Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What Newspaper(s) Do YOU Consider to be a Reputable Source for the Truth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="El Correcto" data-source="post: 4076111" data-attributes="member: 60631"><p>I read more of it, he is focused on La Casa and genocide. Which is fine, the treatment of the natives wasn’t good. He is painting a picture of genocide destroying the populations though, which isn’t true. The main cause of native deaths was disease. He is doing this all from one source and neglecting others. He also threw out estimates of 8 million slaughtered which is unfounded.</p><p></p><p>“One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly.”</p><p></p><p>He conflates his opinion with fact here and goes off into rant. It’s sad this is considered a history book.</p><p></p><p>At least when I purchase Mark L3vin’s Unfreedom of the Press(available now on amazon and at your local retailers) I know I’m getting a political book with a heavy bias.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="El Correcto, post: 4076111, member: 60631"] I read more of it, he is focused on La Casa and genocide. Which is fine, the treatment of the natives wasn’t good. He is painting a picture of genocide destroying the populations though, which isn’t true. The main cause of native deaths was disease. He is doing this all from one source and neglecting others. He also threw out estimates of 8 million slaughtered which is unfounded. “One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly.” He conflates his opinion with fact here and goes off into rant. It’s sad this is considered a history book. At least when I purchase Mark L3vin’s Unfreedom of the Press(available now on amazon and at your local retailers) I know I’m getting a political book with a heavy bias. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What Newspaper(s) Do YOU Consider to be a Reputable Source for the Truth?
Top