Reply #24: I'm not saying the argument is flawed [View All]

[imenja]

I'm saying it's incomplete. If your vision of history is that it is all about individuals, that's the argument to take. History was told that way for a very long time: kings, popes, and presidents were the extent of the story. For the past 40-70 years (depending on whether we consider just the US or the French as well), historians have examined cultural and social forces that create a context in which individuals like a pope or a president rise to leadership. (Howard Zinn is an example of a social historian familiar to many DUers). If I actually had any significant knowledge of the Church in the last 25 years, I might make such an argument, but of course I don't. Now if it came to the Church in 16th-19th Latin America, I'm ready to go.

So I'm not saying that you're wrong, rather that there are different ways of looking at history and society.


Edit: Or course Karl Marx examined social forces in the mid 19th century, far earlier than those refereed to above.