OK that underlines the term "woke" as a put down from the right as we all know it is. Burying the facts of inconvenient truths is what Orwell's Memory Hole is all about. Calling someone woke is like the old slur "ni--er lover"! Historical Revisionism that is factual is only dangerous to those that profit from lies!
OK that underlines the term "woke" as a put down from the right as we all know it is. Burying the facts of inconvenient truths is what Orwell's Memory Hole is all about. Calling someone woke is like the old slur "ni--er lover"! Historical Revisionism that is factual is only dangerous to those that profit from lies!
Just because a perspective sees some value in myth and tradition does not make criticism of revisionist attempts to debunk those myths as a right wing attack on "woke". Or an effort to "profit from lies". Or to memory hole truth.
The author Hedges interviewed did no deal in any "truth" or fact - she simply dismantled myths (ironically with myths of her own).
My goodness, we don't know who shot JFK (live on Teevee, 60 years ago), but this interview dabbled in speculation of a death 500 years ago! Understanding the biographies and origins of creative force is a fools errand. Give me a break.
Many say it was Lee Harvey Oswald are you a revisionist or a broad brush thinker that thinks lies/myth are neither good or bad? Even if they lead to war and justification for war. They do point out that "drafting" Shakespeare by the British Empire gave some kind of legitimacy to the white mans burden.
Of course we love to know the truth. But when this is not possible with the information we have, then, the pondering of the many potential explanations for what we don't know is very healthy and this is what this interview tries to do. I don't consider them revisionism but rather good learning. Better to know that Shakespeare may not have been what tradition tells us.
It reminds me of the History Channel's show, "Ancient Aliens." We can't prove current aliens, so they reach back in time when we are able to say any such nonsense that is needed. It also can't be disputed. This has been done by LGBTq writers who like to reach back and claim that historical figures were gay. This includes the composer, Verdi who I share a last name with. His characters are labeled as gay in "Don Carlos," under their article "Queers in Opera." No evidence. Verdi was not gay at least. Let dead people lay. History has decided on conclusions.
If the character of a performance piece is gay, or mass murderer or whatever, it doesn't make the author likewise. By any chance have you checked if you are descendent from that great composer? I see you love his writings and so do I.
He had 2 daughters who both died as babies. So, I havenтАЩt. Most straight men are not going to write about a gay love affair. The gay observers have read that into the script. The characters have been straight for 150 years ЁЯШК
So Spartans and Greeks weren't gay? Word has it Plato and others school of philosophy did a lot of their teaching of youth in the bath houses. Spartan soldiers had sex with their wives for children and slipped back to their barracks for male companionship is a fact! Rich Roman pedophiles would pick out boys in the street and make them into sex slaves. Sorry what's your point again?
OK that underlines the term "woke" as a put down from the right as we all know it is. Burying the facts of inconvenient truths is what Orwell's Memory Hole is all about. Calling someone woke is like the old slur "ni--er lover"! Historical Revisionism that is factual is only dangerous to those that profit from lies!
Broad brush binary thinking kills.
Just because a perspective sees some value in myth and tradition does not make criticism of revisionist attempts to debunk those myths as a right wing attack on "woke". Or an effort to "profit from lies". Or to memory hole truth.
The author Hedges interviewed did no deal in any "truth" or fact - she simply dismantled myths (ironically with myths of her own).
My goodness, we don't know who shot JFK (live on Teevee, 60 years ago), but this interview dabbled in speculation of a death 500 years ago! Understanding the biographies and origins of creative force is a fools errand. Give me a break.
Many say it was Lee Harvey Oswald are you a revisionist or a broad brush thinker that thinks lies/myth are neither good or bad? Even if they lead to war and justification for war. They do point out that "drafting" Shakespeare by the British Empire gave some kind of legitimacy to the white mans burden.
Of course we love to know the truth. But when this is not possible with the information we have, then, the pondering of the many potential explanations for what we don't know is very healthy and this is what this interview tries to do. I don't consider them revisionism but rather good learning. Better to know that Shakespeare may not have been what tradition tells us.
It reminds me of the History Channel's show, "Ancient Aliens." We can't prove current aliens, so they reach back in time when we are able to say any such nonsense that is needed. It also can't be disputed. This has been done by LGBTq writers who like to reach back and claim that historical figures were gay. This includes the composer, Verdi who I share a last name with. His characters are labeled as gay in "Don Carlos," under their article "Queers in Opera." No evidence. Verdi was not gay at least. Let dead people lay. History has decided on conclusions.
If the character of a performance piece is gay, or mass murderer or whatever, it doesn't make the author likewise. By any chance have you checked if you are descendent from that great composer? I see you love his writings and so do I.
He had 2 daughters who both died as babies. So, I havenтАЩt. Most straight men are not going to write about a gay love affair. The gay observers have read that into the script. The characters have been straight for 150 years ЁЯШК
So Spartans and Greeks weren't gay? Word has it Plato and others school of philosophy did a lot of their teaching of youth in the bath houses. Spartan soldiers had sex with their wives for children and slipped back to their barracks for male companionship is a fact! Rich Roman pedophiles would pick out boys in the street and make them into sex slaves. Sorry what's your point again?
You have a different way of interpreting what someone says