Tuis » Algemeen » Koeitjies & kalfies » The mind of an historian
| The mind of an historian [boodskap #27527] |
Wed, 20 October 1999 00:00  |
Leendert van Oostrum
Boodskappe: 1880
Geregistreer: July 2000
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Dear David,
Now that you have revealed yourself to everyone as an author of "standard
histories", I think we have a wonderful opportunity to observe the mind of
an historian at work.
On 1999-10-13, David writes:
******************************
So where I
have no sympathy whatever with you, Leenhart, is your totally stupid
argument that Dr Verwoerd had the real interests of the black people at
heart, and would have spent far more on "Bantu education" (which should NOT
be mistaken for real education) if only the "opposition" had allowed him to.
********************************
Subsequently, I challenged you to show that I had claimed that Verwoerd
"would have spent far more on Bantu education" and "if only the opposition
had allowed him to".
You failed to show either.
(In addition, you suggested that Verwoerd did _not_ have the real interests
of black people at heart, and stated quite outright that Bantu education was
not real education.)
You failed to show that I had made such statements, because the only source
from which you could have got this was my statement earlier on the same day:
*******************************
> Meeting many blacks, too, I got the same impression.
> Unfortunately, for all those concerned, it is the hatred of the older
> generation which is currently running the country.
Interesting that you should note that, Ronnie. What you should now do, is
imagine the extent of racism exhibited by the _father_ of your friend's
father.
I find it interesting how much trouble Verwoerd had to take, for example, to
motivate expenditure for the education of black people, even though he
initially wanted only one tenth of what was used for the second wold war by
the previous government.
The opposition, you see, did not favour such expenditure, and offered tax
paying voters the attractive alternative of _not_ expending such funds on
frivolous matters such as education for blacks. After all, they had not done
that when _they_ were in power!
***********************************
I now put it to you that:
a) The false claims that you made with respect to my statement do not, in
themselves, refer to major facts.
b) They have the effect, however, of putting a very specific slant on
what I _did_ write. It creates the impression that I did indeed make a very
stupid statement.
c) However, I suspect that you really thought that I _did_ mean to make
those statements (when in reality, I was working on an entirely different
argument, which you yourself later concurred in).
Speculating, I further put it to you that:
a) You genuinely (or at leats negligently) misinterpeted what I _did_
say, I suspect because you thought I was arguing along the lines of one of
the well trodden themes of "standard histories" - perhaps you had in mind
the one about the difference in expenditure on "white" and "black"
education. My hypothesis is this: Your knowledge of the comon themes in
"standard histories, in other words, determined what you read in _my_
statement.
b) Such "creative" misinterpretations are much more common in "standard
histories" than we would like to believe. Most of them occur without
perpetrators even realising it - they are simply operating within the
paradigm of assumptions they have created for themselves. Indeed, much of
the content of "standard histories" comprises well trodden themes, well
salted with assumptions and misinterpretations of this kind, with a coven of
like minded historians warming themselves at the glow of their shared
prejudices.
And so on in circles.
But when you do that to insignificant little me, the consequences are
negligible. When you do it to someone such as Smuts or Verwoerd, you are
slandering millions of people who voted for them - making them out to be
either fools or malicious.
To test my hypothesis above, I wonder if you would care to provide some kind
of substantiation for the following assessment that you provided:
*****************************
"Bantu education" (which should NOT be mistaken for real education)
*****************************
What basis, David, (other than another pointer in the general direction of
"standard histories") do you have for claiming that Bantu education should
not be mistaken for "real" education?
Or was it merely meant as meaningless abuse aimed at slandering everyone who
ever had anything to do with Bantu education, and to use the name of a
published historian to give status to the slander?
|
|
|
|
| Re: The mind of an historian [boodskap #27568 is 'n antwoord op boodskap #27527] |
Thu, 21 October 1999 00:00  |
Leendert van Oostrum
Boodskappe: 1880
Geregistreer: July 2000
Karma: 0
|
Senior Lid |
|
|
Leendert van Oostrum wrote in message ...
>
> To test my hypothesis above, I wonder if you would care to provide some kind
> of substantiation for the following assessment that you provided:
>
> *****************************
> "Bantu education" (which should NOT be mistaken for real education)
> *****************************
>
> What basis, David, (other than another pointer in the general direction of
> "standard histories") do you have for claiming that Bantu education should
> not be mistaken for "real" education?
>
> Or was it merely meant as meaningless abuse aimed at slandering everyone who
> ever had anything to do with Bantu education, and to use the name of a
> published historian to give status to the slander?
No attempt to substantiate.
Must have been the slander, I suppose!
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
Gaan na forum:
[ XML-voer ] [  ]
Tyd nou: Wed Dec 25 02:00:56 UTC 2024
|
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
