|
June 24, 2008
A good move for the Belmont Club
I'm delighted to see that one of the most astute bloggers in the sphere -- Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club fame -- is now the author of a Pajamas Media Xpress Blog. In his first post, he looks at disappearing coverage of the Iraq War (I like the Cheshire Cat analogy), including a tantalizing glimpse at the political context: The Asia Times argues that with Bush left with only six more months in the White House "and given domestic opposition in Iraq to the deal, Iraqi leaders appear to want to pressure the US to make as many concessions as possible. " On the other hand Iraqis dare not push George W. Bush too hard. If Maliki cannot nail down a long-term security agreement with the Bush Administration, he will be vulnerable to abandonment by Barack Obama, something he could hardly look forward to. But ironically, Obama's hostility to Iraq may push Maliki into getting what he can while he can from George Bush, rather than waiting to face the Man of Change.Read it all. Especially if you're curious about the disappearing Iraq War coverage. This whole topic makes me want to ask a theoretical question. Suppose -- just suppose -- that the U.S. were to win a war. Does things have to be reported in order to be said to have happened? What I'd like to know is if the U.S. won a war, and it wasn't reported, would we have really won? Might the answer depend on who writes history? Or does it depend on who defines history? posted by Eric on 06.24.08 at 08:29 AM |
|
June 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2008
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Actually, guns are a feminist issue
(which is why "feminists" oppose guns) The experts are warning! The experts are warning! The American lust for entertainment Heller And The Election Second Amendment victory Race Card Politics Awesomely artful dodger Queen One, UN Zero Naturally Gay Untied and Inflated
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Queen Marie of Romania, beloved in her day for personally attending to battlefield soldiers during WWI and the only decent ruler Romania has ever had, was erased from the Romanian history books starting in WWII. Because she had a son (and now a grandson) still techically heir to the throne, Gheorghe Dej and Nicolae Ceausescu did not want any rumor of competition to be in the minds of the citizenry. My sons had reached their teen years going to Romanian schools and had never heard of her.
I would like to tell you that all is well now, and that Marie has resumed her deserved place of honor, but that is only partly true. She is being mentioned in the schoolbooks, but in a country where every faction has had numerous criminals, people resist going into any historical depth. No one lifts up even innocent-looking rocks for fear what they will find. When trying to do genealogical research on my adopted sons I was usually greeted with disbelief, then suspicion. Why would anyone want to know? It is the past. Forget it. It doesn't exist. The younger people who are more forward thinking, wanting to prosper and be happy, have little interest in recent history. What will come of all this in 50 years?
Bringing it back to America and a war... Much of history is always hidden - suppressed, ignored, misinterpreted. One of the great advantages of freedom of speech is that people can at least try to get the information out about what did happen compared to the comfortable summaries. A war would be an awfully large thing to hide, won or lost. Doctors would ask where veterans got their wounds. Accountants would have records of where money went. Immigrants would remind us of what they saw. I think a war could be reinterpreted but not covered. Even reinterpretation has its limits. The explanation of what happened in Vietnam, regardless of how one felt about it, was generally agreed on in 1998, with dissenting voices regarded as cranks. Slowly, the analysis of what actually happened is changing, in the direction of truth in this instance.