteemed canonical history.
canonical history leaves out so many parties and their
belief/motivations for their actions. we know all
about the the plight of evangelizing the indigenous
people in the americas (which is fine)...but what
about the religious motivations to fight that empire? >>
I'm not at all on the side of canonical history. I actually like what Don has
said
about the "good" of revisionist history, I didn't fully understand that side
of it before. Thanks man! I can fully go along with revisionist history by
that definition. New evidence should always be taken into account and
weighed. If it shows somthing considered to be canonical wrong then the
canonical should be blasted. I'm all for digging deep and finding truth, no
matter how much it may upset the established views.
What I said earlier about understanding motives for people's actions plays
into the last sentence of yours I posted. I think we should look at the
religious motivations to fight that empire although I don't know much on the
subject myself. To fully understand what happened, having the answer to that
question would bring us a long way into knowing the truth of what happened.
But, when we shy away from talking about religion in any way in our schools
noone would even know to bring up the question let alone seek answers for it.
kevin
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/