Not just explain the good things that happened and briefly explaining the bad. He just tells it in the view of a historian. 2. What is Zinn’s thesis for pages 1-11? "My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia.
Also discussed is how textbooks ignore other taboo subjects such as social stratification, and also how they portray government snafus like handling foreign policy and the Civil Rights movement as rosy government triumphs. Loewen then turns to explaining why textbooks misrepresent history in such ways: basically, the textbook industry is too large to risk upsetting parents, politicians, or special interest groups, so instead plays it safe by satisfying the majority and avoiding controversy by allowing continued use of approved textbooks despite their errors. Chapter 2, “1493: The True Importance of Christopher Columbus” focuses on disputing the significance of America’s “first great
Furthermore, historians take history and document it with their own values and opinions in mind. Whenever history is documented, there will always be emphasis on specific points over others. This also confirms the fact that reported history will never be exactly what happened. As historians put emphasis on different parts of historic events, they direct peoples’ opinions and the event will not be told as it
Secondly, moral absolutes do exist. The final body paragraph will counter the supporting arguments by clarifying that absolute objective truths do not exist as moral truth can be universal but not absolute as every culture has the opportunity to hold the same moral truth and the opportunity to be tolerant of all societies. To reply, a current example that is relevant today is provided to show that theoretically the counter argument is strong, but practically Sumner’s statement is not possible. Cultural relativism is the theory that a person's culture strongly influences an individual’s mode of perception and thought (“Relativism”, 2014). The principle claims that there are no objective truth or values as morality is relative to each society or culture.
Modernists are not very political whereas postmodernists politicize everything. What does Postmodernism mean? When trying to answer the question, “What does postmodernism mean?” it is important to remember that postmodernism can only be described, not defined. Attempting to define it violates the
An exploration of the presentation of the tragic hero in Dr Faustus using Othello As a comparative piece A tragic hero is defined as a literary character that makes an error of judgement or has a fatal flaw. Greek philosopher Aristotle once claimed that ‘a man cannot become a hero until he sees the roots of his own downfall’. In the play ‘Dr Faustus’ written by Christopher Marlowe, the lead character displays these characteristics in his quest to satisfy his craving of Godly knowledge. Encountering great power and evil along the way it is in the indecisiveness and subsequent determination of Faustus that one can see his devastating downfall. This recurring theme of the battle between good and evil is not dissimilar to that seen in Shakespeare’s ‘Othello’, although this Elizabethan drama highlights the deceptive evil that is common in human nature, even under the persona of those considered allies.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
Proponents of such demands criticise the liberal value of universal dignity on the basis that they ignore the importance of difference and the understanding of the self as a pre-conditioned human need. Liberalism is charged guilty of firstly, “negating identity by forcing people into a homogeneous mold that is untrue to them” and secondly the “supposedly neutral set of difference-blind principles of the politics of equal dignity is in fact a reflection of one hegemonic culture.” (Taylor, 1992, 43; Goldburg, 1994, 84) The issue of this for theorists of the politics of recognition is that it subsequently leads to the non-recognition or misrecognition of certain groups in society, which is ultimately harmful. In other words, the problem is in pursuing a neutral stance. Liberalism is in fact discriminating against difference and supporting a majority position. If recognition is important to help level the playing field and to provide existential worth to one's life, then perhaps, according to Taylor, we need to recognise the difference, not neutralise it, as Liberalism is accused of doing.
General George Washington’s strategy of erosion effectively outlasted Great Britain’s will to fight a costly war on American soil. Comparatively, Great Britain wholly underestimated the colonists and did not employ a coherent strategy but rather relied on a poorly executed belief that colonial support for the war would disappear with the occupation of key American cities. Roots of the American Revolution reside in a series of laws and taxes implemented by the British government following their support of the colonies during French and Indian war. It is important to note that the French and Indian war was part of the much larger Seven Years war fought between 18th century powers Spain, Great Britain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire. While Great Britain emerged a victor of the Seven Years war, it was nearly bankrupt at its completion in 1763.
As Lord Acton said ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. Its origin date back to Aristotle, the father of Political Science. Although he did not discuss the issue in great detail, he analyzed the functions of the three branches without suggesting their separation. The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty.