Barbara Tuckman

[BONDI BOY]

HAS ANY ONE READ THE MARCH OF FOLLY from troy to vietnam
BY B.W.TUCKMAN.
Icant help seeing history repeat itself in iraq

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Why would you think this?

HAVE YOU READ IT

 

[jimnyc]

It's actually Barbara TUCHMAN, and she's hardly an authority on wars or American policy. She's a historian. We have history books if we want to learn about our countries history, I don't need to have a biased view presented to me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
It's actually Barbara TUCHMAN, and she's hardly an authority on wars or American policy. She's a historian. We have history books if we want to learn about our countries history, I don't need to have a biased view presented to me.

You don't think history books are biased?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
You don't think history books are biased?

History books are not op/ed articles. The data is usually factual in nature.

I'm more interested in the FACTS of what happened as opposed to a historians viewpoint.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
History books are not op/ed articles. The data is usually factual in nature.

My experience is quite the opposite, although still factual. During junior high and high school all the history books we had avoided ANY reference to things like the indian removals or ugly points in US history like Antietam and such. I had to go outside to the actual public libraries to see history from all viewpoints.

 

[jimnyc]

Let's put it this way, DK...

If you are sending your children to school and you know they'll be taking history courses, would you rather they be taught via standard text books or would you prefer they learn from Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, Clinton, Gore, Bush....?

I'm not saying the US history books are biased any less than any other countries history books, but it's a helluva lot better than teaching them someone elses opinions.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by jimnyc
History books are not op/ed articles. The data is usually factual in nature.

I'm more interested in the FACTS of what happened as opposed to a historians viewpoint.

Time is the best bulls..t filter we have and this book is hardly one womans veiw. Its a corellation of indisputable fact minus the political spin.
This woman is an American treasure and winner of two Pulitzer Prizes.
GUYS TURN OF YOUR COMPUTERS AND READ THE BOOK NO MATTER WHAT YOUR BELIEFS.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
Time is the best bulls..t filter we have and this book is hardly one womans veiw. Its a corellation of indisputable fact minus the political spin.
This woman is an American treasure and winner of two Pulitzer Prizes.
GUYS TURN OF YOUR COMPUTERS AND READ THE BOOK NO MATTER WHAT YOUR BELIEFS.

Are you stating her entire book is "fact" and doesn't offer her viewpoint of things that transpired? Would you like to retract that statement before I make you look foolish?

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
My experience is quite the opposite, although still factual. During junior high and high school all the history books we had avoided ANY reference to things like the indian removals or ugly points in US history like Antietam and such. I had to go outside to the actual public libraries to see history from all viewpoints.

This is what im talking about when i say the rest of the world is frustrated with the amerian peoples ignorrance. Big brother controls you guys without you even knowing it.
Its the same here just not to the same extent.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
This is what im talking about when i say the rest of the world is frustrated with the amerian peoples ignorrance. Big brother controls you guys without you even knowing it.
Its the same here just not to the same extent.

Shall I give you a list of things that make many people in Australia ignorant and foolish, and then label the entire country as so?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Let's put it this way, DK...

If you are sending your children to school and you know they'll be taking history courses, would you rather they be taught via standard text books or would you prefer they learn from Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, Clinton, Gore, Bush....?

I'm not saying the US history books are biased any less than any other countries history books, but it's a helluva lot better than teaching them someone elses opinions.

so very true.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Are you stating her entire book is "fact" and doesn't offer her viewpoint of things that transpired? Would you like to retract that statement before I make you look foolish?

No she expresses her viewpoint, but are are you stating you know better.
HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK. NO well please refer to my latest post on M36 THREAD RE THIS WOMAN

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Shall I give you a list of things that make many people in Australia ignorant and foolish, and then label the entire country as so?

IT WAS A GENRALISATION

IM NOT TRYING TO PICK ON YOU GUYS BUT YOUR A LONG WAY FROM FLAVOR OF THE MONTH. ASK COLLIN POWELL

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
No she expresses her viewpoint, but are are you stating you know better.
HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK. NO well please refer to my latest post on M36 THREAD RE THIS WOMAN

First off, how much can you speak of this woman when you can't even spell her name properly?

Secondly, I never stated I knew better.

Lastly, are you still standing by your statement that this book is "one womans veiw. Its a corellation of indisputable fact minus the political spin."?

I'll give you a hint, directly from a review:

She gives us a comentary. Kind of like the "color-man" while listening to a sporting event

Also, within the Vietnam chapters, Ms. Tuchman tends to reveal her adoration towards Kennedy--like many historians of her era--and her disdain of the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

This can distort her objective examination of the topic in some areas, but if it is noticed and ignored, the rest of the study is outstanding.

The last of Tuchman's studies concerns The United States' involvement in Vietnam. This is, in some ways, the weakest section in The March of Folly, for Tuchman's own biases, for instance in her brusque dismissal of the popular anti-war movement, do colour it to a certain extent. The author is, however, entirely scathing in her portrayal of high-level American policy-making at that time.

Minus the political spin? Nothing but fact? Sure!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
IT WAS A GENRALISATION

IM NOT TRYING TO PICK ON YOU GUYS BUT YOUR A LONG WAY FROM FLAVOR OF THE MONTH. ASK COLLIN POWELL

I don't really think anyone cares what a bunch of illiterate people from a backwards country think.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
IT WAS A GENRALISATION

How about we go with this generalization, directly from President of the conservative Liberal Party in Australia:

So it's a good thing there's an election this year because they'll actually take some of the surplus and hand it out - a bit of a largesse - it's the only way Australians even know how to vote, they've voted from the hip pocket all their lives. A very stupid race of people, very insular, that's the second real risk we run that in fact we're getting too politically correct.

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by jimnyc
First off, how much can you speak of this woman when you can't even spell her name properly?

Secondly, I never stated I knew better.

Lastly, are you still standing by your statement that this book is "one womans veiw.


You obviously know how to use the net and how to ignore parts of my responses when convienient.
spelling is far from my strong point but atleast i know who she is without the net.
So tell me if your going to use this review do you think like the author we should go easy on the architects of vietnam.
Lastly where do you get your infomation from because if my references are so poor. [pulitzer prize winners] i could do with some help.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BONDI BOY
You obviously know how to use the net and how to ignore parts of my responses when convienient.
spelling is far from my strong point but atleast i know who she is without the net.
So tell me if your going to use this review do you think like the author we should go easy on the architects of vietnam.
Lastly where do you get your infomation from because if my references are so poor. [pulitzer prize winners] i could do with some help.

Don't talk foolishly again! What have I ignored? Where have I stated your references were poor? It's apparently not just spelling you have a problem with, it's also comprehension.

It doesn't matter what I think, I'm not the one that claimed the author and book was strictly a factual perspective of events. You claim Americans are ignorant, but to make generalizations based on someone elses viewpoint is ignorant and naive.

Are all Australians insular and stupid?

 

[BONDI BOY]

Originally posted by jimnyc
How about we go with this generalization, directly from President of the conservative Liberal Party in Australia:

So it's a good thing there's an election this year because they'll actually take some of the surplus and hand it out - a bit of a largesse - it's the only way Australians even know how to vote, they've voted from the hip pocket all their lives. A very stupid race of people, very insular, that's the second real risk we run that in fact we're getting too politically correct.

stop using other peoples words by pasting straight of the net.

1: there is no such president, hes a primeminister and leader of our country.

2:this quote has put him in deep poo with the australian people and wont get re-elected.