History One Blog

The statement that history should not be viewed as objectively true solely because it was written by the winners is, to begin with, illogical in nature. The truth that Paige is trying to push on me is that the only reason history is not factually accurate is because those who were victorious wrote it. That statement, in and of itself, contradicts what Paige believes to be true as a Postmodernist, because she is putting forth an absolute truth, which (as a Postmodernist) she shouldn't support.

All circular reasoning aside, Paige's "truth" about history can be proven to be false, simply by using historical events to prove that history is in fact objectively true. Her own "truth" is an example of her opinion, which would be a subjective truth, rather than an accurate, objective example of what is true. To refute her claim, after pointing out that her statement contradicts what she should stand for as a Postmodernist (no absolute truths, no pushing "my truth" on others), it is necessary to describe a point in history which proves that the accounts historical events should be taken as accurate representations of what actually happened.

Take, for example, a war, specifically the Civil War, an event in history which shaped the America that we know today. While the North attributed engaging in war to the fact that the South wanted to continue abusing slaves for their agrarian society, the South thought that the National government was infringing upon their rights as a state to decide how to handle the concept of slavery. Keeping in mind that these two ideas of why the war was started are different, the conclusion that in seen in history textbooks attributes the war to a conflict focusing in on the fact that the South refused to yield ownership of their slaves, which is more in line with the North's idea of why the war was started. Even though there are these two ideas floating around that both support the Civil War happening, we can say with conviction that not only did the war happen, but history got it right in saying that the war was fought over the moral issue of slavery, which is completely true. Therefore, there is no reason to discredit a major historical event like this war as not being "factually accurate" because history points to the strong moral truth that was foundational in contributing to the starting of the war: slavery.

Significant events in history are leverage against the weak, opinionated argument that history is pointless, and can't be factual. The sole purpose of history is to record what happened, so that individuals who weren't able to experience what may have happened in the past can know what actually happened. History is objectively true, then, as it is now, because it has not been written by what Paige calls "the winners", but rather, by the eyewitnesses. It is absolutely absurd to question an eyewitness, because their recordings of history are the most factually accurate that we will ever have as representing what really happened. An eyewitness experienced history, and presents the events as they happened- which is, in fact, on objective truth that should be taken as accurate.

Even though people throughout history have had their own subjective ideas about what significance an event may have had in history, there is no doubt that the objective facts prove historical accounts as true. When a person like Paige has tried to redefine "history" as merely an opinion based story, she is only digging herself deeper into a hole of complete confusion. Rejecting the facts, and essentially creating your own, leads to an illogical argument of what actually is true. Comparing an eyewitness account to a subjective truth about history (as Paige has done) only reveals how off base history can become, if left to the interpretation of those who haven't even experienced historical events for themselves. Therefore, I conclude that history, as experienced by eyewitnesses and recorded for posterity, is the closest to "factually accurate" as we can get, even recognizing that we, as human beings, have a flawed human nature.

Economics #2 Response

Sarah, a Secular Humanist, and Mark, a Marxist, understandably propose the idea of a government controlled economy, and the redistribution of wealth to create "equality", as they both are proponents of interventionism, and thus applaud the economic system of Socialism. However, it is my opinion that the system of Socialism does not and will never be successful as an economic ideal, due to the major flaws that inhibit its success.

One key idea that refutes Socialism as a viable economic "solution" is the fact that a system controlled by corrupt human beings will be unable to provide the level of "equality" that is the selling point of Socialism. That being said, any economic system will have its flaws because of human beings will be unable to provide the level of "equality" that is the selling point of Socialism. That being said, any economic system will have its flaws because of human nature coming play, but the system of socialism will never lead to the perfect, equal, classless society that is the next step in our "natural evolution", as believed by proponents of government interventionism in the economy.

Additionally, the argument of Socialism, when broken down and analyzed, reveals WHY this system is faulty. When the government controls the means of production (as in a Socialist society), the people are therefore devoid of economic choices. Even if this may be intended for the best, if the population has no say, then equality is subsequently inhibited. Therefore, while promoting the promise of equality, which likely draws individuals to favor the system, Socialists are actually taking away liberty, which makes the definition of "equality" useless and devoid of meaning.

In a Socialist system, private property becomes obsolete, as everything is owned by everyone. This idea falls short of being an effective part of the system, because without privately owned property, there is no sense of self-worth in ownership. This idea also does nothing to promote true equality, because having a sense of personal pride is what drives fairness and liberty to be present, and ultimately drives an individual to have a strong work ethic.

One more key tenant of Socialism has to do with removing competition within business. The logic behind refuting this idea is similar to the idea of not having economic choice--if an individual is unable to have the choice of where to buy a product, or even what career to have in a Socialist society, then they do not experience equality, as they do not have a say in the matter.

Thus, these four ideas that are unique to Socialism prove, when analyzed against logical thinking, prove WHY Socialism falls short, in the scope of economic systems.

Michael Moore's opinion on this matter was very interesting to me, as he had some additional insight to provide, regarding Socialistic ideas. His main point throughout the video clip was that there is so much money in the hands of a small percentage of the wealthy population, and (essentially) spreading the wealth around would solve all of our problems. First of all, spreading the wealth around would not actually bring about equality, because so many people choose to "milk the system" anyway (like through welfare programs). The truth is, our money is not being managed well, and therefore trying to spread the wealth around will NEVER solve economic problems. Therefore, trying to create equality by "sharing the wealth" is illogical because it will never be a successful endeavour.

I have realized that Socialism oppresses the people that the system tries to protect from oppression, through a tainted definition of equality. The tenants of socialism promote "fairness", but actually inhibit liberty, which proves how ineffective the system really is. Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that Socialism falls short of being a viable economic system.

Mr. Moore and Economic Systems Blog

When it comes to how a society functions, the type of economy that a certain nation integrates into the governmental system is what determines how everything else is run. From Capitalism to Socialism, each economic system brings a new set of problems and successes to the global table. In the video clip Mr. Moore, writer and star of the documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, seeks to define where our economy should be going , in the early twenty first century. While the information is clearly presented, Mr. Moore provided just his own opinion- therefore I have drawn different conclusions about the viability of what he says. One point of his that I resonate with, and that I now apply to my own understanding of economics, is the idea that in its structure, and economy should be morally and ethically good, not matter what term it is given. While Moore merely alluded to this truth, I believe that it is ideal in creating a lasting, fair economic system through which business is sustained. If the system of how business is run is regulated by ethical codes, such as making price-fixing illegal, then not only does the economy have a moral foundation, but consumers are more likely to stimulate the economy by buying products made under ethical laws, which leads to success in business on a national scale. As we live in an imperfect world, no business plan or economic system will ever be "perfect" or "the ideal". For instance, with socialism, communal property and jobs that are regulated by equal pay across the board take away (and effectively eliminate) the individualistic, competitive drive that sustains a positive work ethic, and thus, a better business. Therefore, in moving toward ethical practices, a nation can reform an economy into a more stable system. However, I do not mean to say that ALL of what Mr. Moore said is accurate, as I know evaluate my own opinion of what he presented. When he made the comment that all of the great religions have the same economy, I immediately disagreed. The primary differences that distinguish between each philosophy and theology prove that discrepancies do exist on a broad scale, from how different religions view politics, to how individual define their ideal economic system. Therefore, I refute Mr. Moore's statement with the simple idea that because these differences are clearly present, no worldview could ever agree on what an economic system should look like. How could a Secular Humanist or Marxist, who holds to the tenants of Socialism ever agree with a Christian or Muslim who holds to the idea of the Stewardship of Property? Additionally, while America functions under a Capitalistic system, many countries across the globe embrace Socialistic tendencies that are integrated into their economic systems. Therefore, it is important to realize that Mr. Moore's statement is erroneous, because he fails to distinguish between each worldview, and how there are many differing ideas of economic systems functioning today in our world. Mr. Moore had some very intriguing things to say, regarding our economy in the twenty first century. The state of and type of economy is what can drive our decisions, can control entire nations, and is what represents power in our world today. If we, as Christians, can help to integrate moral and ethical codes into the economy by reaching out and acting for our cause, we can surely make a difference. We live in a representative democracy, and as the people who make up this nation, we can't rely solely on the government to fully regulate the economic system-- and to solve all of our problems. It is important to understand how economies work, so that we can bring ethics into business, and can make a positive change in this system.