WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Forget the Founding Fathers

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
111
177
#1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EEDD1039F936A35755C0A9639C8B63

today i took my ap us history final. technically we already took it in class so he had several readings for us to read and as "junior historians" analyze. one of them was the essay i linked above. i found the essay very interesting and wanted to share it. i think that the writer: gewen is somewhat cynical throughout the entire essay, but the last two paragraphs kind of ties everything he said before that into the point he is trying to make. until i read the last paragraph i was dissatisfied with it, but after that i decided that it was worth reading adn worth sharing. ill quote the last two paragraphs, but i strongly suggest atleast reading the rest. prior to this he characterizes the three different eras of american writing on american history post WWII and tells shares his complaints about each one, sometiems these complaints are more subtle than others, sarcastic at times, but it is clear that he is dissatisfied with them. here is the last two paragraphs:

Fifty years ago, Louis Hartz expressed the hope that the cold war would bring an end to American provincialism, that international responsibility would lead to ''a new level of consciousness.'' It hasn't happened. In the 1950's, two wide oceans and a nuclear stockpile allowed Americans to continue living blithely in their imagined city on a hill, and the student revolts of the 60's and 70's, if anything, fed the notion that the rest of the world was ''out there.'' ''Bring the troops home'' was the protesters' idea of a foreign policy.

But the disaster of 9/11 proved that the oceans do not protect us and that our nuclear arsenal, no matter how imposing, will not save our cities from terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. Today, there is no retreating into the provincialism and innocence of the past. And because withdrawal is not an option, the work of the globalizing American historians possesses an urgency unknown to scholars of previous generations. The major lesson the new historians must teach is that there is no longer any safe haven from history's horror story. Looking forward is unnerving, but looking backward is worse. The United States has no choice. Like it or not, it is obliged to take a leading role in an international arena that is unpredictable and dangerous, hopeful perhaps, but also potentially catastrophic.
 

bombchu

b-o-n-e-r
395
0
0
#3
That was a good read.

The history argument really bothers me.

Makes me wonder how they are going to remember 9/11 in 100 years.
History seems to depend on who's writing.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#4
Well... It is hard to be fair.
History is the propaganda of yesterday most of the time.

Don't be cross with me, but you have to look at history in the right context.
Use mathematical analisys instead of melodramatic propaganda.

If you see things in the historical proportions, the attack of 9/11 was an incident. With relative little casualties.

It is suggested that it has the same importance as the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that is bullshit. It had no military consequences at all!

It was a full out ECONOMIC attack on an already sinking ship!
And the main thing is, there is still a lot of doubt about what happened.

If the attack on the WTC is indeed from Arab origin, try at least to understand why they are angry. Main reason is the way America fueled the conflict between Iraq and Iran during Irangate.