5 ms·

Great book, but George Orwell is absolutely not impartial. While yeah, he did almost get purged, he still fought quite a bit. If nothing else, his glowing prais

Great book, but George Orwell is absolutely not impartial. While yeah, he did almost get purged, he still fought quite a bit. If nothing else, his glowing praise of the Republican Militias is, despite his couching, incredibly biased.

coldtea 8y ago
>his glowing praise of the Republican Militias is, despite his couching, incredibly biased As opposed to what, lauding Franco?
- cies 8y ago
  Yups. A real impartial read would just describe the events without favoring any party. A bit like those Nazi documentaries that repeat on Discovery Channel at night in my region. They describe the horrors without any value judgment.
  - aninhumer 8y ago
    There is no such thing as a "real impartial read". Any communication of information will inevitably be limited, and the way that limitation manifests will be influenced by the subjectivity of the person communicating. The documentaries may present the facts they choose to include in a more dispassionate style than other sources, but this should not be confused with objectivity.
    - cies 8y ago
      Sure. But still we talk about impartiality in news. Just give the facts, do not give value judgment (in sharp contrast to Orwell's book). I never said it is 100% objective, they just clearly avoid siding with any party in those documentaries.
      - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
        Right, but the criteria used to choose the facts, what the facts are, and how and by who they are to be communicated, are not value-neutral choices.
      - miragle 8y ago
        You are a dangerous moron
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    He did simply described what he saw and experienced. And he liked the spirit in the militia and so he wrote about it. And since he did not join the fascists, he could not and did not wrote, how the experience was for them. Not more. And all the ugly things he saw, stealing, dirt, unprofessionalism, etc. he states very clearly.
- pfortuny 8y ago
  No: as opposed to just being clear, not supportive of any party.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Well, if one party is fascists, one can be a little dismissive, and still be perfectly objective. Objectiveness is not treating each party equally -- it's calling a spade a spade!
- golergka 8y ago
  The fact that you oppose something bad doesn't automatically make you good. For example, despite fighting a war against Nazi Germany, USSR still was an undoubtedly evil tyrannical regime.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >USSR still was an undoubtedly evil tyrannical regime. Well, not much more than what western empires have been for their colonial subjects (who, in addition to slavery, forced labor, mass killings, political rule, torture and so on, they also considered inferior beings). So there's that. Of course another being wrong doesn't make one right -- but at least helps put things in perspective and reduce one-sided smugness. The difference is that the USSR did so upon its own subjects (which is probably better for the rest of world -- if you weren't their subject). USSR had a dictatorship of upper echelons of the party, which degenerated into full scale war against large parts of its own population (including ...the upper echelons of the party). But there are some subtleties too: it's not like people weren't supportive of the regime, especially early on. (Of course Germans were also supportive of the Nazi regime, so there's that). So, in a sense, they got what they wanted -- it just happened to turn to tyranny. That said, they also had many positive changes from the tsarism on its early days. And they also become a less tyrannical state after Stalin.
georgeecollins 8y ago
He says that they were crucial in the early part of the war and is pretty clear about why they lacked effectiveness for organizational reasons. If he is biased, he is biased for because he shares a lot of their values.
MarkMc 8y ago
If true, it would be very ironic given that in 'Looking Back on the Spanish War’ Orwell wrote: ‘But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on the grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.’

coldtea 8y ago

>his glowing praise of the Republican Militias is, despite his couching, incredibly biased As opposed to what, lauding Franco?

cies 8y ago
Yups. A real impartial read would just describe the events without favoring any party. A bit like those Nazi documentaries that repeat on Discovery Channel at night in my region. They describe the horrors without any value judgment.
- aninhumer 8y ago
  There is no such thing as a "real impartial read". Any communication of information will inevitably be limited, and the way that limitation manifests will be influenced by the subjectivity of the person communicating. The documentaries may present the facts they choose to include in a more dispassionate style than other sources, but this should not be confused with objectivity.
  - cies 8y ago
    Sure. But still we talk about impartiality in news. Just give the facts, do not give value judgment (in sharp contrast to Orwell's book). I never said it is 100% objective, they just clearly avoid siding with any party in those documentaries.
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      Right, but the criteria used to choose the facts, what the facts are, and how and by who they are to be communicated, are not value-neutral choices.
    - miragle 8y ago
      You are a dangerous moron
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  He did simply described what he saw and experienced. And he liked the spirit in the militia and so he wrote about it. And since he did not join the fascists, he could not and did not wrote, how the experience was for them. Not more. And all the ugly things he saw, stealing, dirt, unprofessionalism, etc. he states very clearly.
pfortuny 8y ago
No: as opposed to just being clear, not supportive of any party.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, if one party is fascists, one can be a little dismissive, and still be perfectly objective. Objectiveness is not treating each party equally -- it's calling a spade a spade!
golergka 8y ago
The fact that you oppose something bad doesn't automatically make you good. For example, despite fighting a war against Nazi Germany, USSR still was an undoubtedly evil tyrannical regime.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >USSR still was an undoubtedly evil tyrannical regime. Well, not much more than what western empires have been for their colonial subjects (who, in addition to slavery, forced labor, mass killings, political rule, torture and so on, they also considered inferior beings). So there's that. Of course another being wrong doesn't make one right -- but at least helps put things in perspective and reduce one-sided smugness. The difference is that the USSR did so upon its own subjects (which is probably better for the rest of world -- if you weren't their subject). USSR had a dictatorship of upper echelons of the party, which degenerated into full scale war against large parts of its own population (including ...the upper echelons of the party). But there are some subtleties too: it's not like people weren't supportive of the regime, especially early on. (Of course Germans were also supportive of the Nazi regime, so there's that). So, in a sense, they got what they wanted -- it just happened to turn to tyranny. That said, they also had many positive changes from the tsarism on its early days. And they also become a less tyrannical state after Stalin.

georgeecollins 8y ago

He says that they were crucial in the early part of the war and is pretty clear about why they lacked effectiveness for organizational reasons. If he is biased, he is biased for because he shares a lot of their values.

MarkMc 8y ago

If true, it would be very ironic given that in 'Looking Back on the Spanish War’ Orwell wrote: ‘But what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on the grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.’