|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Just now on C-SPAN2's Book TV, a woman was introducing Jeff Shaara to speak about his new historical novel, The Glorious Cause, about the American Revolution, and she said: ..."The Founding Fathers, or as they're calling them today, The Founding Brothers."  Huh? What? Who? First of all, if this, indeed, is the case (though I've never heard it before), this is truly PC run-amok, way-over overkill. And I don't get it...what's the PC advantage of saying brothers instead of fathers, anyway..who's the less offended for that? And it changes the whole semantical equation, because the sense of progenitor in father is the heart of the image here. They can't be mothers, and brothers aren't progenitors in the symbolic sense. So, huh? Is George Washington now to be "The Brother of Our Country?" What on earth is going on here? Of all the PC affectations, unnecessary and inaccurate historical revisionisms drive me up the wall the most (not to say that a historical truth uncovered should not be made to stand). And, no, this is not Afrocentric  ...but it is kind of ironic, isn't it? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
chill, Juan. it's a reference to quite a well-known, and pretty good (and Pulitzer Prize winning, not that this signifies), book titled (wait for it)... Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis.
(that's brothers, in the sense of a squabbling family...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
I think the issue here is that "founding brothers" was presented as if it had already become common usage ("... or as they're calling them today, The Founding Brothers...") when in fact this is not the case. I for one am insulted by this kind of transparent spin-doctoring because it insults my intelligence. Furthermore, recent prize-winning books or not, Founding Fathers is a phrase that is not broken and therefore does not need fixing. The sexual-political motivations of those who promote "Founding Brothers" are clear to the casual observer so I won't belabor the point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Alex, have you read the book?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Agreed, Alex. And I think the substitution of brothers, at the very least, is still a subtle way of diluting the importance of the contributions of men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin to the forming and shaping of the republic. To imply, to any degree, that these figures were not the major influence in the formation of the United States is just nonsensical, and historically wrong.
(that's brothers, in the sense of a squabbling family...)
tsuwm, do you have a citation or definition that supports this semantic for the word "brothers"?...that's a new one on me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
c'mon juan, you know that was just an aside. I suggest that both you and Alex take a look at, say, the intro to "Founding Brothers" at one of the online bookstores -- I know that Amazon has a sizeable extract.
(and we really don't know the whole context, or tone of "... or as they're calling them today, The Founding Brothers...", do we?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
I am not criticizing the book, I am objecting to revisionist, politically correct-speak being thrust upon us. It is a separate issue from the contents of the book titled Founding Brothers. To suggest that from now on we stop referring to Washington, Jefferson, et al as "Founding Fathers" and now call them "Founding Brothers" is like something out of Huxley's Brave New World. To further suggest or hint that everybody in-the-know is already doing so is even more so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
and I am merely suggesting that you guys are reading an awful lot into this possibly off-the-cuff comment...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
No, it wasn't just an aside in reference to the book, tsuwm...
Exhibit 1: The title of Ellis's book is Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation
Exhibit 2: The host said, "The Founding Fathers, or as they're calling them today, The Founding Brothers," which directly associates the term brothers specifically to The Founding Fathers. Therefore, the host is changing the historical label here, and not just alluding to the book as an inside literary clache reference. And even if she had alluded to the book in that context, "The Founding Fathers, or The Founding Brothers, as Joseph J. Ellis calls them in his brilliant new brook," it is still an out-of-context labeling since Ellis's book refers to the "brothers" as the entire generation, not just the leaders and shapers of the new republic. Any way you look at it, she took the liberty and opportunity to nudge forward the nomenclature of Founding Fathers as Founding Brothers in the traditional historic sense...so that's her agenda (however-so-subtle), not Ellis's book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Too many people want to re-write history.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,333
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
747
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
