American Revolution on TDS...er.. I mean.. PBS
-
Haven’t seen it yet. Based on the clip I’m not really sure there’s much meat behind the TDS claim, and Burns doesn’t directly say Franklin copied the Iroquois, just that it was a similar union idea. Which btw had been done around the world for centruies…a union to decrease inter-fighting between similar tribes, even in Japan.
To me there almost seems to be a TDSDS, where people are looking for TDS when it’s not really there.
@89th If you read the whole piece, you'll see a reference to Burns making clear in his own words that he's all-in on the Trump existential threat narrative. From there, any bit of hysteria is perfectly reasonable. It's just because words mean things, not because TDSDS.
-
The glorification of American Indians was probably the first lesson I learned in the fact that people see, in history, whatever they'd like to see. Not that there aren't facts there, it's just that the universe of facts is large enough that any narrative can be cobbled together. That narrative about peaceful and mystical Indians has been around as long as any of us have been alive. Those who propagate it are generally motivated to make a criticism of America.
Education is extremely important.
-
I watched the second episode yesterday which focused a great deal of time on blacks who fought in the war and how horribly they were treated. Also on George Washington buying and selling slaves. It makes small note of the colonists who wanted all those slaves who fought to be freed, but very small.
I don’t know that TDS is the right term here, but there is a whole lot of judgment levied by someone who only knows today’s standards rather than really understanding the world these people lived in.
-
A perfect example of finding unequivocally proven lessons in history that just happen to coincide with whatever one wants to be true is discussed here, at 18:40. An Obama speech writer details how so many people are entirely missing the point of studying the holocaust. She's totally flabbergasted at how anybody could think differently. Dave Smith does a good job of dissecting it.
Link to videoI'm am pretty sick myself of adult humans who simply cannot, no matter how hard they might try, understand how anybody could possibly be in the other tribe. (They'd like you to believe they're actually trying, which is their primary lie.) They do have explanations, but it's all about various hatreds and inadequacies.
-
I read a couple of books on native cultures in the US and more recently, Humankind by Rutger Bregman. While I haven't seen the PBS show yet, there were myriad cultures in the US - and some fascinating cultures prior to the arrival of and even slightly after the continent was contaminated by Europeans. Humankind explored pre-civilized cultures and suggested that it in hunter/gatherer populations - living off the bounty of a land, that it isn't surprising to find very different value systems than one that have developed agriculture and "civilized" themselves. Another interesting detail comes from the number of Europeans, once kidnapped by native Americans and assimilated into that culture, did NOT want to return to civilized society, very frequently escaping back to the tribes from which they were rescued.
-
The glorification of American Indians was probably the first lesson I learned in the fact that people see, in history, whatever they'd like to see. Not that there aren't facts there, it's just that the universe of facts is large enough that any narrative can be cobbled together. That narrative about peaceful and mystical Indians has been around as long as any of us have been alive. Those who propagate it are generally motivated to make a criticism of America.
@Horace said in American Revolution on TDS...er.. I mean.. PBS:
The glorification of American Indians was probably the first lesson I learned in the fact that people see, in history, whatever they'd like to see. Not that there aren't facts there, it's just that the universe of facts is large enough that any narrative can be cobbled together. That narrative about peaceful and mystical Indians has been around as long as any of us have been alive. Those who propagate it are generally motivated to make a criticism of America.
Bertrand Russell wrote an essay called ‘The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed’ almost a century ago expounding on this. It’s worth
readingasking ChatGPT to summarize it for you. -
Gemini:
Please summarize Bertrand Russell essay ‘The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed’
Bertrand Russell's 'The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed' Summary
Bertrand Russell's essay 'The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed' argues that there is a persistent and mistaken tendency among writers and moralists to attribute superior virtues to oppressed groups. He contends that this attribution is not based on reality but often serves a political or psychological purpose for the oppressors.Key Arguments and Examples
Russell's central thesis is that the supposed mystical or moral superiority of the oppressed is a delusion that vanishes once they achieve equality or freedom. He illustrates this point by examining several historical examples of groups that have been romanticized while oppressed:The Poor: Historically, the poor were often depicted as being morally superior, content, and possessing a kind of spiritual wisdom, a view that Russell dismisses as a way to justify their economic exploitation and discourage revolution. He notes that the belief in the superior virtue of the poor faded after the French Revolution.
Subject Nations: People under foreign domination (e.g., colonized nations) were often idealized by their oppressors as having unique spiritual gifts or a "Wisdom of the East." Russell argues this was a way to maintain control and distract from the desire for political freedom. Once these nations achieved independence, this romantic notion of their superior virtue quickly evaporated.
Women: For a long time, women were idealized for virtues like grace, patience, and spirituality, often in direct contrast to their lack of political and economic rights. Russell suggests this idealization served to keep them politically "dumb." As women achieved equality (like the right to vote), their supposed angelic qualities were no longer universally accepted.
Children: Children, too, have been alternately idealized (as pure and innocent by figures like Wordsworth) or demonized (as inherently wicked by some religious views or psychoanalysis). Russell sees this oscillation as linked to the changing power dynamics between parents, teachers, and children.
The Working Class (Proletariat): In his time, Russell observed a similar romanticization of the proletariat by some socialist and communist intellectuals, who attributed exceptional moral qualities to them simply because they were oppressed. Russell predicts this belief would also disappear once the working class attained full rights and power, revealing that they are, like all classes, a mixture of wise and unwise people.
Conclusion
Russell concludes that the widespread belief in the "superior virtue of the oppressed" is a highly harmful tool of the oppressors. It functions either as a consolation prize (telling the oppressed their suffering makes them morally better) or as a justification for inequality (if virtue resides in subjection, then granting power would destroy that virtue).He asserts that all classes and groups of people are fundamentally the same, containing a blend of virtues and vices. The only valid argument for equality is justice and human right, not the false premise of a group's moral or mystical superiority.
-
He has a great line about how oppression doesn’t make people virtuous, it makes them resentful, which is quite dangerous if and when they actually do get power (and gives examples).
Another point relevant today is that those who think they speak for the oppressed think they hold a special moral position that often makes them feel justified in doing just about anything.
The whole reason we call them illegal aliens is because they’re subject to our laws.
-
He has a great line about how oppression doesn’t make people virtuous, it makes them resentful, which is quite dangerous if and when they actually do get power (and gives examples).
Another point relevant today is that those who think they speak for the oppressed think they hold a special moral position that often makes them feel justified in doing just about anything.
@jon-nyc said in American Revolution on TDS...er.. I mean.. PBS:
He has a great line about how oppression doesn’t make people virtuous, it makes them resentful, which is quite dangerous if and when they actually do get power (and gives examples).
Another point relevant today is that those who think they speak for the oppressed think they hold a special moral position that often makes them feel justified in doing just about anything.
yeah self righteousness is a problem, as you might have noted I've sometimes observed.
-
Human behavior is timeless, and this is absolutely a human behavior thing. We're focusing on several hundred years of evolution against tens of thousands of years of pre-recorded evolution. Self-righteousness is evolutionarily adaptive, for the same reason that tribalism is adaptive. But I may repeat myself when I equate self-righteousness with tribalism.
-
An interrogation of the passive voice in writing:
Link to video
