Barnes and Noble "Diverse Editions"

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So no, you can't "diversify" slavery narratives because you either conform to the "accepted" meme or are historically accurate and thus, non-diverse by the current yardstick.

One meme to rule them all.

The point I tried to make was the discrepancy between historical truth and current "accepted" meme.(*)

I believe society should strive to be historically accurate, even if it means admitting mistakes done. Going forward, please learn from mistakes and make things better.

At the current rate we are going things are going to get worse (swings too far) before it gets better.

(*) to clarify: not the current meme for what is now, but how history is inaccurately perceived at times.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The point I tried to make was the discrepancy between historical truth and current "accepted" meme.(*)

I believe society should strive to be historically accurate, even if it means admitting mistakes done. Going forward, please learn from mistakes and make things better.

At the current rate we are going things are going to get worse (swings too far) before it gets better.

(*) to clarify: not the current meme for what is now, but how history is inaccurately perceived at times.

Even in earliest recorded history, society has had a problem with being historically inaccurate. Print the myth has long been society's watch word. Some of the most enduring myths out there were created because someone wanted it to be so, rather than because it was so.

Many people still point to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews which mentions Jesus and James as proof they existed, even though most scholars now attribute those mentions to additions by monks much later who wanted it to be so, rather than being in the original version.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Many people still point to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews which mentions Jesus and James as proof they existed, even though most scholars now attribute those mentions to additions by monks much later who wanted it to be so, rather than being in the original version.

No, there are multiple sources about Jesus as a person and not created by monks.
The historical existence isn't in doubt, only the dramatic claims as to the identity of the man can be contested and obviously the Resurrection. Orthodox Jews accept the historicity, not the claim of being [the son of] God.

Julius Caesar and other Romans wrote stuff about Keltoi (European Celts, called Gauls by the Romans) that Greeks and some Romans didn't agree with. He also assumed all Gods were just renamed Greek/Roman ones. Which annoyed everyone else.

It's true the victors write most history.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The point I tried to make was the discrepancy between historical truth and current "accepted" meme.(*)

I believe society should strive to be historically accurate, even if it means admitting mistakes done. Going forward, please learn from mistakes and make things better.

At the current rate we are going things are going to get worse (swings too far) before it gets better.

(*) to clarify: not the current meme for what is now, but how history is inaccurately perceived at times.

I know. And I don't disagree.
I was pointing out that in today's absolutist environment it is a thankless fruitless thing to even try.
All scanners are on alert for even the slightest hint of deviation from orthodoxy.

There is no interest in making society better or "historical" narratives more accurate. In "post-modernist" history tbere is no such thing as objective reality, just warring subjectivities each serving a different political goal:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/pos...ism-philosophy

Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, is a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

Your position is much too reasonable to pass muster in today's environment.
Lazy attempts to conform or to exploit the new orthodoxy are more likely to result in catfights like the DIRT mess or the cluelessly misguided FRANKENSTEIN cover.

Things "will* get a lot worse before the pendulum swings back, most likely when the full Seldon Crisis explodes.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

No, there are multiple sources about Jesus as a person and not created by monks.
The historical existence isn't in doubt, only the dramatic claims as to the identity of the man can be contested and obviously the Resurrection. Orthodox Jews accept the historicity, not the claim of being [the son of] God.

Moderator Notice
Any further posts about the historicity of Jesus will be deleted. Please take such stuff to P&R.

[Quoth]

Roland Perry: Program for a Puppet. I have the copy I bought in 1979 and it doesn't seem so fictional now.
Video, audio and photos can be faked far more realistically than the Cottingley Fairies, which only fooled those that wanted to believe.
Chat Bots are rubbish, but most untrained people are taken in.

I don't know about a Seldon Crisis, but certainly we are in a more Post Truth era than Stalin's photo editing and revisions of history. It's not new. The Chinese Cultural revolution was at least the second time.
About 259-210 BCE, 259-210 BC, 9740-9789 HE

Quin Shi Huan banned Confucianism along with all other schools, except for the Legalist school or Fa-jia, which was the official government philosophy. Freedom of speech was suppressed, hundreds of Confucian scholars were buried alive and several classic Chinese texts were burnt.

From https://www.ancient.eu/Confucianism/

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

No, there are multiple sources about Jesus as a person and not created by monks....

It's true the victors write most history.

Note, I am talking about one specific historical work where it is fairly well established that text was inserted centuries later and make no other claims one way or the other. I can point to numerous other works that were either out and out forgeries or modified by later writers if that specific example offends you. The purported de la Pena journal is another classic example.

I leave religious debates to those who enjoy such things.

[Richwood]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Can you diversify slaves without getting into trouble? Not sure what you would call it, maybe reverse appropriation? By allowing black slavers and white slaves or black slavers having black slaves you are evilizing the victims. You should, because any slaver is evil independent of ethnicity.

Even in the USA there were black slave owners as was recently shown via records from the pre Civil War on Finding Your Roots on PBS. Probably some slaves that we would consider to be White too as laws in many slave states allowed anyone equal to or more than 1/16th Black to be considered Black and legally allowed to be owned as a slave. Also in the early colonies there were many indentured servants who were White and they were frequently treated practically as slaves and many were worked to death before working off their indenture.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Richwood

Even in the USA there were black slave owners as was recently shown via records from the pre Civil War on Finding Your Roots on PBS. Probably some slaves that we would consider to be White too as laws in many slave states allowed anyone equal to or more than 1/16th Black to be considered Black and legally allowed to be owned as a slave. Also in the early colonies there were many indentured servants who were White and they were frequently treated practically as slaves and many were worked to death before working off their indenture.

I should have been more specific. Yes even in the USA, which I was talking about. When I talked about "diversifying," I meant to be truthful and being based on facts. As it turns out, it is easy to offend anybody with the truth when their chosen agenda is different. Even in the world we live in today. Maybe especially in the world we live in today.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I should have been more specific. Yes even in the USA, which I was talking about. When I talked about "diversifying," I meant to be truthful and being based on facts. As it turns out, it is easy to offend anybody with the truth when their chosen agenda is different. Even in the world we live in today. Maybe especially in the world we live in today.

Definitely especially in the world we live in today. I grew up being told "Sticks and Stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you" and "why listen to an ass bray?"

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Richwood

Even in the USA there were black slave owners as was recently shown via records from the pre Civil War on Finding Your Roots on PBS. Probably some slaves that we would consider to be White too as laws in many slave states allowed anyone equal to or more than 1/16th Black to be considered Black and legally allowed to be owned as a slave. Also in the early colonies there were many indentured servants who were White and they were frequently treated practically as slaves and many were worked to death before working off their indenture.

There were not just white and black slave owners either. There were Cherokee who owned plantations and slaves.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

The problem with a "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra is that it has the unfortunate side-effect of granting permission to say anything as hurtful/hateful to anyone one wants to with no repercussion or remorse ("Hey, get over it. Sticks and stones and all that").

Then of course there's the fact that it's complete and utter twaddle. Words can hurt far more deeply, and for far, far longer, than that any physical injury. Everyone has always known this.

No. The onus to keep the peace in a verbal transaction needs to rest on all participants equally. "Sticks and stones" gives jackholes a free pass they're neither entitled to, nor deserve, in that regard.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The problem with a "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra is that it has the unfortunate side-effect of granting permission to say anything as hurtful/hateful to anyone one wants to with no repercussion or remorse ("Hey, get over it. Sticks and stones and all that").

Then of course there's the fact that it's complete and utter twaddle. Words can hurt far more deeply, and for far, far longer, than that any physical injury. Everyone has always known this.

No. The onus to keep the peace in a verbal transaction needs to rest on all participants equally. "Sticks and stones" gives jackholes a free pass they're neither entitled to, nor deserve, in that regard.

Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The problem with a "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra is that it has the unfortunate side-effect of granting permission to say anything as hurtful/hateful to anyone one wants to with no repercussion or remorse ("Hey, get over it. Sticks and stones and all that").

Then of course there's the fact that it's complete and utter twaddle. Words can hurt far more deeply, and for far, far longer, than that any physical injury. Everyone has always known this.

No. The onus to keep the peace in a verbal transaction needs to rest on all participants equally. "Sticks and stones" gives jackholes a free pass they're neither entitled to, nor deserve, in that regard.

You miss the point of the sayings. The only person whose actions I control are my own. What someone else says only effects me if I choose to let it. Ignoring someone who is being a jerk isn't the same as giving them permission to be a jerk. My mother also use to say "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". They are two sides of the same coin.

Can words hurt? Sure, if you let them. But if they do, maybe you are better off figuring out _why_ your feelings were hurt. Do you have poor self esteem? Are you too sensitive and see insult everywhere? Do you trust and hang out with the wrong people? The two best life lessons I ever learned were don't hang out with people who like to insult other people and either be comfortable with who you are or make the effort to change what you don't like.

[hildea]

B&N using AI to pick books for their blackface stunt is adding insult to injury -- they didn't even bother to pay a human to choose books somewhat intelligently. I see "The Secret Garden" is one of the books they chose, and the protagonist there is very explicitly white. She's a spoiled child of English colonizers, and has has been raised by Indian servants who she sees as inferior because of their race, and that's a significant aspect of who she is at the beginning of the book.

Tor has posted a recommendation list of 23 Retellings of Classic Stories From Science Fiction & Fantasy Authors which I'm pretty sure is a comment to Barnes and Noble's stupid stunt, and a good example of what they could and should have done. (I'm not sure if all of those books have authors or protagonists of color, but I think most of them do.)