How does real/subjective truth affects the way people interprit Dominican history?

[margaret]

Originally Posted by NALs

I think peoples perception of truth (vs. what is actually true) can be altered, especially if you target their subconscious mind.

Such mindset can be influenced through constant repetition, constant bombardment of a particular mantra, agenda, or the sort whether its visual, hearing, or emotional or all three.

Thus, I wanted to know what people think of such assumption, that subjective truth can be influenced and changed over the long time and how does that changes the way people interprit history.

Of all the major institutions humanity has created, the one that exploits influencing the subconscious mind has been religion.

-NALs

I find this topic very interesting NALs. I’m not sure if I understand your question correctly. So feel free to elaborate on it. In my opinion, history is nothing more than a narrative that is constructed by an author who is positioned in a particular social context. This history is constructed and communicated through text, rhetoric, propaganda, and public relations and reinforced with rituals. (Voting could be a ritual that is related to political identity as democrats.) The mass media is one channel of delivery to the receiver of the message and I suppose it troubles academic historians because the relationship of author/text/reader is changed with the mass media. The receiver is also socially situated and reads it with filters and bias. Sometimes we only read the history (or narrative) to reaffirm our existing beliefs and keep the meanings that we cherish. These meanings give us identity. The historical messages can be shaped with logic, emotion, and visceral, physical and even spiritual or intuitive argumentation. Yes, I believe it can persuade people and influence their beliefs. It’s a powerful means of creating mythic narratives that give cohesion to a society. Histories build political identity. I think when it’s mass-mediated it can have a very powerful effect similar to advertising. Mass-mediated history can create brand identity for a nation. If there is a great deal of discussion about Dominican history in the mass-media, I would guess that it could be due to a crisis in Dominican political identity. It might be related to the existence of two nations on the island (DR and Haiti), some reaction to external threats to resolve the crisis, and the need to consolidate democracy in the Dominican Republic. I don’t know, but it’s an interesting subject for debate. I'm here to learn.

[macocael]

Originally Posted by NALs

The fact that you focused into the actual examples and not into the underlying purpose of each shows me that you did not got my point.

Re-read it, take it how it was meant to be taken, and answer the question, but (as with everything) only if you want to.

-NALs

NALs, the rules of argumentation and analysis are such that the examples you give in order to clarify a point are fair game for critique if they should prove to be faulty for some logical reason. Yours were faulty and because you based your argument on a faulty distinction, the rest of the argument as well was hobbled. How am I or anyone supposed to know what you mean by the terms "subjective" or "real" if you yourself cannot define them adequately? What good is your underlying purpose if you cannot define it meaningfully? And if you read my response adequately, you would see that I took it upon myself to rephrase your meaning in a more logical manner and present an answer based on that clear definition. If you do not like the definition, present me with a better one and then draw your conclusions accordingly, and using the laws of logic I will analyze the premises and the conclusions and see if they totty up. You did not present an objection to the substance of my argument, so I assume that you cannot.

You are confusing the issue by introducing a distinction between "real" truth and "subjective" truth, since they are based on different types of phenomenon, and by creating the distinction you are implying a comparison between them which is not even relevant to your argument. You simply want to discuss the ways in which truths of the "subjective" type can be manipulated and why that might be so. Fair enough, but we dont need the initial distinction in order to clarify your basic theme. Just go ahead and introduce your thesis: How and why are people or specific institutions manipulating domincan history for specific ideological ends? simple.

Sorry, I realize now that the problem stems from a lack of basic skills in argumentation that one begins to learn in English Comp 101. And I dont say that disparagingly or sarcastically; I was an English prof, so I am fully aware that these are the kinds of things that crop up all the time when people launch an argument but dont have the basic training to know how to do so concisely and clearly. It is a failure of our schools which neglect to teach such skills early on. But you see how the proper formulation of a thesis is crucial to avoid misunderstandings and to launch a profitable argument or inquiry.

[NALs]

Originally Posted by margaret

I find this topic very interesting NALs. I’m not sure if I understand your question correctly. So feel free to elaborate on it. In my opinion, history is nothing more than a narrative that is constructed by an author who is positioned in a particular social context. This history is constructed and communicated through text, rhetoric, propaganda, and public relations and reinforced with rituals. (Voting could be a ritual that is related to political identity as democrats.) The mass media is one channel of delivery to the receiver of the message and I suppose it troubles academic historians because the relationship of author/text/reader is changed with the mass media. The receiver is also socially situated and reads it with filters and bias. Sometimes we only read the history (or narrative) to reaffirm our existing beliefs and keep the meanings that we cherish. These meanings give us identity. The historical messages can be shaped with logic, emotion, and visceral, physical and even spiritual or intuitive argumentation. Yes, I believe it can persuade people and influence their beliefs. It’s a powerful means of creating mythic narratives that give cohesion to a society. Histories build political identity. I think when it’s mass-mediated it can have a very powerful effect similar to advertising. Mass-mediated history can create brand identity for a nation. If there is a great deal of discussion about Dominican history in the mass-media, I would guess that it could be due to a crisis in Dominican political identity. It might be related to the existence of two nations on the island (DR and Haiti), some reaction to external threats to resolve the crisis, and the need to consolidate democracy in the Dominican Republic. I don’t know, but it’s an interesting subject for debate. I'm here to learn.

Thanks Margaret.

That's precisely the type of response I was looking for.

Very interesting and informative.
------------------------------------------------------------

And Maco, what can I say?

Others read something and respond as expected while others take it upon themselves to become formal on what is essentially an informal medium.

-NALs

[Richard Edwards]

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
Buddha