DU is sometimes the only record of Democratic events of 4 or 5 years ago

[karynnj]

As someone who often uses google to find some "proof" of something Kerry or other Democrats did that long ago, it is not uncommon to get a DU link - instead of anything from the media. The 4 paragraphs quotes are often the only thing to read as the link itself has disappeared. (Sometimes googling the first sentence (in quotes) will find a different paper's version, but there are times when the only thing there is the DU link.

We are now part of the compiling the historical record.

[annabanana]

1. In case posterity is ever interested what really happened during

the dark era of 2000 - 2008.

[populistdriven]

13. the 911 threads are prophetic - I wish we could still access them

especially the one that stated Bush is getting his coup now

[LearnedHand]

2. It's true! (k&r)

This place is a wealth of both current information and analysis of the news.

[RandomThoughts]

3. There is another reason not to look back.

Because much of it gets distorted. You can not base learning off of history, if that history is distorted by scrubbing. Also perspectives can seem so different when in different worlds of perspective, or by putting together information as a different narrative.

We have to move forward, without looking back, because many interest want to change what we see as the past.


As a side note, My choice of firing posture :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I guess we should have stopped wrting history

way back when Thucydides first did it.

Oy...

Actually I WISH we had a GOOD RECORD, for history sake. Some of us LIKE to look back and try to figure out what REALLY happened. To do that we need like records and shit.

[RandomThoughts]

16. I agree, it would be great to learn from history.

Hence the need for journalism, and accurate text books.

But when we can see clearly that PR campaigns try to rewrite history, we have to look for people with first hand memories, or try and preserve our own memories. watching out for written stories that are scrubbing history.


Also multiple copies of information in many locations is a good idea. People really should construct their own libraries and put them on CD, not just on computers.

Even back ups of forums and web pages should be stored in multiple locations, that is one of the important parts of maintaining information integrity.

Once all books are online, how hard would it be for one person to change even something like Shakespeare? I am a firm believer in paper books, and brick and mortar libraries, and for digital information, people building their own libraries.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Let me tell you an ugly secret

that is what HISTORIANS do... we call those sources, PRIMARY sources.

But if you think that this ahem scrubbing of papers started in the last ten years... well son, what exactly do you think I have to do when I read oh the papers of the age in the 1880s regarding the Haymarket Affair? You think the Chicago Trib, the Paper of Record (read Morgan and company), gave you the worker's POV?

That is why even those scrubbed materials are like useful and shit...

But to expect impartial journalism is like expecting a person to remain a virgin after having sex for the first time. No, I am not being flippant, but this "objective Journalism" is a figment of our imagination, since it has really not existed, like evah! (And when my Instructors in Historical Method talked of... objectivity in History... well not really... another figment of imagination... but at least i know Steele is going to write from a pretty right wing POV when writing economic history and Zinn does pretty much lefty... and I also know that writing history of labor, I will take the worker's point of view)

Now as to the rest, there is a reason why I have kept diaries, and talk to people. But really, objective journalism is a myth, and it has really never existed. We got somewhat close with Cronkite and that era... but it wasn't really there. These days we are closer to the tradition of American journalism that has existed for a while. We need more sources though, like oh GOOD people's papers, but that is just me.

[RandomThoughts]

27. I agree that is what Historians do.

I am saying citizens should make themselves part of that, by also keeping libraries of events.

Or even libraries of things like forums.

And I know about yellow journalism, and even the rhetoric of the Revolutionary war was a bit of PR.

And don't call me son. LOL Because I know you are not my parent... sonny. :)



As far as objective journalism, everyone has a bias, but when only one slant sets the historical narrative, then it is not historical, nor good journalism. 'Good' being a fair representation of what most people experience and feel, not what a few people want many to think.


I am curious, other then a presumed authority role with the comment of son, what points do you make that are different then mine.

It might be that you disagree with me saying not looking back to history. If you have the time or money to find many sources, then researching a historical event with perspective and thought can help people learn.

However, most people, almost all people in the US, get their history from marketed TV, which changes the way they tell history stories pretty often. Or news, that picks and chooses many times to defend an argument not to educate on an event.

So if you do not do alot of research, what tells historical narratives, TV, should really be ignored.

You agree people should have libraries, with your comment on your information storage.

So is it just my comment that what passes for history, for most people, should be ignored that you disagree with? Maybe I should have said ignore it unless you find many sources directly from people that were there. Or in depth sourcing from a source that uses such information, without a secondary agenda.



Although slant can show a bias, and that can be learned from, the actual information should always be thought on and questioned.

Edit: Interviews with actual lawmakers, and individuals, can be informative, if you think and question the comments, and some of the back and forth, can also be informative. So it is not all bad, but much of it has a bias. But that is not really about history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. The point I am making is that there is always

been a slant, and you started your comment by ignoring what are current primary sources.

Oh and historians have money? You kid me right?

Right now I started doing all the readying into the history of labor PRECISELY because Americans do not realize we are about to fight the EXACT SAME BATTLES of the 1880s, and people don't even know it. WHY? Americans are ignorant of what happened last week, let alone five years ago. And that is a choice.

Other countries have a far better conscience of their history, alas they work at it and think it is important.

[RandomThoughts]

32. Saying it is having money is not complete, it is more about having the time to do things.

And in many systems money has to do with that.

Within the system money can give people the time to do research. I was referencing think tanks, or scholars that can have part of their expenses paid to actually do such research. Even people in theocratic professions have donations to cover their daily costs so they can think on things. So that was my point about having money.

Americans are ignorant of what happened last week, let alone five years ago. And that is a choice.


That is a true statement. Although the choice to look for information can be made easier or harder by different systems in place.

For example, there are some good interviews on many online locations. But the TV on in the background is an easier choice. So I agree many people choose to be less informed, but that is not because they don't want to know, it is mostly time constraints.

Ideally in a specialized environment, important information like you mention would be distilled down to fairly accurate information by professionals. Then people that did other work could learn from those summaries. With the amount of people that put out slanted information, most people would have to spend much time to try and understand such things. Since not only do they have to listen, but they have to wade through a ton of intentional distortions.

By primary sources, are you speaking of sources people mostly use, or that are most accurate and weldable.

I do not consider TV a credible source on history, in part because of what you mentioned about what is left out of the stories. I have watched many shows on ww2, revolutionary war, even civil war. But how many shows do you see about the labor movement, or the breaking up of big oil, and big steel, many years ago.

I don't think we disagree on some of this.

[UpInArms]

25. self deleting dreaded duplicate post

:blush:

[UpInArms]

26. and also, if you have the original link and a date, you can look back in the

www.archives.org and sometimes find the original newslink

:hi:

[Mike 03]

4. Thank you for this post. Kick and Rec. NT.

[karynnj]

14. Thanks - it is likely the weirdest thing I've posted, but I had just

searched for two things in a row where it happened, so I figured I would post it. (It's also cool as I see some of the same user names I now instantly recognize in the thread.)

[Cha]

5. I find that..when I google

something I get a DU link. And, isn't it fun to go back in the archives through google.

[karynnj]

15. It is fun - I often end up scanning the entire thread

seeing old comments from new friends.

[Cha]

20. Yeah, me too..and see my old user

name in the lineup..good timesB-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. That is because there is an active

scrubbing of the interwebs and it is not due to lack of storage space either.

And as a historian as we move increasingly into electronic that will be a huge problem.

[Octafish]

7. Why would that be?

Not that Corporate McPravda has an agenda to make money and cover-up for its owners would slant things in any way.

Excellent observation, karynnj. DU is a time capsule of truth.

[Cleita]

9. I've noticed that too. I hope these files are being preserved somewhere

permanently. They may be the only sources for historians to chronicle our era in the future.

[Hissyspit]

12. I have too. Google on something and the only decent thing you get is www.democracticunderground.com

[anigbrowl]

10. Google segregates its news results into current and archive categories

because otherwise you'd Google about something current and maybe get swamped by news from several years ago. On Google News, look for older date ranges in the sidebar on the left, or click 'advanced search' next to the search box and then look for the link that says 'archive search'.

going through the regular google web search is not the best approach if you're trying to do in-depth research on something.

[karynnj]

18. Thanks - I didn't know this

[anigbrowl]

21. They're not very good about highlighting it

but then I guess most of their visitors just want the most topical link. Once you know about it though, it's massively helpful. You'll get a lot of results where they want pay to view the old article, but it's fairly easy to get past those and find free versions of the same story.

[karynnj]

22. I've seen the for pay ones and usually ended up with what I wanted

My husband and I subscribe to the NYT, so we can get their archived articles.

[depakid]

11. That's more a limitation of Google's algorithm than anything else

It's weighted heavily toward very recent material.

You'll have better luck using an engine that has date ranges available.

[Mike 03]

17. It is really important that our discussios are saved.

Many of them harken to a nicer, more happy time, when we agreed on so many things.

Other times were really hellish, filled with conflct and disagreement.

But I am very happy that these discourses have been preserved.

[starroute]

19. Sometimes I hit my own old posts that way

It's always a bit of a shock -- especially when I realize I knew stuff five years ago that I've totally forgotten since.

[karynnj]

24. It really is

Sometimes it makes me feel good - as I still agree with it, but other times I wonder what happened to my grammar and spelling!

If you think that bad, try pulling out something like an old calculus or complex variables book and look at any old assignments folded up inside. I did this looking for something to help a daughter on a problem and it is very shocking that it is my handwriting and my maiden name, but I couldn't easily replicate it now.

[DainBramaged]

28. It is amazing to think that we as a community have THAT MUCH INFLUENCE on history

think about it. If nothing more, long after I'm gone, by rambling rants will be immortalized.

[Historic NY]

30. wayback machine helps...I posted an archive link to 2/01

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.democraticunderground.com

nice to go back and see how we have evolved.

[bluesmail]

31. I live in a remote area of California now, (Mendocino Coast)

DU is my start page. I can get everything from the latest news to a learning akin to a classroom.