Does "History" Get Corrected ? (No Air Content)

[Phil]

Steven,
You have stated, "If we're looking to the educational institutions of America as a basten of clear, unbiased thinking, then we're all suffering from a self-delusion far worse than anything written by a yellow journalist."

Why are you so quick to attack American educational institutions? Are these attacks because of past experiences you have had or do they stem from something else?

Our primary schools may not be that great but America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Our country would not be what it is today without them!

You're right, there are biased profs in our colleges but as a whole or educational institutions are pretty damn good!


Cheers,
Phil

…but America has the best colleges and universities in the world

Waaah HaHaHaHaHa

[Phil]

D. Jackson,
How many U.S. universities have you studied in?
Phil

Phil

How many universities outside the US have you studied in?

If what we see on TV shows is only 10% true - oh my!

>Stop trying to personalize everything. You were
>never so much as mentioned and I have no idea
>what you do for a living. I'm referring to my
>own vocation as well and said so in my post.

Well, that wasn't only for you. But everytime I've posted something on this forum in the last week I've been instantly met with ill response, that uses the word "elitist" more than once... I'm starting to get a distinct feeling that I am less that welcome to express my thoughts on any given subject here.

>The amazing thing about educational elitists and
>revisionists is their insistence that only THEY
>have the objectivity to interpret evidence as it
>should be viewed. The thousands of historians
>who came for generations before them were by
>some miracle all prejudiced, and the fact that
>they also bring their own bias to the table
>never crosses their minds. Dare to point out
>that they, like the historians they criticize,
>view the world with the inescapable prejudices
>that life ingrains into a person's mind, and you
>will be quickly ridiculed as uneducated and
>illogical.

I won't deny that there are bad scientists in this profession, but, you must realize, the vast majority (especially those in universities) have no real incentive to manipulate collected data the way you seem to imply. No, a definite, completely accurate version of "what happened," totally free of bias, will never be written. The goal is to eliminate as much bias and false information from the historical record as possible. If these people, who have dedicated their lives to seeking out the hidden facts of history, are not qualified to revise it, that who is? Should we go on believing the same faulty stories of the past we were taught, without questioning anything? How about coming up with some better solutions, rather than belittling the people working to solve the problem now?

Also, I've heard few claims from these so-called "elitists and revisionists" that historians are more biased than the average person. Sure, such claims exist from persons within the field, but these persons are the minority. The problem with traditional history is that it relies on documents that may or may not be factual. A completely unbiased historian could put together a truely false picture of the events surrounding the sinking of the Maine, due to biases imbedded within the primary sources. As I said, artifacts don't lie (or have a bias), therefore, they should be used to confirm, deny, or revise "history as we know it." With a more accurate source for information, more accurate results will follow. I'm not saying these documents aren't important, as they certainly are, but that they cannot be privliaged over physical evidence.

This is becoming far too much like another thread, earlier this week.

[Phil]

D. jackson,
For the past 5 years I have worked with International students from over 200 different countries. The two things I hear the most from their mouths is that American schools are extremely more difficult than schools abroad. I usually ask them to elaborate and again I always get a similar answer. It seems that most universities outside of the U.S. are based on the European standard of education. You buy your textbooks then you don't go to class until the final. International students are always amazed that you actually have to GO to class at American unitiversities to pass your classes and your grade is based on more than ONE test you take at the end of the semester. We even have international students who do not show up until a month into the semester because at there schools you don't miss anything if you don't go to class during the first half of the semester. I don't call that quality education but then again what do I know, I'm just a dumb American.

Phil

I'm not jumping on you; indeed, I said on another thread that you were what we need on this forum to sort things out. So, as long as we are off subject...
What do you make of the (single) news story that the Egyptian Director of Antiquities released a couple of months ago. The information was that the water table was very low, so a group of archaeologists entered a tunnel (usually flooded) between the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid. They found the tomb of Osiris in that tunnel according to the news release. Then the Director of Antiquities slapped a lid on information release, and nothing has been released to date.
Back in 1947 there was a similar archaeological discovery that made the news for one release. Archaeologists found a burial urn in a cave where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found that was inscribed with the name of the Christian Messiah. Only one news release, then silence.
Unfortunately, I took Geology, because it was generally known to be the "easiest science." I am not in any position to judge, but I suspect that both of these news blackouts were politically motivated.
What do you think?

Phil, don’t tell the State Department, it only recognizes 191 independent countries around the world. America has the best State Department in the world, though.

[stephen]

Phil, I have not attacked American universities. I have observed that they are far from being unbiased on issues of American history. Switching prejudices does not produce objectivity.

Air Gecko, I paid no attention to who I responded to in earlier posts. If it was you and you found it offensive, I apologize.

I must agree that artifacts don't lie, but they also tell many truths. One person may walk up to a pile of ashes and say "AHA! I have conclusive proof that lightning hit this spot!" The next person may say "No, matches were invented here," while the next person insists that a cigarette had been thrown on the ground at that spot. How many of them have artifacts to prove their theory beyond doubt? All of them! That is admittedly an oversimplification, but so is the theory that artifacts don't lie.

It is misleading to indicate that traditional history relies solely on documentation, and that educators have no motivation for bias in their works. In fact, it is arguable that their bias is greater than the historians they criticize. They are certainly a valuable source for additional research, but their research holds no magical immunity from bias regardless of their claims.

Do you know where I could get ahold of these news releases? (I really want to read them! Right up my alley...) Yes, that definitely sounds politically motivated. Unfortuantely, (apologising in advance to anybody in these subfields, and hope you're one of the good ones )Egyptology and Biblical Archaeology have quite the reputation for hiding evidence (as do other forms of archaeology... I mean, the history of the science is full of falsities and cover-ups) when it doesn't match up with what's "known". This is my point, though. The scientists that discovered these things (it seems) were only looking to increase knowledge, and then some bureauocrats stepped in and closed the file, perhaps because they didn't like what the evidence showed. There is a good deal of corruption in the world of history/archaeology, but hopefully the facts can be brought to light given time, despite outside influences.

Of course, we can't discount the possiblity that the original news releases were false, and "forgotten" by the issuers soon after in an attempt to save face. Personally, I would doubt this is the case. But it's a possiblility that cannot as of yet be ruled out. Not until those supposed ruins/artifacts are allowed more study!

And "Osiris", huh? Definitely want to find that article! Sounds interesting...