Of Note ...

by Cliopatria

Adam Goodheart's"Setting Them Free," New York Times, 7 August, reviews two major recent books examining the limited possibilities of emancipating slaves in antebellum Virginia.

David Blight's"Irreconcilable Differences," Washington Post, 7 August, reviews Ed Ayres's new book, What Caused the Civil War: Reflections on the South and Southern History.

Tony Karon,"Why Iraq Is Not Viet Nam," at Rootless Cosmopolitan, is a tough-minded analysis that gives little comfort either to critics of the war in Iraq or the Bush administration. Thanks to eb at No Great Matter for the tip.

Damien Cave's"Where Are the Heroes?" New York Times, 7 August, argues that warfare has changed since World War II, such that the semi-mobilized society cannot have military heroes. See also: William Marina's"The Best Damn Medal Writer in the U. S. Army?," at Liberty & Power.

Salman Rushdie's"The Right Time for an Islamic Reformation," Washington Post, 7 August, really is a call for modernization, rather than reformation in any traditional sense ...

Because, as Drake Bennett's"Faithful Interpretations: Is There a Catholic Way to Read the Constitution?" Boston Globe, 7 August, suggests, a reformer's emphasis on founding documents as holy writ may be more constricting than a catholic sense that interpretation is a continuing process in which there are plural authorities.

Several of my colleagues, including Chris Bray, Jon Dresner, and Greg Robinson, have been rather consistent, severe and well-informed critics of Michelle Malkin. As David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy points out, some recent criticism of her on the Left is entirely inappropriate. It's embarrassing when people on either the Left or the Right make racist or sexist remarks in criticizing anyone. I'm proud that none of my colleagues has engaged in it. The senior Volokh has some thoughtful suggestions about how to debate people with whom you have ideological disagreements.

Finally, Historiblogography is whole again, now that Sameer Shah has left Beijing, China, to study in Japan for the rest of the summer. Sam was unable to post from Beijing because all blogger sites are blocked in the People's Republic. Fortunately, History News Network is not blocked there. Cliopatria's had about 100 hits from the People's Republic of China. (O. K., so maybe Sam did 75 of them.) But, of the major repressive regimes in the world, North Korea alone appears to have blocked our reach. There and elsewhere, poverty seems to be as great an obstacle as oppressive regimes. We've welcomed readers in Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Uzbekistan.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sharon Howard - 8/9/2005

Isn't Savonarola more comparable to the Taliban than any of the 16th-century reformers? (In terms of political actions rather than writings anyway...)

Jeremy Boggs - 8/9/2005

Yeah, sorry about that. The link should be fixed now, though if you want it to look different just let me know.

The comments aren't formatting too well right now, but that'll be fixed tomorrow.

Ralph E. Luker - 8/8/2005

There's no booting you from the History Blogroll. HNN's still doing fine tuning. Things may appear and disappear occasionally while that is going on. Our link to the History Blogroll and the Symposia will get a more prominent place on the sidebar, but Ascephalous has a pretty secure spot with us, as long as he continues to teach and amuse us.

Scott Eric Kaufman - 8/8/2005

...but I'll hate it if it boots me from the blogroll. I'm selfish, what can I say?

Ralph E. Luker - 8/8/2005

I know. I know. It's really quite disgraceful stuff.

Alan Allport - 8/8/2005

Alan, You're making this difficult for me by labeling my beloved Luther a "fanatic."

Perhaps it is just the occupational hazard of the very conventional and scarcely observant Episcopalian (for I am all of these things as well). But I defy anyone to read the spittle-flecked prose of this or this and not conclude that we are dealing with a fanatic.

Ralph E. Luker - 8/8/2005

Alan, You're making this difficult for me by labeling my beloved Luther a "fanatic." It reminds me of my first department chairman, a very conventional and scarcely observant Episcopalian, who used to dismiss the Puritans as "extremists." I find myself becoming more sympathetic to fanatics and extremists, when that happens. I'm fully aware that Luther (and the Puritans, for that matter) had plenty of warts, but I'm just saying ...

Alan Allport - 8/8/2005

Perhaps the problem is that Rushdie, as an educated layman, vaguely associates the Reformation with the rise of scepticism, state secularism, pluralism, and tolerance, and so assumes that the Reformers must themselves have been sceptics, secularists, pluralists, and tolerant: when of course they were none of these things. The early Protestants were often brave, intelligent, and capable men, but they were also often - let's face it - fanatics. They were the Taliban of the 1520s. And Luther's resemblance to a latterday charismatic, apocalyptic preacher living in secret and corresponding with his flock through clandestine messages is perhaps too uncomfortable to think about.

Manan Ahmed - 8/8/2005

He should stick to writing novels. And leave calls for reformations and renaissances to politicians and believers. The article is filled with the same dogmatic, narrow-minded and ill-informed view of Islamic history that he wants Muslims to wipe out.

For example, "Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st." Um. There were no laws made in 7th century, Mr. Rushdie. But, there were some laws made in the centuries 8th thru 20th. You know, as part of various schools of laws, both civil and religious.

Or, "If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages." Maybe, it is not obvious to Mr. Rushdie that the very basis of Qur'anic exegesis is historical narrative. The problem is that the laws aren't IN the Qur'an. They are in the wide corpus of juristic and legalistic discourse which crystallized in the 9th-11th centuries. Kinda apples and oranges, this demand to see the Qur'an as an historical document. But, I have spilled bile on this before.

Ralph E. Luker - 8/8/2005

That's how I saw it, at least, Alan.

Alan Allport - 8/7/2005

There's something pretty odd about alluding to Luther's Reformation, of all things, in an exhortation to the religious to understand their holy text not as the "infallible, uncreated word of God", but as a historical document ...