Similar Posts
We Don’t Have to Live in Mitch McConnell’s World – Max Moran
If he wants to, and that’s a big if, Biden has several tools available to circumvent McConnell’s Senate and still appoint the Cabinet secretaries he needs; plus 277 actions that are in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force documents that can be accomplished with an executive order. Max Moran joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
How Trump and Pompeo’s Efforts to Equate BDS with Anti-Semitism Backfires
Israel analyst Shir Hever speaks to guest host Greg Wilpert about the different ways in which US Secretary of State Pompeo’s latest effort to demonize the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel actually exposes the far right’s internal contradictions and could help BDS in the long run.
Resource Limits to American Capitalism & The Predator State Today
James K. Galbraith discusses the shift of US capitalism from an industrial state to what he calls a predator state: a finance-led, military-centered corporate republic that continues to prevail. To overcome it, he lays out what is needed to focus on employment, stability and adjustments to rising resource costs. Lynn Fries interviews Galbraith on GPEnewsdocs.
To Get Us Out of Poverty, We Need a Massive Infrastructure Plan – Ann Morrison / Wisconsin
In a report from rural Wisconsin, Ann Morrison says she and her neighbours are suffering from decades of neglect as the local economy has been wrecked by neoliberal polices from both major parties. She calls for an FDR style New Deal and to stop blaming the poor for poverty.
Pentagon Needs a Bad Guy – Major General Dennis Laich (ret.)
The increased tensions with China are explained by the Pentagon’s need to justify its budget. The worst thing that ever happened to the Pentagon was the demise of the Soviet Union. MG Dennis Laich (ret.) joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
Have long enjoyed Gerald’s analysis. But it was only with this interview that I realized how exciting and profound a scholar he is.
This has been a very interesting analysis. Notice that this is written in the past tense. Now if I wrote, “This is an interesting analysis” it takes on a whole different meaning. Same idea with the writing of history when the historian draws a line between the past and the present. The past is portrayed as radically different than the present and there’s an invisible barrier that can never be crossed because the past is gone forever and never to be lived again by anyone. Then what is history? If you look at the classical historians they were the ones that wrote a grand story of an event that took place in the past and wrote the story to be read in the present. Much of it was written as a tall tale and if read today might be considered a work of fantasy, even a made up fiction. But somehow it’s believed to be true enough to be considered that it really happened. Even if there’s a giant and a three headed monster involved in the narrative. So the question becomes what are the facts in the history so there is truth behind the story? This is where stuff gets tricky because someone might ask, “What really is a fact?”
I don’t mean to sound tedious but history has been written the old way, the grand narrative way, for more than 3000 years and it’s not until we get to the last couple of hundred years that history starts to concern itself with uncovering the facts behind any truth. So when a historian goes to an archive and starts looking at accounting records and finds records about the slave trade then slavery becomes a fact. It really took place. There are records available and are even viewable on google scholar that illustrate slavery happening in real time. Now why did slavery take place? One approach would be to say that slavery became an economic necessity because there was a scarcity of labor in the new world. This might be true but does it really explain slavery? It’s not until you start looking at the belief of race, quite the vogue expression in the 19th century, and a desire to explain slavery as it stood back in the 1850s, that you find one dominant group, namely the southern white slave holders, considering themselves superior over blacks because of their race and running an entire economic system in the south through slavery.
If the writing of history is pushed back to the grand narrative event form then there will be a history that will be less true, more fantasy like, and more twisted to fit a mould created to deceive people. In this situation history will become just plain old bullshit. But if you want a real history you have to have facts to make it up, dress it up, take it out on a night on the town, and come home on the Mail Wagon at the crack of dawn.
Whereas Nietzsche elsewhere lamented a lack of historical perspective, he also compared the historian to the crab: he looks backward so long he begins to think backward too. In the interest of simplification it seems to me you are taking the history as more than it need be to the point it confuses. Or confuses your comment because I’m not quite sure what your point is. I’m not so sure Tacitus didn’t employ facts in his histories. And Howard Zinn made clear who makes real history: the collective actions of ordinary people and their quest for justice.