4 ms·

Well the depiction of the conditions within meat packing plants in The Jungle were pretty historically accurate. It's certainly worth researching the impact it

by Klinky 4y ago

Well the depiction of the conditions within meat packing plants in The Jungle were pretty historically accurate. It's certainly worth researching the impact it had. Comparatively & to your point, something like Atlas Shrugged is pretty much pure fantasy. So sure novels may not be the most concise vehicles for historical fact, but it really depends on the aims of the author.

WalterBright 4y ago
> were pretty historically accurate. I've yet to find any historian's account that verifies any of it. > Atlas Shrugged I've never read it, and never refer to it. > it really depends on the aims of the author Sinclair beats one over the head with his agenda. Do you think that might color his version of the "truth"?
- defrost 4y ago
  Historians account? Surely the contemporous Neill-Reynolds report of 1906, commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt, confirmed Uptons depictions and resulted in the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. But hey, I'm just an Australian and you clearly know better.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Here you go: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101843502.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101... If you want to cite the report, that's great. Citing a novel with no references, nope. People can be educated just fine using facts instead of novels. Rarely noted is TR commissioned two reports, because he didn't like the first one. The NR report was the second. I've never been able to find what the first one said.
    - niea_11 4y ago
      >Rarely noted is TR commissioned two reports Do you have the names of the authors of the first one? A lazy google search didn't mention the commission of two reports
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        No, I don't. I couldn't find any information on it other than he'd commissioned it and didn't like the result.
        Klinky 4y ago
        Can you then cite where you read he commissioned it and didn't like the result?
        WalterBright 4y ago
        "Intrigued by Garfield's reaction, Roosevelt finished reading the novel and invited the author to the White House during the first week in April. Although he proceeded to disparage the socialist diatribe tacked on to the conclusion, Roosevelt assured Sinclair that "all this has nothing to do with the fact that the specific evils you point out shall, if their existence be proved, and if I have power, be eradicated." By the time Sinclair arrived for lunch on April 4, a Department of Agriculture investigator was en route to the stockyards with an order from the White House to evaluate the novelist's charges. Sending a representative of the very agency that had failed properly to inspect the plants, Sinclair objected, "was like asking a burglar to determine his own guilt." His objections prompted Roosevelt to dispatch two additional investigators with no official ties to the department. He chose two well-respected men: Commissioner of Labor Charles P. Neill and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury James Bronson Reynolds." --- "The Bully Pulpit" pg 461 by Kearns
        Klinky 4y ago
        I appreciate you citing the source, but that doesn't seem to back up the statement "he commissioned it and didn't like the result". He commissioned it, was advised of a potential conflict of interest, and dispatched a different set of investigators.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Not liking the result because of a conflict of interest is still not liking it.
    - flandish 4y ago
      > instead of novels You maybe. Parable and story has been used in humanity’s entire history because humans listen and grok better that way. Story is just .. human. It touches hearts in a way scientific report won’t.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      That's ridiculous. Works of fiction can and do carry messages or reflection. Threads (the film) is a more impactful depiction of nuclear war than any dry report can ever hope to convey. In fact, this very book proves that! It touched public opinion in a way that obscure and dense reports did not. That's just how people work. Heck, are you a Christian? You might be familiar with a certain 1st-century apocalyptic preacher who liked to speak in parables...
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        The actual report: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101843502.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101... is a short and easy read. > are you a Christian? I find it ironic that you compare the Bible to "The Jungle". Socialists regard TJ as their sacred text. I know some who have read it so many times they have it practically memorized. The scale of the umbrage when I disrespect it betrays the tale. But to answer your question, I am not a Christian. I do not cite the Bible as fact, although parts of it have been verified by archaeology. You are free to learn history from movies and novels. But how are you going to know what parts are true, and what parts are propaganda? Do you really want to base your worldview on fiction?
- eevilspock 4y ago
  They also say history is written by the victors. Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. Historians are humans who, try as they might to be "objective", are ultimately still very very subjective. You can read the past spun in entirely different ways depending upon which historian you read. Historians can write fiction by what truths they cherry pick, or by interpretation that is presented as fact. Fiction writers can write deep truths about the human experience through a made up story. They can transport you out of your shoes into another's. Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” It is also difficult to get a person to understand something when their self-image, their identity and the world view they identify with depend on their not understanding it. Is it possible that you are anti-Sinclair, that you feel he is "beat[ing you] over the head with his agenda" because you just don't like it, because it threatens your version of the truth.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. This is certainly true, which is why professional historians cite their sources, preferably original sources (not the opinions of other historians). > Fiction writers can write deep truths Yes, they can. How can you tell if they're writing the truth, though? You're right, I don't like Sinclair's obvious and heavy-handed socialist agenda. But do you ever see me citing fictional works that promote freedom? > it threatens your version of the truth My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either.
    - eevilspock 4y ago
      You just revealed your very biased agenda: > My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either. Here you fail not only in fact, but also in logic: Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom begs the question. Who's the one being "heavy-handed"? You've clearly got your finger on the scales as you weigh your "truths". We've never had real socialism; we've had totalitarianism that tries to look nice by pretending to be socialism. We've also seen what happens under capitalism: slavery, exploitation, a different kind of caste system, a rape of the environment, and an every soulless materialistic and selfist culture. Also, these days everyone says, "Look at all that capitalism as given us!" That's just another self-serving assumption, not fact. Why does capitalism get the credit, when the real causes were science and The Enlightenment, democracy and democratic rule of law (relatively speaking, as I think we are far from a true democracy), the evolution of human rights, and more... but I gotta get back to work. You're welcome to have the last word as I think I have said plenty.

by Klinky 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

> were pretty historically accurate. I've yet to find any historian's account that verifies any of it. > Atlas Shrugged I've never read it, and never refer to it. > it really depends on the aims of the author Sinclair beats one over the head with his agenda. Do you think that might color his version of the "truth"?

defrost 4y ago
Historians account? Surely the contemporous Neill-Reynolds report of 1906, commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt, confirmed Uptons depictions and resulted in the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. But hey, I'm just an Australian and you clearly know better.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Here you go: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101843502.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101... If you want to cite the report, that's great. Citing a novel with no references, nope. People can be educated just fine using facts instead of novels. Rarely noted is TR commissioned two reports, because he didn't like the first one. The NR report was the second. I've never been able to find what the first one said.
  - niea_11 4y ago
    >Rarely noted is TR commissioned two reports Do you have the names of the authors of the first one? A lazy google search didn't mention the commission of two reports
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      No, I don't. I couldn't find any information on it other than he'd commissioned it and didn't like the result.
      - Klinky 4y ago
        Can you then cite where you read he commissioned it and didn't like the result?
        WalterBright 4y ago
        "Intrigued by Garfield's reaction, Roosevelt finished reading the novel and invited the author to the White House during the first week in April. Although he proceeded to disparage the socialist diatribe tacked on to the conclusion, Roosevelt assured Sinclair that "all this has nothing to do with the fact that the specific evils you point out shall, if their existence be proved, and if I have power, be eradicated." By the time Sinclair arrived for lunch on April 4, a Department of Agriculture investigator was en route to the stockyards with an order from the White House to evaluate the novelist's charges. Sending a representative of the very agency that had failed properly to inspect the plants, Sinclair objected, "was like asking a burglar to determine his own guilt." His objections prompted Roosevelt to dispatch two additional investigators with no official ties to the department. He chose two well-respected men: Commissioner of Labor Charles P. Neill and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury James Bronson Reynolds." --- "The Bully Pulpit" pg 461 by Kearns
        Klinky 4y ago
        I appreciate you citing the source, but that doesn't seem to back up the statement "he commissioned it and didn't like the result". He commissioned it, was advised of a potential conflict of interest, and dispatched a different set of investigators.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Not liking the result because of a conflict of interest is still not liking it.
  - flandish 4y ago
    > instead of novels You maybe. Parable and story has been used in humanity’s entire history because humans listen and grok better that way. Story is just .. human. It touches hearts in a way scientific report won’t.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    That's ridiculous. Works of fiction can and do carry messages or reflection. Threads (the film) is a more impactful depiction of nuclear war than any dry report can ever hope to convey. In fact, this very book proves that! It touched public opinion in a way that obscure and dense reports did not. That's just how people work. Heck, are you a Christian? You might be familiar with a certain 1st-century apocalyptic preacher who liked to speak in parables...
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The actual report: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101843502.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1906/06/05/101... is a short and easy read. > are you a Christian? I find it ironic that you compare the Bible to "The Jungle". Socialists regard TJ as their sacred text. I know some who have read it so many times they have it practically memorized. The scale of the umbrage when I disrespect it betrays the tale. But to answer your question, I am not a Christian. I do not cite the Bible as fact, although parts of it have been verified by archaeology. You are free to learn history from movies and novels. But how are you going to know what parts are true, and what parts are propaganda? Do you really want to base your worldview on fiction?
eevilspock 4y ago
They also say history is written by the victors. Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. Historians are humans who, try as they might to be "objective", are ultimately still very very subjective. You can read the past spun in entirely different ways depending upon which historian you read. Historians can write fiction by what truths they cherry pick, or by interpretation that is presented as fact. Fiction writers can write deep truths about the human experience through a made up story. They can transport you out of your shoes into another's. Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” It is also difficult to get a person to understand something when their self-image, their identity and the world view they identify with depend on their not understanding it. Is it possible that you are anti-Sinclair, that you feel he is "beat[ing you] over the head with his agenda" because you just don't like it, because it threatens your version of the truth.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. This is certainly true, which is why professional historians cite their sources, preferably original sources (not the opinions of other historians). > Fiction writers can write deep truths Yes, they can. How can you tell if they're writing the truth, though? You're right, I don't like Sinclair's obvious and heavy-handed socialist agenda. But do you ever see me citing fictional works that promote freedom? > it threatens your version of the truth My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either.
  - eevilspock 4y ago
    You just revealed your very biased agenda: > My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either. Here you fail not only in fact, but also in logic: Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom begs the question. Who's the one being "heavy-handed"? You've clearly got your finger on the scales as you weigh your "truths". We've never had real socialism; we've had totalitarianism that tries to look nice by pretending to be socialism. We've also seen what happens under capitalism: slavery, exploitation, a different kind of caste system, a rape of the environment, and an every soulless materialistic and selfist culture. Also, these days everyone says, "Look at all that capitalism as given us!" That's just another self-serving assumption, not fact. Why does capitalism get the credit, when the real causes were science and The Enlightenment, democracy and democratic rule of law (relatively speaking, as I think we are far from a true democracy), the evolution of human rights, and more... but I gotta get back to work. You're welcome to have the last word as I think I have said plenty.