Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Historically Accurate vs Politically Correct

blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 11:06:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?

Historically accurate, but that is very difficult. It is hard to pin down motives behind people's actions in many cases, and when there are 1,000's of different things going on, it is difficult to pin down what caused what.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 12:46:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.



First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science. As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 12:55:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 12:46:53 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.



First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science. As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?

That's not re-writting history, that's re-writting a ficticious book. Personally, I see no problem with re-writing books so long as two things are maintained, 1) Publically available original copies, so that people that want it with the n-word can get it, 2) The actual story is not messed with (there are instances where the n-word is important and should be maintained, like with Huck's father).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 2:08:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 12:55:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:46:53 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.



First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science. As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?

That's not re-writting history, that's re-writting a ficticious book. Personally, I see no problem with re-writing books so long as two things are maintained, 1) Publically available original copies, so that people that want it with the n-word can get it, 2) The actual story is not messed with (there are instances where the n-word is important and should be maintained, like with Huck's father).

I didn't mean it as re-writing history. I was going based on the re-writing something to not offend someone. I know that Tom Sawyer isn't history. It is, however, set in a time period where that word was accepted.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 3:47:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 12:46:53 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.



First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science. As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?

Who cares if the Tom Sawyer book has the "N" word in it? The book potrays the people who say the "N" word as being hostile, so why would someone who is agaisnt racism want that word removed?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 4:03:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 2:08:28 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:55:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:46:53 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.



First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science. As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?

That's not re-writting history, that's re-writting a ficticious book. Personally, I see no problem with re-writing books so long as two things are maintained, 1) Publically available original copies, so that people that want it with the n-word can get it, 2) The actual story is not messed with (there are instances where the n-word is important and should be maintained, like with Huck's father).

I didn't mean it as re-writing history. I was going based on the re-writing something to not offend someone. I know that Tom Sawyer isn't history. It is, however, set in a time period where that word was accepted.

True, it was accepted, though taking it out (in most context) doesn't ditract from the actual story or significance of it. Just like in the Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, they used the n-word in a manner that was needed (you couldn't replace it with a different word and reach the same intended effect).

But even then, what is wrong with re-writing something to not offend someone? Mean Girls was re-written to remove "popped your cherry" with "butter your muffin" so that it could reach a PG-13 rating (stupid, I know), but that doesn't really change from the overall quality of the movie (whether you think it was high quality or low quality, that change did not effect it).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 4:47:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science.:

Me too. I lol'd.

As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?:

I think it would be a mistake. Right or wrong, for better or worse, history is history, and we're sure to repeat it by not learning from mistakes. Making an antiseptic society won't come by pretending things didn't happen when they did.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 6:24:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 4:47:31 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science.:

Me too. I lol'd.

As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?:

I think it would be a mistake. Right or wrong, for better or worse, history is history, and we're sure to repeat it by not learning from mistakes. Making an antiseptic society won't come by pretending things didn't happen when they did.

While it may be agreed upon that we should just tell history as it is, there are often cases where bias has obscured the past so we don't know the truth.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 6:27:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 6:24:49 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/9/2011 4:47:31 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science.:

Me too. I lol'd.

As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?:

I think it would be a mistake. Right or wrong, for better or worse, history is history, and we're sure to repeat it by not learning from mistakes. Making an antiseptic society won't come by pretending things didn't happen when they did.

While it may be agreed upon that we should just tell history as it is, there are often cases where bias has obscured the past so we don't know the truth.

There is also the case where two different bias sides have their own opinions and it is hard to find the facts under it all (this tends to be more common in recent history, since the people "unlocking" the history tend to have motives other than pure historical curiosity).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 8:00:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 4:03:00 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/9/2011 2:08:28 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:55:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:46:53 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 12:31:21 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/9/2011 11:02:47 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
Is it better to be historically accurate, or politically correct?:

Historically accurate, obviously. I'm not saying that delivering the message can't be done professionally and with grace and tact, but rewriting history to pander to the views of a few butt-hurt people is a disservice to everyone.

This clip comes to mind on how to deliver accuracy with a certain sensitivity, but accurate nonetheless.



First things first, I like the end of that video about what you can do if you don't like science. As for the re-writing history part, what about the re-writing of Tom Sawyer so it doesn't say the "N" word?

That's not re-writting history, that's re-writting a ficticious book. Personally, I see no problem with re-writing books so long as two things are maintained, 1) Publically available original copies, so that people that want it with the n-word can get it, 2) The actual story is not messed with (there are instances where the n-word is important and should be maintained, like with Huck's father).

I didn't mean it as re-writing history. I was going based on the re-writing something to not offend someone. I know that Tom Sawyer isn't history. It is, however, set in a time period where that word was accepted.

True, it was accepted, though taking it out (in most context) doesn't ditract from the actual story or significance of it. Just like in the Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, they used the n-word in a manner that was needed (you couldn't replace it with a different word and reach the same intended effect).

But even then, what is wrong with re-writing something to not offend someone? Mean Girls was re-written to remove "popped your cherry" with "butter your muffin" so that it could reach a PG-13 rating (stupid, I know), but that doesn't really change from the overall quality of the movie (whether you think it was high quality or low quality, that change did not effect it).

I know that in most cases it doesn't change anything, but unlike Mean Girls, Tom Sawyer is a classic and has been accepted for years. It's only a problem with this political correctness idea. The book should be left alone. If someone has that much of a problem with the word, then they can just choose to not read the book.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 10:46:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The controversial book is actually Huckleberry Finn rather than Tom Sawyer, and it is high on the list of books banned from libraries -- at the behest of liberals. Twain was sending a message against racism that was contrary to the times. (n-word) Jim was the black slave held in derision by the "proper" society. As the story evolves, we learn that Jim was a moral character, and not the the society people. The epithet makes the point that derision reflects on the one who uses it, not the subject.

In widely-used standards for K-12 textbooks, there are many requirements to favor political correctness over historical accuracy. For example, it's not allowed to feature black athletes, because that would be stereotyping black people. Orientals cannot be shown as studious. Women cannot be shown riding in a covered wagon while the man walks; never mind what actually happened.

California has a new law requiring the featuring of women, and of gay and transgendered people, in history. That means that secondary figures will have to be pretended important, with important players dropped to make room. I suppose, for example, that now something will have to be made of Buchanan, the only gay US president -- but who really cares if he was gay or not? It's not relevant to the events.