Things Noted Here and There

by Cliopatria

Burke Among the Savages: Tim Burke continues his discussion with the anthropologists at Savage Minds about Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. See:"About Yali,""Diamond, Cultural Anthropology, and Postcolonial Theory," and"A Response to Timothy Burke."

Fact Checking Her E-Mail: When Oscar Chamberlain cited Gerda Lerner's e-mail about post-Katrina recovery, it was reproduced on HNN's mainpage. But Tom Bruscino at Big Tent wonders how Lerner could have gotten both the New Deal and the G.I. Bill so wrong -- overstating the achievements of the former and understating the achievements of the latter.

Iraq and Katrina: Manan Ahmed says that we will see more attempts to consider Iraq and Katrina as two causes of stress for contemporary American society. Two early ventures from very different perspectives: Christopher Hitchens,"Iraq and Katrina," Slate, 6 September; and Tom Englehardt,"Iraq in America: At the Front of Nowhere at All," TomDispatch.com, 4 September.

I Report/You Decide: Werther,"Bard of the Booboisie," CounterPunch, 7 September, begins frankly enough:"Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems." Thanks to Political Theory Daily Review for the tip. [ ... ]

Photograph Your Dead: In 19th century America, it was common to photograph bodies of the deceased in their caskets, as a means of remembering them. Now, when the Pentagon has tried to ban photographs of caskets returning from the war in Iraq, so FEMA is banning photographs of the recovery of bodies in the Gulf coast after Katrina. In both cases, the claim is made for respecting the privacy of the deceased and their families. I suspect that it has more to do with hiding ourselves from death."Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's"Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003."Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Thanks to Ashley in comments at Outside Report for the tip.

Finally: Congratulations to Jason Kuznicki, who defended his dissertation successfully at Johns Hopkins. You can call him Dr. Kuznicki now.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jim Williams - 9/12/2005

In the history of land warfare in Greece, Hansen's writings are seminal. By no means does that mean that he is correct on current events, but his prominence piques my curiosity enough that I often read his editorials and essays on contemporary affairs.

David Silbey - 9/9/2005

Dr. Hanson's credibility as a commentator starts with the received credibility he gets as a good historian. Given that, I think that he needs to be, as do all historians, rigorous about his history, whether in his scholarly works or in his commentary.

Would we excuse a scientist who wrote commentary based on sloppy or inaccurate scientific ideas if their "real" scientific writing was accurate?

"amidst yet another HNN debate on Hanson's ability as a historian."

Yet another one, yes.

Marc A. Comtois - 9/9/2005

Barry, I hope its obvious that I agree with your point. Perhaps I am guilty of trying to make too fine a (tangential) point regarding the differences between writing history-informed-commentary and history--and the concomitant level of scrutiny to which each should generally be expected to encounter--amidst yet another HNN debate on Hanson's ability as a historian.

Barry DeCicco - 9/9/2005

Marc, from that article, the charge is not just that Hanson is sloppy, but that he's flat out full of it. Hopefully, that's a condition that historians should strive to avoid, even in non-scholarly writings.

Marc A. Comtois - 9/9/2005

Actually, I explicitly said I wasn't defending Hanson. My point was that there is a difference between "commentary" and "history", but we historians seem to hold each other to a higher standard, which you confirm. Was I inconsistent in my logic? Yes, because I was thinking aloud about why we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. In short, I was offering on the fly commentary and (obviously) not a well-thought out and philosophically consistent piece. Anyway, lesson learned.

David Silbey - 9/9/2005

"seems a case of applying one set of writing rules (ie: "scholarly writing") to a different type of writing ("popular" commentary, if you will). How many of us could withstand regular "fiskings" of said commentary as if they were supposed to be historically sound (ie; cited and researched) pieces?"

Uh, I would hope that most of us could withstand such a scrutiny?

"I realize that Hanson, whether explicitly or implicitly, uses his cache as a historian to lend weight to his prose"

And isn't that the larger point? Historians who use their credibility as historians to weigh in on current debates should be _extra_ careful about getting the history correct, because that, to a large degree, is the critical characteristic they bring to the table.

"if one scrutinizes the on-the-fly commentary of Historian "A, B, and C" close enough, they could be similarly chastised for not being careful enough. (Sorry, I don't offer an concrete examples...chalk it up to sloppy sourcing;)"

Uh, actually, I think that if you want to defend Hanson by saying that many such historians are sloppy with the history, you really need to come up with specific examples. "Isn't Hanson just like other historians" doesn't carry weight if you the "other historians" are hypothetical.

Marc A. Comtois - 9/8/2005

"...Hanson is, in fact, quite a good historian--when he sticks to Greek military history..." I wonder if the same could be said for many of us regarding our ability to present accurate work in our own historical specialty as as opposed to our forays into contemporary commentary. Werther's comment that "Mr. Hanson's philippic, "Remembering World War II: Revisionists Get It Wrong," is an extended and unsourced whine..." seems a case of applying one set of writing rules (ie: "scholarly writing") to a different type of writing ("popular" commentary, if you will). How many of us could withstand regular "fiskings" of said commentary as if they were supposed to be historically sound (ie; cited and researched) pieces?

I realize that Hanson, whether explicitly or implicitly, uses his cache as a historian to lend weight to his prose, and I don't intend to defend Hanson--he can do that himself--so much as to wonder aloud that if one scrutinizes the on-the-fly commentary of Historian "A, B, and C" close enough, they could be similarly chastised for not being careful enough. (Sorry, I don't offer an concrete examples...chalk it up to sloppy sourcing;) Hanson's own writing prolificacy and tendency to rely upon the Pelopennesian War (ha!) does open him up to criticism. But I must admit that yet another HNN mention of someone taking down Hanson is starting to appear a little obsessive! OK, now you can all start calling me a VDH apologist...

David T. Beito - 9/8/2005

This is what I have heard too.....though the article is great fun.

Ralph E. Luker - 9/8/2005

I suspect that Dad, the Graeco-Roman historian, is right about that. It is Hanson's excursions into modernity that are really under attack in Werther's piece. I asked Hanson for help on the most difficult sort of puzzle in Roman history that you can imagine and he pieced it together for me rather miraculously.

Miriam Elizabeth Burstein - 9/8/2005

Amusing invective, but Dad the Emeritus Historian of Graeco-Roman Egypt tells me that Hanson is, in fact, quite a good historian--when he sticks to Greek military history, in any event. Needless to say, one's talents in one area may not translate to another...