|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
revisionist, politically correct-speak being thrust upon us
Now we gotta look into The Glorious Cause. If it follows the concept of Founding Brothers I would say the comment, given its context, was appropriate, and not an attempt to thrust revisionist, politically correct-speak upon us.
And is the term revisionist a valid criticism if what it describes is an attempt to show the truth of what had previously been no more than an idealized myth?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>Ellis's book refers to the "brothers" as the entire generation...
not at all. the "brothers" of the title are the six leading men of the revolutionary generation. the term is used to reflect the fact that, at the time of their crucial activities, they did not view themselves as fathers of anything, but as a (yes squabbling, in my term) group of compatriots who were sometimes collaborative, sometimes archly antagonistic. [you can't get much more antagonistic than Hamilton and Burr.]
as to the use by your commentator, I give up--I didn't hear her, but from your original description it didn't sound like anything to get worked up about. ; )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Yes, and my father was really a brother because he didn't forsee what he was creating. Eugene O'Neill is called "The Father of the American" theatre because he single-handedly elevated the American stage to a level of integrity, art, stature, and respect it had never realized before. Now he didn't set out to do all that, his ambition was to write great plays. But, nevertheless, that was the impact of his influence, and the title "The Father of the American Theatre" is something he earned historically....and history is always in retrospect...even though he didn't consciously seek or envision that influence for himself, and didn't walk around calling himself that. And, Faldage, even if seen as an idyllic myth they still fathered that vision in the documents of the Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution, and inaugurated the launch of the republic (would you say they mothered it, or brothered it?). And, remember, the host was aware that she was on national TV. She had maybe a minute to make her introduction, and I'm sure she went over, at least in close outline, the remarks she intended to say. I know whenever I speak in front of people I go over it beforehand...and especially if you have a limited, and rare, moment to speak in front of a national televison audience...no flip slip of wit there. And speaking of a flip slip of wit  : Brother Time Brother Christmas "Our Brother, who art in heaven..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
In reply to:
And is the term revisionist a valid criticism if what it describes is an attempt to show the truth of what had previously been no more than an idealized myth?
I think its a valid criticism when newspeak is being introduced in an effort to bring down the historical figures a peg or two. "Founding Brother" has less prestige or authority than "Founding Father," and I suspect that those who advocate the use in common speech of the former term do so because they object to the literal expression of paternalism in the latter.
As to the truth vs. idealized myth, which is which? I'm sure the men who shaped our country were flawed persons, and had the prejudices of their day in addition to whatever individual vices they carried. They probably thought, for example, that other races were so beneath whites that it would be overstating the obvious to say so. Their attitudes toward women were probably less than liberal by today's standards. They weren't gods, but I don't think that detracts from their lasting civic accomplishments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
As to the truth vs. idealized myth, which is which?
Truth is what happened, idealized myth isn't. Santayana said that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. History is the study of human actions. If that which we study does not reflect that which happened it is not history, it's just some fairy tale designed to make us feel good. If a historical figure is set up a peg or two too high then it is our responsibility to bring him down to where he belongs.
In the case that brought this discussion up it would seem that the perpetrator of the phrase "or as they're calling them today", at best misunderstood the point of The Founding Brothers, perhaps only having read the New York Times Book Review. That's not my concern here. I don't like it when the term revisionist gets thrown around as though it were automatically a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
I don't like it when the term revisionist gets thrown around as though it were automatically a bad thing.
Who said that?..here's what I said about revisionism:
>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).<
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Who said that?..here's what I said about revisionism:
You stay out of this, Juan. This is between Alex and me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
In reply to:
Truth is what happened, idealized myth isn't.
I agree. I wasn't alive then so I'll have to sift through one story or another. Every story will contain some truth and some mistakes or distortions. One era's "truth" is the next era's myth.
Which myth is it that is being brought down anyway? We're not arguing some concrete thing here over what happened or what didn't happen. My main complaint all this time is I resent self-righteous busibodies who presume to tell me how I should talk, as if I were an insensitive, ignorant dolt who needs re-education. As far as I am concerned, the people who think that adopting new phrases actually makes anything any better are either condescending or jingoistic or both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Juan, I think this is *really a matter of context and life experiences. ;)
we started from this position: I didn't hear the lady in question, and you hadn't read the book. when I read your statement, having read the book, I made the immediate connection: I thought I knew who the founding brothers were and why they were being called that by some, and it wasn't a big deal to me. that's all. well now it's too late for me to hear the lady, but I still can recommend the book to you.
and as Faldage said, we'd both know a lot more about the context if we'd read both books..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
we'd both know a lot more about the context if we'd read both books
FWIW, the end flap blurbs, as noted at amazon.com, don't seem to indicate a book that's tell all about the secret lives of our Founding Bubbas.
Alex, the truth, of course, can never be fully known. The lady in question truly sounds like she's got her head stuck somewhere where it shouldn't oughta go but that will have to remain one of life's minor mysteries, at least for me. Like tsuwm, I doubt I'll ever hear her in context so I can make no judgements. If this was the sort of TV show I suspect it might have been, I would hardly consider any pronouncement from the host as anything to pay any much mind to.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,367
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
653
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
