In 2014, the US Geological Survey drew up this map showing how land accrued to the American nation over time. It shows the process from the official American history point of view.
Claudio Saunt, the associate director of the Institute of Native American Studies at the University of Georgia produced this 1½ minute video showing land acquisition from the Native American point of view.
The two versions of history look different. Different points of view can create different realities. Are both realities correct but arguably incomplete, is one false and the other true, or is one just more accurate than the other?
What about fact, truth and logic?: Does the same apply to fact, truth and logic in politics, if not everything else? Objectively true facts do not change with point of view, but truths can. If truths can vary with point of view, then that can affect logic and beliefs based thereon.
This is a factor that arguably can make at least some political disagreements unresolvable because people do not know about different points of view.
By relying on only one point of view when there are two or more legitimate points of view, the speaker is arguably lying or BSing, depending on the speaker's knowledge and intent. If that is true, honest speech requires at least that context. People need to know about relevant, significant differing points of view to assess the veracity of what is presented.
That kind of honest context is rare to non-existent in partisan political speech. Arguably, it is not nearly common enough in news reporting. Maybe it is not common enough here at Dissident Politics.
B&B orig: 7/14/19
No comments:
Post a Comment