On 12/16/2012 7:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

      What about all of the other possible theories of history?

This series isn't a theory, it's just recent US history focusing on the deeper background of the people involved. He shows how even the generals disagreed with Truman that dropping the A-Bombs was necessary, how the Russians did the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis (they lost like 23,000,000 people to our 418,500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). Which is ironic considering that right wingers now try to claim that Hitler was some kind of Marxist (of course the opposite is true).

    What makes Stone's theory any more credible than my own? Is it
    because he is famous? Famous people are well known to be just as
    wrong as any one else.

There's no theory. Watch the series sometime.

My point is that there is no such a thing as an objective account of history. Any account of the history of the world, where many people and things are involved in many processes at many diverse levels, will be biased because one can only take a point of view that generates an integrates "sense". The universe is not simple and we should never expect that any simple narative of it is "the whole story".

Oliver Stone is an artist, not a divine teller of truths. Stop the idolatry, please.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to