I am bothered by "generation X"'er B. Duran's calling Howard Zinn a "charming
relic" of the '60s, almost as much as by the comments in the news article (in
the original post on this thread) on these ideas like Zinn's
still-stuck-in-the'60s (to paraphrase). Look, we really had minds back then,
y'know? we didn't come to our ideas without going through the same sorts of
basic questioning (re whether change is possible, re any number of ethics
and/or more basic philosophical points, etc.); we were not stereotypes
((which, agreed, the full-caps f and a words certainly do bring to mind).
But, aside from this issue of America's underlying
progress-over-history/memory form of agism, there is the non-temporal nature
of many ethical concepts, e.g., re not killing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 21:20:48 EST