From response to “On Bullshit” on September 1st
When I read “On Bullshit” I really appreciated how he formed his opinion and definition by examining the definitions of many other people. I agree with what he had to say about it and I enjoyed his way of writing about it because it was simple and easy to understand, it was straight to the point for the most part and I appreciated his ability to say only what was necessary to get his point across except for being redundant in a few places. One thing I wrote down and paid special attention to was when he said bullshit is “indifference to how things really are” and this connects to some of the past materials from this course. One thing that really comes to mind is the debate because Baldwin called people out for not noticing the inequality and for choosing to look past the things happening in the world, being indifferent, which is bullshit by this definition. One topic I am considering for my final paper is the way American historians choose to focus on the American perspective rather than including other perspectives especially those of people involved in the events. The idea of bullshit being indifference or knowing other things are out there and choosing to ignore them seems very applicable to this idea. Historians know other perspectives are available, but they do not show them, they give their bullshit, false understanding of situations and pretend like they know everything when really, other perspectives would be much more accurate. I think history would be less bullshit and more accurate, thorough, and comprehensive with not only Americanized perspective but other perspectives that should not be ignored because they come from a different group of people deemed less valid.