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