Jeremy Hager
Recent Activity
Jeremy Hager commented on Howard Zinn on the Limitations of American History Books on August 7, 2008, 7:34 AM
I think Mr Zinn is correct, to a point. As he knows, but is unwilling to admit, history is a great amount of hearsay and what I call "collective anecdotes". Mr Zinn's books indicate that while he does take the viewpoint of the downtrodden, he also tends to be guilty of that which he accuses others of doing, that being extremely biased. One need merely read his "People's History" to see that Zinn tends to take the most damning evidence he can in order to paint the most dismal and depressing picture of any given historical occurrence. I'm not sure of his motives, but reading his literature, my classmates and I did see a distinctive "whatever makes us look worse" approach at telling history. The problem with this, is that if you are going to rule out the white oil tycoon's anecdote about conditions at his factory during the 1920's, because you feel that he is biased, it is, in the sake of fairness, safe to act in the same way concerning the opinions of the laborers in said factory, despite whatever motives that man might have to talk poorly about his employer and/or working conditions. Zinn tends to take the view of the latter over the former, in any given scenario. This is a vague example, but for Howard Zinn to complain about biases, incentives, or an almost "selective censorship" is a laughable concept, if one's actually read his literature.
I'm interested as to how God could not know the intentions of one's soul. This type of statement seems contradictory to me, as God is assumed to be omniscient, and somehow He is expected to not know someone's intentions? Doesn't that contradict the omniscience of God? … Read More
August 6, 2008 |
I think it is impossible to translate poetry perfectly. The rhyme scheme is obviously altered (if applicable) when translated into another language, forcing the translator to use their own interpretations and words- thus altering the original author's intent and artistic genius. It's almost a new poem altogether. Additionally, one would have to be a native speaker of the language in order to even attempt to get the full meaning behind certain words and phrases, be they colloquialisms, puns, or literary allusions to other writings in that language. They may be idiosyncratic to only the people who have lived in a country or countries that both speak that language or have experienced a political or econimic situation which the author has experienced. So many different variables come into play when one considers "literature"or "poetry" in a language, that it is quite obvious that it is impossible to convey the same meanings in another language without a great many footnotes or notes of explanation in the margins. Even with these, I feel that the instant-reaction a native speaker would experience while reading would be lost to someone reading the translation. … Read More
April 18, 2008 |
Re: What is the most important war in human history?
It is difficult to pinpoint one war and say it is the most "important" war in human history. There have been many conflicts which have greatly altered the ripples of history, sometimes greatly affecting the world for hundreds or thousands of years (Greco-Persian War, the Punic Wars, the Battle of Kosovo, the Manchu Wars in China, the Napoleonic Wars, the United States Revolutionary War, the Russian Civil War, etc etc etc). For the sake of argument, I will give my examples of one of the major conflicts which abruptly turned the world on its heel and altered history indefinitely. I feel, that based on the historical context, these conflicts were the "most important" wars/battles.The Roman defeat at Teutoberg Forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest)I feel that this had the greatest impact on Western civilization. By not only losing, but losing embarassingly, at the ambush at Teutoberg, Publius Quinctilius Varus signed the death note to the Roman Empire. It's all a very slippery slope, but I feel that it is a very safe argument to make. He doomed the Roman Empire and greatly altered history. By being lured and trapped into the fight, Varus and his legions were completely surrounded and vulnerable to a much smaller, clumsier, and less armed German army of brigands. The three legions were the proverbial "sitting ducks" and were slaughtered in due form. This defeat was overwhelming, and not even based on numbers alone, with the Romans losing between 15 and 20 thousand soldiers. They key to this defeat is morale. The defeat gave the Germans a newfound sense of pride. They had defeated, handily, the great and powerful forces of civilization! Hermann, the German leader (who had beguiled Varus into the trap, as Hermann [Arminius] was a former Roman hostage who had become Varus' advisor) was exhonerated briefly (assassinated) as a king, and I feel is the inspiration for Seigfreid, the heroic dragonslayer from 1st century Gothic epics. Through this character and oral history, Hermann lived on to inspire German nationalism and defiance to the Roman Empire. The success of this battle led to a resurgence of German resistance to Roman occupation, and the eventual abandonment by Rome of conquering Germany. This is the infamous battle, was said to have driven Augustus Caesar partially mad, and he could be heard striking his head against doors and walls while mumbling or screaming "Varus! Give me back my legions!" Pretty heavy stuff if you consider just how powerful, sophisticated, and intelligent Augustus Caesar was.In the short term, this had minor effects. The Roman Empire, under Augustus' heirs, tried vainly to fulfill the dream of conquering and civilizing Germany. Long story short- armies were amassed under various "Caesars", battles were fought, but mutinies and low morale led to an eventual stalemate on the issue, drawing the border between The Roman Empire and Germany at the Rhine. The Roman Empire set its sights on other areas, as it still had problems with Parthians, Illyrians, Judaea, and (very important to note) an upstart, problemic Jewish carpenter name Jesus who was starting quite the uproar in Israel.it is important to note that the aforementioned German pride and nationalism had long term affects. This pride has been attributed to the ideals of Aryanism and its brain-child, Nazism. Richard Wagner used the stories of Seigfried for his operas "Der Ring des Nibelungen". These operas utilized the heroic character of Seigfried (remember, based on Hermann) and are peppered with symbols which would be embraced by the Nazis as Aryan, as well as his discrete anti-semitical words and very vocal distaste of Jews. Adolf Hitler would use these same operas and idealologies in his propogandas against the Jews, and he himself used Siegfried and Aryan ideals (not to mention, its Ariosophatic focusses, which are based in Teutonic superiority, which is another fancy term for Aryan Pride) as the foundation for German Nationalism and Jewish inferiority during the Holocaust.From a military standpoint, it is important to note that had the Romans conquered Germany, it would have been occupied and "civilized", meaning it would have paid taxes to Rome and built up its own military for the defense of Germany and its Overlord, Rome. This did not happen. Instead, most of Germany lived autonomously, fighting amongst itself and the Romans and whomever happened to be around. The invasion of the Huns in the 4th Century AD sent the Goths fleeing to Rome for refuge, which, as we all know, led to a Gothic revolt in Rome and the fall of Rome to Gothic pillage. So, why does this matter? How does this affect the world? Who cares? Imagine if Varus hadn't been fooled, and his forces hadn't been massacred. Imagine if the defeated German tribes had broken their loose alliance and fled to their hovels, as the Romans came marching in with aqueducts, roads, government, and protection. There would not have been roots lain for the Aryan Race beliefs in regards to Germany. There would not have been a Siegfried, or Wagner's operas, or a foundation for Nazism and its occult. Perhaps there would not have been yet another supporter of anti-semitism in regards to Aryan Superiority? I know that is stretching it a bit, but hey, i'm reaching for straws at this point, as my attention span is short. There would have been a fortified and prepared Germany, a richer Rome, and no Hun invasion, in my opinion. There would not have come a Holy Roman Empire run by Germans and Franks, as divided a Europe, an independent Britainnia, and possibly we'd all be speaking a Romance language right now. It's a stretch, but I don't think one can rule it out.Feel free to critique. This is my first post, so keep that in mind. … Read More
March 20, 2008 |
Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for thestatus-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. - Jack Kerouac
Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children. -Kahlil Gibran
“When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist.” Dom H. Camara
The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.-Robert M. Hutchins
Jeremy Hager commented on Howard Zinn on the Limitations of American History Books on August 7, 2008, 11:34 AM
I think Mr Zinn is correct, to a point. As he knows, but is unwilling to admit, history is a great amount of hearsay and what I call "collective anecdotes". Mr Zinn's books indicate that while he does take the viewpoint of the downtrodden, he also tends to be guilty of that which he accuses others of doing, that being extremely biased. One need merely read his "People's History" to see that Zinn tends to take the most damning evidence he can in order to paint the most dismal and depressing picture of any given historical occurrence. I'm not sure of his motives, but reading his literature, my classmates and I did see a distinctive "whatever makes us look worse" approach at telling history. The problem with this, is that if you are going to rule out the white oil tycoon's anecdote about conditions at his factory during the 1920's, because you feel that he is biased, it is, in the sake of fairness, safe to act in the same way concerning the opinions of the laborers in said factory, despite whatever motives that man might have to talk poorly about his employer and/or working conditions. Zinn tends to take the view of the latter over the former, in any given scenario. This is a vague example, but for Howard Zinn to complain about biases, incentives, or an almost "selective censorship" is a laughable concept, if one's actually read his literature.