BLOG, or DIE. A historian's journey through the Revolution

Visit the official Richard Kirkland documentary website and blog

Friday, 2 October 2009

Agreeing to disagree

Lately I have noticed that there are a lot of debates going on, some heated at times, all across the CW blogoshpere. The topics igniting these exchanges range from historical interpretation, to political perspectives and blogging etiquette. What I find so interesting is that neither side ever changes the other's opinion. There is both a passion and stubbornness to the process and I find it both educational and entertaining.

The reason I feel inclined to comment on this today is that beyond the blogosphere, America as a whole seems to be fully engaged in this type of behavior. The divide in our nation, whether political, cultural, racial, spiritual, economical or any other "al" is clearly on the rise. The recent elections and cut-throat partisanship that is going on in the government, coupled with biased media coverage has seemingly enraged citizens everywhere. Everyone has an opinion, or an argument to voice and cynicism is en vogue. In a way, the very freedom to fight with one another is what America is all about, yet at the same time the idea of a "united" states speaks to a sense of unity.

We all have the right to disagree, but I often wonder how far a society will fan the flames of dissent before any kind of compromise or agreement can be reached. It begs the question will the government ever be able to cross party lines and work together? Or will liberals and conservatives ever agree on anything? From the days of the Continental Congress to the syndication of the Glenn Beck show, America has always fought hard for its beliefs, especially at the podium.

It is, in essence, what we Americans do best, and the fact that we come from a lineage of instigators who stood up whether it be for independence, or secession, or civil rights, proves that the act of debate is one of the most precious freedoms that we possess. There was a time in our nation's not-so-distant history that men who came from the same land stood across from one another on a battlefield and killed each other. Be thankful that today, we can fire as many volleys as we want at each other across cyberspace because we live in a free society that encourages debate.

Posted by ny5/pinstripepress at 11:33 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 2 October 2009 11:45 AM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (3) | Permalink | Share This Post

Comments Page

Friday, 2 October 2009 - 12:11 PM EDT

Name: "Richard Williams"
Home Page: http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/

Excellent commentary and observations Michael! I agree. Come on in, the water's fine.

;o)

Best,

Richard

Reply to this Comment

Saturday, 3 October 2009 - 8:27 AM EDT

Name: "Craig"
Home Page: http://markerhunter.wordpress.com/

What concerns me is how different people spin "agree to disagree" (ATD as I truncate it).

The definition of ATD is that two parties recognize their differences and agree to continue a dialog in the spirit of enlightenment of both sides, without any vitriol, hate, or recriminations. In other words, the two sides will willingly and respectfully maintain a discussion of the topic, but both sides recognize neither will ultimately "convince" the other.

But some interpret that as "we will stop discussing it." Well then I say stop discussing it, and stick to it. Don't chain another half dozen comments or posts on the subject. And lock down the comment thread in question. Instead, in many cases, those using ATD in this regard are simply parrying one discussion in order to continue the discussion under a cloak of immunity from cross-examination. "We agreed to disagree, so why are YOU bringing this back up?"

In short, it is a mark of one who lacks the skills, information, or ability to carry forth the debate in a meaningful and respectful manner. Sort of a false flag. The same person is also apt to use insulting dialog in the second person form in the framework of the response. Again, poor debate format.

Personally, I *want* someone to challenge my beliefs. I *want* someone to push me to explain a stance I make. That's what makes me strengthen a position, or revise it where needed, OR abandon something that turns out to be false! We stop learning when we stop accepting criticism.

Reply to this Comment

Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 10:32 PM EDT

Name: "Mannie Gentile"
Home Page: http://volunteersinparks.blogspot.com

Michael,

Though not of a political or ideological nature, here is an instance of me changing my strongly-held (though ill-informed) opinion.

For years I subscribed to the Steven Sears, James Murfin, Joesph Glatthaar interpretation of George B. McClellan. Its an interpretation that is two-dimensional, cartoonish, easy to understand, and easy to market.

It wasn't until I came to Antietam and started studying the battle in earnest that I started to view all of the principals involved as three- dimensional individuals, with strengths and weaknesses just like my own. To me, the men became more interesting and complex, the story became more compelling, and I became a little more humble.

«	October 2009					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31