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"?
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.
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.
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...
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 I do not cite the Bible as fact, although parts of it have been verified by archaeology.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?
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.
Do you have the names of the authors of the first one?
A lazy google search didn't mention the commission of two reports
--- "The Bully Pulpit" pg 461 by Kearns
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.
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.
> 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.
I'm very biased towards things that have a proven track record of success.
> Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom
Because it is. Socialism takes away your right to the fruits of your labor. I'm very much biased in favor of human rights, whether you want them or not.
> We've never had real socialism
And we never will, because real socialism will never actually work. Even the Soviets had to allow farmers to farm their own plots of land and keep the results to keep the country from famine.
Free markets, however, have delivered the highest standard of living in the world, and the richest poor people in history.
BTW, the Southern slave economy did very poorly compared to the Northern free one. That's why they wanted to secede.