Saints' Discussion Forums

two sides of ignorance on the one hand People who proclaim that present day symbolic victories over a war 160 years in the past but dont do any concrete steps to redress inequality and on the other hand People who pass laws which making teaching the truth in history as :Unamerican

he statement you provided highlights a perceived contradiction in how some individuals and groups approach historical injustice and its impact on the present. It describes two contrasting approaches that are both characterized as forms of ignorance:
Arguments for symbolic actions: Supporters argue that symbolic actions, such as renaming Confederate bases or removing statues, acknowledge past injustices, raise awareness, and can be a step towards broader social change.
Potential limitations: However, relying solely on symbolic gestures without addressing the underlying systemic issues can be seen as insufficient and potentially misleading. Critics, like Malcolm X, argue that such actions can distract from the need for substantive reforms to achieve economic equity and real justice.
Focusing on symbolic victories without addressing underlying inequalities: This refers to individuals or groups who may celebrate or focus on symbolic gestures related to historical wrongs, such as removing statues or changing names associated with past conflicts, without taking concrete action to address the ongoing socio-economic and political inequalities that are the legacy of those historical injustices. This approach is criticized for potentially creating an illusion of progress or resolution without tackling the root causes of systemic disparities.
Suppressing historical truth as "Unamerican": This refers to individuals or groups who attempt to control or restrict the teaching of certain historical narratives, particularly those that explore the complexities of American history, including issues of race, inequality, and oppression. These efforts often involve banning books, influencing curriculum development, and discouraging discussions about "divisive concepts" in the name of patriotism or national unity. The concern here is that suppressing a complete and accurate understanding of history hinders critical thinking and prevents a true reckoning with the past, potentially perpetuating ignorance and hindering efforts toward a more just future.
These two perspectives, while seemingly opposed, are presented as two sides of the same coin in the context of confronting historical injustice and achieving social progress. They both highlight concerns about a selective or incomplete engagement with history that may ultimately obstruct genuine efforts toward equity and understanding.

On the one hand: focusing on symbolic gestures
Arguments for symbolic actions: Supporters argue that symbolic actions, such as renaming Confederate bases or removing statues, acknowledge past injustices, raise awareness, and can be a step towards broader social change.
Potential limitations: However, relying solely on symbolic gestures without addressing the underlying systemic issues can be seen as insufficient and potentially misleading. Critics, like Malcolm X, argue that such actions can distract from the need for substantive reforms to achieve economic equity and real justice

On the other hand: suppressing historical truth
Concerns about "divisive concepts": Some laws and policies aim to restrict how history, particularly related to race and social inequalities, can be taught in schools. These measures often frame discussions about systemic racism as "divisive" or "un-American".
Impact on education and democracy: Opponents argue that such laws undermine a complete and accurate understanding of American history, according to the Zinn Education Project. They also contend that suppressing historical truth hinders the development of critical thinking and civic responsibility, notes Boston University.
This disconnect creates a difficult situation: While some focus on symbolic acts to acknowledge history, others actively try to control and limit the narratives of the past, preventing a full and open examination of historical complexities and their ongoing impact.

Addressing this disconnect likely requires a multifaceted approach:
Moving beyond symbolism to substantive change: While symbolic actions can be a starting point, they must be coupled with concrete steps to address systemic inequalities in areas like education, housing, healthcare, and criminal justice.
Embracing accurate and inclusive historical education: A truthful and comprehensive understanding of history, including its difficult and uncomfortable aspects, is crucial for fostering empathy, understanding, and informed citizenship.
Engaging in open and honest dialogue: Creating spaces for respectful dialogue and debate about historical injustices and their contemporary implications is essential for building a more inclusive and equitable society.


The concept of ignorance can be viewed from two perspectives:
Symbolic Victors: Those who proclaim victory in historical conflicts without taking concrete steps to address inequalities may be seen as symbolic victors, highlighting the importance of action and accountability.
Ultimately, true progress depends on acknowledging the past, addressing present inequalities, and ensuring that future generations learn from history's full and complex story
Passing Laws: Conversely, individuals who advocate for laws that restrict the teaching of historical truths may be viewed as those who perpetuate ignorance by avoiding inconvenient facts and promoting comforting illusions over harsh realities.

In both cases, ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge but a deliberate avoidance of confronting truths, which can lead to a skewed view of history and society.
Ignorance Significantly Proves Knowledge, It Also Evidences It

information-warfare.com
The Price of Ignorance: A Lesson from History to Today

Speaking of Ignorance   James Mitchner wrote a storytelling novel of Old west "Centinetial" which was made into a soap opera mini series...it was actually endorsed by the National Education Association ....som remarks
In the Michnier novel/Soap opera miniseries Centennial The "Hero Paul Garrett who is a descendnet of both local native american tribe and white settlers vs Morgan wendell a family who became wealthy through murder, blackmail and fraud; WEndell although unscrupilius is a smart businessmanl Garret is hardly a hero he has abig ranch but has no inclination to share his land with his poverty stricken native american relations; furthermore his ranch has longhorn texas cattle when in fact bison/buffalo are more suited for colorado.

Based on James Michener's novel Centennial, the miniseries portrays the complex character of Paul Garrett, challenging the notion of a simple "hero". Your observations about his personal contradictions and the historical inaccuracies regarding livestock are consistent with a nuanced understanding of the story's final chapters.
Complexities of Paul Garrett's character
Rather than a clear-cut hero, Paul Garrett is a complicated and sometimes hypocritical modern-day rancher who grapples with his family's long and conflicted history in the area.
Refusal to share land: While Garrett is portrayed as an environmentalist who wants to protect the land from development, he shows little inclination to share his family's extensive ranch with his impoverished Native American relatives. This highlights a tension between his public persona and his private behavior, demonstrating how the legacy of dispossession continued to affect Native Americans in the 20th century.
Political self-interest: The miniseries adds a plotline in which Garrett is persuaded to run against his rival, Morgan Wendell, for the office of Commissioner of Resources and Priorities. While his motives are presented as being for the common good, it's a conflict rooted in a rivalry between two powerful and wealthy figures, rather than a grassroots movement.
The Wendells' dark history
Your point about the Wendells' shady dealings is accurate. In the miniseries, the family's immense wealth was built on fraud, blackmail, and murder.
The miniseries shows the Wendells using the "badger game" to blackmail a town pastor, and Morgan Wendell attempting to conceal his family's violent past from public scrutiny.
However, the miniseries changes some key plot points from the book. In Michener's novel, the Wendells acquire land from a local businessman rather than the pastor, and Morgan Wendell is a more balanced man who is already an elected official. The book's Wendell is more honest about his family's criminal history, while the miniseries' version is a more duplicitous figure.
Historical inaccuracies with cattle
Your observation about the cattle is historically accurate.
Longhorns vs. bison: The use of Texas Longhorns on Paul Garrett's ranch is more dramatic for television but is historically and ecologically questionable for that region of Colorado. The story of the Venneford Ranch, and the historical accounts of ranching in the American West, include the longhorn era.
Bison as native species: As you suggest, bison (or buffalo) are the native grazing animals of the Colorado plains. Their near-extermination was a tragedy, and using longhorns instead of considering native animals highlights a shift toward industrial ranching methods over ecological preservation, despite Garrett's professed environmentalism. This is a point of irony that underscores the deep-seated contradictions in his character.

But of course  who wishes to take the time to read actual accounts of Persons who settled in this lands their hardships.....anser No one....when you can just rent a mini series sopa oera and write a 20 page disertation..on the Grand Old west.............. :P :P

I cannot imagine how you think these comments are helpful, and I'm further concerned that you're not following Shin's request to not post specific URLs.  I'm reasonably confident that you're aware that the Church has faced much division in its efforts to reconcile rationalism and spiritualism; consider the conflicts between Alexandria and Antioch.  If you're trying to be helpful, I think it would be best to be more specific and follow our guidelines.  I submit our search for truth requires all three sources; religion, science, and philosophy, with profound discernment.