To anyone who loves sweeping historical analogies and puts words in the mouths of famous dead people

[jpgray]

Stop it. These techniques can lead you far away from reality, and from whatever insight you are attempting to point out. To figure out why, let's check in with the father of historical criticism, good ol' Ibn Khaldun:

Men are naturally inclined to judge by comparison and by analogy; yet these are methods which easily lead to error. Should they by any chance be accompanied by inattention and hastiness, they can lead the searcher astray, far from the object of his inquiry. Thus many men, reading or hearing the chronicles of the past, and forgetting the great changes, nay revolutions, in conditions and institutions that have taken place since those times, draw analogies between the events of the past and those that take place around them, judging the past by what they know of the present. Yet the differences between the two periods may be great, thus leading to gross error.

Forgetting the gross presumption involved with digging up famous dead people to say they would agree with you, it just doesn't work well. It doesn't work because it deprives those dead folks of their context, ignoring the extremely complex changes in society and in culture that have taken place over the years, and assumes an opinion for phenomena that may or may not be readily comparable to phenomena in that dead person's context, wherein he or she has left all the statements and thoughts that we know. To say "MLK would think this" or "the founding fathers would say this" isn't -always- going to be ridiculous on its face, but the odds for error make it almost a worthless technique for anything but trying to win an argument rhetorically; to scare your opponent with a lot of famous unassailable dead people. Since there's no way to -disprove- such comparisons, they don't lead an argument anywhere and just create a lot of bad assumptions and worse feeling.

Further, analogies tend to focus on easy and seductive similarities, while whole scads of differences are ignored. For example, someone comparing this Congress to the '73 Congress to argue for immediate impeachment is talking -nonsense-. There are far too many differences to allow a meaningful comparison. The crime in Nixon's case was under ongoing police investigation, Nixon's administration was totally on the rails with many members having resigned or having been imprisoned/removed, there was a larger Democratic majority, many GOP senators would vote to convict, etc., etc. But people don't mention these things. They just bring up the similarities. And in the absence of those significant differences, those similarities can seem persuasive: both GOP presidents have committed felonies, we have a Democratic majority in Congress. But going beyond that to consider all the major differences, it's clear that such a comparison can't be effective.

I won't say fuck off and die to the people who are in love with those tactics, but if they did, would a proper tribute be for me to claim they'd agree with me on this?

[DS1]

1. Can someone tell me what I missed?

re: Rosie Parks and MLK?

[mzmolly]

Here ya be

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1415819&mesg_id=1415819

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Conyers met with the protesters yesterday.

Blew smoke up their asses, came up with a bunch of crap about why he's not impeaching, cited MLK. Ray McGovern, offended at the treatment, wrote a scathing attack on Conyers, saying he was no MLK.

Not sure about Rosa Parks, aside from the obvious similarities between her and Sheehan. Rosa Parks used to work in John Conyers office. It seems he used to give jobs to people like that, instead of having them arrested.

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

10. Oh did Cindy apply for a job with the good Congressmen ?

Huh, learn something new every day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. No, Conyers applied for the job.

We gave it to him, but it looks like he may have been exaggerating on his application.

[mzmolly]

17. He has been doing an excellent job for decades.

I don't know that his "application" is an issue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. It's more the job performance that's the issue.

[mzmolly]

24. Indeed, and his constituents are pleased with that performance, thus his LONG

career in the Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers

Conyers served in the Michigan National Guard 1948–50; US Army 1950–54; and the US Army Reserves 1954–57. Conyers served for a year in Korea as an officer in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and was awarded combat and merit citations.<1>.

Conyers grew up in Detroit, and received both his B.A. and his J.D. from Wayne State University. He served as an assistant to Congressman John Dingell prior to his election to Congress. He has been reelected 20 times, never facing serious opposition. He is the second-longest serving current member of the House, as well as the second-longest serving member of either house of Congress in Michigan's history. Only Dingell outranks him on both lists. He is the last surviving member of the Democrats' large freshman class of 1964.

Conyers is one of the 13 founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and is considered the Dean of that group. Formed in 1969, the CBC was founded to strengthen African-American lawmakers' ability to address the legislative concerns of Black and minority citizens. He has served longer in Congress than any other African-American. In 1971, he was one of the original members of Nixon's Enemies List.

According to the National Journal, Conyers has been considered, with Pete Stark, to be one of the most liberal members of Congress for many years. Civil rights icon Rosa Parks served on Conyers' staff between 1965 and 1988.

[Yukari Yakumo]

34. Who is "we"?

You live in Oregon. He hails from Michigan. So who is "we"?

[mzmolly]

2. Recommended on behalf of Ghandi,

who would SURELY agree with your statements above. :P

:hi:

[WinkyDink]

3. Same for Michael Moore and Jesus and Healthcare?

[mzmolly]

9. It's common to quote the Bible and Jesus using his own words.

But to say Jesus would not agree with X on Y is another matter.

[WinkyDink]

36. I think I'm aware of what is common. Moore implied Jesus would not say, "Okay,

all those from Galilee, over there."

Yes, "not saying" isn't the same thing as "saying", but I think my point is valid, to wit: THIS IS HOW PEOPLE SPEAK.

"If my grandfather were here, he'd say,...."

"Abe Lincoln is spinning in his grave over this."

ETC.

[mzmolly]

44. People do "quote" others in the context of making a case,

however, as many have said, it is beyond distasteful to quote the personal friends of John Conyers in an effort to smear him.

Would someone quote your grandfather in an effort to chasten you?

[Solly Mack]

4. Jesus will be relieved to know this

[bryant69]

5. I totally agree with this. And I think James Madison would agree with me

that such actions are reprehensible.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

6. You should inform Mr. Conyers as it seems, unless I am mistaken

the he initiated this particular rhetorical exchange.
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/072407a.html

[jpgray]

11. Did Conyers claim MLK was on his side?

I don't see that in the article.

[EFerrari]

26. I suppose you'd have to ask Ray. But it looks like

that comment started this foodfight.

[jpgray]

30. I'd have to know the specifics. "Referred to" covers a lot of ground

But yeah, if Conyers made a claim as to "what would MLK do?" he was engaging in the same troublesome behavior. I really don't like the idea of setting up unassailable dead all around your argument.

[EFerrari]

31. People that have worked closely with each other are having

a painful and a political falling out.

I hope people can calm down a little.

[jpgray]

50. Yep. Being calm is usually good. :-D

[Yukari Yakumo]

35. Funny you bring that up

I really don't like the idea of setting up unassailable dead all around your argument.

Doesn't Cindy's sheeple play that game all the time?

[EFerrari]

41. I'm not following. Could you provide some examples so I

can understand what you mean?

[MilesColtrane]

63. I really don't like the idea of setting up unassailable dead all around your argument.

"Bring out your dead!"

[mondo joe]

7. Mark Twain would say "Fuck yeah".

That is all.

[meegbear]

19. But Edward VI would be rolling in his grave

[mondo joe]

27. Elizabeth I would tell him "Ball up little brother!"

[WinkyDink]

38. A two-fer! The dead speaking to one who is not only dead but who would have BEEN dead!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Martin Luther King Jr. would disagree with you.

"Was not Jesus an extremist for love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- "Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice--or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment."

[jpgray]

13. It's a valid rhetorical tactic. However, it's very likely to lead you astray

Such as saying the current Democratic Party is "the party of slavery," for example. Would MLK agree with that? OMG, no!

So do I win? :P

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I think he probably would have.

It's historically accurate. Certainly MLK pissed off an awful lot of democrats in his day.

[jpgray]

18. By that logic, the GOP is the party of civil rights.

And that shows beautifully how this technique leads rapidly to error.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. No, the democrats are the party of civil rights.

They were also major opponents of civil rights, but hey...

[jpgray]

23. Some posters would do well to consider that not all their opinions are completely valid

:D

Some self-doubt and self-criticism would do every DUer good (especially me); in this case it would since the views you've posted are contradictory. How can the Democrats be both the party of slavery and the party of civil rights? They were one, they became the other, now they are something else. Contexts and societies change, and these seductive historical comparisons/fudgings make more smart people look ridiculous than anything else I've seen on these boards.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Parties change.

And the sooner the better.

"these seductive historical comparisons/fudgings make more smart people look ridiculous than anything else I've seen on these boards."

Hmm. So does being purposefully obtuse.

[jpgray]

29. I submit you agree with Sheehan's comparisons because you agree with her argument

And that you would find fault with a similar comparison making an argument you -disagree- with. If you say "no way, my system of beliefs is valid beyond any doubt" then there is no point in being on a discussion forum, is there? Or is your goal simply to educate us deluded souls who don't agree with you in every aspect? :D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Pretty much.

I agree with Cindy that the democratic party has been wrong in the past, and the leadership is in serious danger of being on the wrong side now.

Don't you?

[jpgray]

40. Ah but she didn't say the Democratic Party -was- the party of slavery

If we're not dealing with what she actually said but the most favorable interpretations of what she said, then yeah, they become more defensible. I'm not saying I'm above this sort of behavior--due to my own biases I engage in the same crap all the time.

[Yukari Yakumo]

37. The key piece is the tense Cindy uses

She used "are", which is present tense, and not "was", which is past tense.

What she is clearly trying to do is to instigate racial tension within the party.

[jpgray]

42. I'm not going to pretend I know what her motives are

But like any good activist she is able to keep her arguments in the public eye.

[mondo joe]

28. Quoting someone isn't the same as imagining up quotes they never said.

[WinkyDink]

39. Too bad for that entire literary genre known as "historical fiction," is it not?

[mondo joe]

54. But no one is saying this is historic fiction.

It is fiction at least.

[WinkyDink]

57. It's a way to make a point, is all. Jeepers. I guess we're all going to be strict historians here,

now. Quotes-only allowed.

[xultar]

16. Thank you. GREAT POST!

[TahitiNut]

21. Nowhere is that kind of faulty 'reasoning' more evident than in the "illegal aliens" debate.

... when the brain-dead make comparisons to the acts of Global Monarchies in "immigrating" to the New World because the indigenous people didn't have Title to those lands and some kind of immigration laws.

Some of the most idiotic propagandizing I've ever seen ... and on DU, no less.

[jpgray]

51. Goes to show that it's easy to be sucked in by these comparisons if you agree with their argument

[buddhamama]

33. you should enter politics

and be the first politician to never ever use this tactic in an argument.

[jpgray]

43. I would be the first -person- ever not to use it

People can't help but use analogy to try to simplify complex situations, but that doesn't mean it's always a great system for figuring stuff out--it can lead you pretty far from reality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. The famous (and universally revered) Lumberjack once said

"those who won't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Whenever I open my pie hole, the output is not universally profound.

My philosophy is shaped by the smart people who came before, and it robs what I say of it's context to ignore that.

Meh. I'm sure that Aristotle would think that I'm full of shit.

[jpgray]

48. I'm just asking people to avoid taking those smart people out of their context

It's fine to learn from them as long as you recognize the differences between our respective times and societies.

[MilesColtrane]

64. "those who won't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

No, man. That was that gnarly, guitar playing dude....Santana. :-)

When trying to make a rhetorical point, I always try to work in WWHD? i.e. What Would Hendrix Do?

[Usrename]

46. Yeah, it sucks when people do stuff that makes you have to think.

It's hard work!

[jpgray]

47. Actually, oversimplified comparisons are a barrier to thought

If you just look at the similarities between two situations while ignoring the significant differences, you wind up understanding neither very well.

[mondo joe]

55. Bolstering a weak argument by putting words in the mouth of the dead

doesn't make anyone have to think.

A well reasoned argument does that. But if you have a well reasoned argument you don't have to much it up by piling it on the reputation of the deceased.

[jpgray]

56. That's my point of view. While a valid rhetorical tactic, it rarely is accurate or insightful

[WinkyDink]

58. Then the other person can argue that point.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Your last sentence reminds me of what the great philosopher; Uncle Joe once said.

"We're all going to fuck off and die, so in the mean time cheer up and remember your myths.":) circa July 2007 AD.

[GeorgeGist]

52. History has shown time and again ...

that chickenshitters create obstacles that protect them from doing what they should.

What is Past is Prologue - Wm. Shakespeare.

[jpgray]

53. Learning from the past is great. Mischaracterizing the past to win an argument isn't so great

[Sparkly]

59. I think invoking MLK Jr to insult John Conyers is really low.

I'm not sure it's an absolute -- there might be legitimate statements that involve people who've passed. But dragging MLK Jr and Rosa Parks into the arguments against Conyers cheapens the debate and their legacies, as well.

[EFerrari]

60. Mr. Conyers seems to have invoked MLK first.

This whole aspect of the disagreement is unfortunate.

[Sparkly]

61. Not to trash anyone else, from what I can tell.

[EFerrari]

66. Probably not. It looked from here that

Mr. Conyers was trying to calm the situation down and like that didn't work out. But, I wasn't there.

[bread_and_roses]

62. "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." * William Faulkner

*From memory, so I hope the quotation marks are warranted. I would leave them out, but wouldnt' want to be thought to be trying to take credit for Faulkner's words.

[symbolman]

65. Thanks

A Voice of Reason, and very much needed as well.

I've got the feeling that there's a lot of "Crazy Pills" floating around out there right now.

As for famous dead people, did you know that Elvis Spoke in CODE?

For instance, "Uh Huh huh Uh Huh Uh Huh huh hun Uh Huh" meant, "Cut him a Check, Red.."

A lot of people don't know that, but now they know :)

Seriously, thanks. I've lost respect for a WHOLE lot of groups, and it Ain't Conyers I'm talking about - love that man, he's gracious and committed, and doesn't let raw emotion color his speech.

He got me into his Downing Street Minutes Hearing, there in the basement of the Congress - after I'd literally chased him down the underground hall. Once I'd convinced him I was there to record ALL of the hearing for the "blogosphere", and not stab him in the back, like the rest of the corporate media there, he had his aide escort me to the hearing.

She told the Pelosi Aide, who wouldn't let me in, "Congressman Conyers says to let this man in so he can film the Hearing, that it's not only a good Idea, but it's THE LAW.."

I've never held in a chuckle so hard in my whole life.

The man's a saint, and the Votes are NOT THERE.

And Next Week, Cindy Sheehan and her band of Merry Pranksters is going to Levitate the Pentagon.

Or was that Abbie Hoffman? :)