Saturday, July 15. 2006
From the June issue of Harper's Magazine: Stabbed in the Back!
Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism.
This article should be read by those of us in the baby boom generation who are interested in the mythological themes and the history of the "bedtime story" we have been listening to all of our lives. The story is that the heroic American military can't be defeated by the outer forces of darkness (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) but can be defeated by treacherous Judas like insiders (Liberals).
The interesting point of the story is the narrative has been told and retold for a very long time. The telling of the tale was not started by Reagan, Bush I or by Karl Rove. They have just embellished the story for the time in which it was told.
So maybe it's time to ask the storytellers...ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, Time etc...to tell us a new story..one with a little more depth, because after all we are now adults.
Story Tip from Mr. Black aka Atrios.
Thursday, June 29. 2006
It wasn't that long ago if you needed information, you went to the encyclopedia. Now one goes to the computer, finds the Google page, types in a few words, and then finds out what is wanted in a Wikipedia article. (Usually)
This article from Center for History and the New Media
"Can History be Open Source" tells the history of Wikipedia and details the pro and cons of collaborative historical writing by unpaid authors. Consensus can rarely be reached on controversial subjects and the article about the Armenian Genocide is a prime example. Over 300,000 words have been written on this subject and so the page you see today most likely won't be the page that is on the web tomorrow. Not so with the venerable encyclopedia. Still the historical accuracy of the Wiki is the same as the encyclopedias and close to the accuracy of reference books written by professional historians.
My personal view is that Wikis are an alternative to the boring state legislature approved textbooks that students and teachers are forced to use now. Some alternative viewpoints on the web may be inaccurate or just down right wacky, but that is better than none at all.
One detail the author points out is that the average Wiki author is a geek. So now history is being written by the geeks, not the winners.
Isn't it Obvious is an online diary of news items, websites, and blog posts that I am reading. It's obvious you should read them too. You and I are now part of the biggest social science experiment of the 21st century.
