permission to quote
Hugh Lawson
Just to straighten this out, I give Wm G. Davis permission to quote
out of context the following sentence from a post of mine:
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
He of course has always had the brute-force power to interpret this in
any way he likes, so he needs no permission for this. I've also
decided to forgive him for red-baiting me over a thousand times in his
posts. That's free and clear with no expectation of anything from him.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
William G. Davis
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:87el4xr...@desktop.xx.yy...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Hugh "Red Huey" Lawson
December 18th, 2001
in message: news:slrna1u60q....@localhost.localdomain
Scribe7716
wrote:
>I give Wm G. Davis permission to quote
>out of context the following sentence from a post of mine:
>
>"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
>case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
>chances to get their way."
>
>He of course has always had the brute-force power to interpret this in
>any way he likes....
Since your statement is so in keeping with your overall elitist posture,
there's not a hell of a lot of need for interpretation.
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
I take it back. Martin Luther Huey it is!
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
Hey Scribe, if one is among the elite, is an elitist posture good or
bad? Or natural? Should the elite adopt a submissive posture, maybe
write nonsense once in a while to prove their fallability? Maybe a
missspelled word would do the trick!
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.com> wrote in message
news:gqbs7v00fmk51dui7...@4ax.com...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"When looking for a clue as
to why something goes wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
--Groucho Marx
William G. Davis
Scribe7716
wrote:
>>>I give Wm G. Davis permission to quote
>>>out of context the following sentence from a post of mine:
>>>
>>>"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
>>>case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
>>>chances to get their way."
>>>
>>>He of course has always had the brute-force power to interpret this in
>>>any way he likes....
>>
>>Since your statement is so in keeping with your overall elitist posture,
>>there's not a hell of a lot of need for interpretation.
>>
>Hey Scribe, if one is among the elite, is an elitist posture good or
>bad? Or natural? Should the elite adopt a submissive posture, maybe
>write nonsense once in a while to prove their fallability? Maybe a
>missspelled word would do the trick!
>
If one was among the elite, an elitist posture would be, of course, natural.
But that raises the questions of whether there really is an "elite," and, if
so, just what qualifies one for membership.
Hugh, of course, is self-appointed and self-annointed. Since you now seem to
accept him as qualified to be an habitue of Duffy's Tavern, perhaps you could
tell me what you see as his bona fides for elite status.
Robert Willett
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030324092429...@mb-mk.aol.com...
Generally elites are self appointed and verified by other elites of the same
provenance. It is also general that a good enema will remove the
qualifications of such elites. I think it is clear that these generalities
apply specifically to Hugh.
Chuck Pinnegar
<snip>
>>>Since your statement is so in keeping with your overall elitist posture,
>>>there's not a hell of a lot of need for interpretation.
>>>
>>Hey Scribe, if one is among the elite, is an elitist posture good or
>>bad? Or natural? Should the elite adopt a submissive posture, maybe
>>write nonsense once in a while to prove their fallability? Maybe a
>>missspelled word would do the trick!
>>
>
>If one was among the elite, an elitist posture would be, of course, natural.
>But that raises the questions of whether there really is an "elite," and, if
>so, just what qualifies one for membership.
Of course there is. There are people in society who are just
"naturally better" than others. They stand out without trying. People
like JFK Jr. or Sacha Trudeau, Martin Luther King or Cardinal Leger
simply cannot avoid the "elite" tag. Their actions for the benefit of
others at their own expense separates them from the hoi poloi. You
cannot apply. Elitism is conferred upon you by those who recognize
your essential eliteness.
>Hugh, of course, is self-appointed and self-annointed.
Funny, I must have missed this post unless you're talking about that
post that the Spammer continually posts as "proof" that Hugh is really
"Red Huey." You're not are you? Geez, that would be disappointing! Are
you sure that your animus toward Hugh has a basis other than this
"elite" stuff?
> Since you now seem to
>accept him as qualified to be an habitue of Duffy's Tavern, perhaps you could
>tell me what you see as his bona fides for elite status.
Naughty, naughty Scribe, let me speak my own words. But, how can I
jibe someone who actually knows enough to put Duffy's Tavern and
"eliteness" in one sentence? Ed would congratulate you. I do this type
of thing once in a while and wonder if anyone gets it. Hope so. Now,
with respect to Hugh's elite status. Since I doubt that "eliteness"
can be partitioned into sub-categories I haven't the slightest notion
about whether he is or isn't. I daresay you are in the same pickle.
I'm sure his neighbours, his colleagues or various groups in
Greenville? could help us out. But, for me to classify him seems
rather silly. I do like to read his posts since he has no trouble
putting two words together coherently. But, to me, his best quality is
his ability to sit down and actually think about something and report
his thoughts. I've been on this list for about ten years and I can
tell you that thinking is not an every day quality in our posts. Some
don't like the result but for the life of me I cannot see what the
fuss is about. A few don't like his mental research into the topic
called Other. If so, don't read it. Hugh clearly labels his posts so
there is no surprise. And besides, I like old guys.
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
NOW! STAY OUT!news:etgu7vcsjumnnj92f...@4ax.com...
Ed Frank
> >accept him as qualified to be an habitue of Duffy's Tavern, perhaps you could
> >tell me what you see as his bona fides for elite status.
Chuck Pinnegar:
> Naughty, naughty Scribe, let me speak my own words. But, how can I
> jibe someone who actually knows enough to put Duffy's Tavern and
> "eliteness" in one sentence? Ed would congratulate you.
If you're talking about -this- Ed, I would congratulate
Scribe only for taking the "Straining at Gnats and
Swallowing Camels" Prize.
>I do this type
> of thing once in a while and wonder if anyone gets it. Hope so. Now,
> with respect to Hugh's elite status. Since I doubt that "eliteness"
> can be partitioned into sub-categories I haven't the slightest notion
> about whether he is or isn't. I daresay you are in the same pickle.
> I'm sure his neighbours, his colleagues or various groups in
> Greenville? could help us out. But, for me to classify him seems
> rather silly. I do like to read his posts since he has no trouble
> putting two words together coherently. But, to me, his best quality is
> his ability to sit down and actually think about something and report
> his thoughts. I've been on this list for about ten years and I can
> tell you that thinking is not an every day quality in our posts. Some
> don't like the result but for the life of me I cannot see what the
> fuss is about. A few don't like his mental research into the topic
> called Other. If so, don't read it.
Chuck, you seem not to understand the issue. Why,
if anyone can post anything they want, this whole
NG will fall to bickering, and then where will we
be?
As to elitism, anyone who says they're not elitist
about anything is lying, stupid, or both.
Ed "darn tootin' I'm an elitist" Frank
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> As to elitism, anyone who says they're not elitist
> about anything is lying, stupid, or both.
>
> Ed "darn tootin' I'm an elitist" Frank
To borrow a line from the police officer Louis Renault in
"Casablanca", "I am shocked! shocked! that there is elitism going on
in here." ;-)
Where are the foes (populists, I mean) of yesteryear?*
--
*Puh-sway-dough-intellectual literary allusion to "Where are the snows
of yesteryear?" I could have just said "ubi sunt?", but that would
be speaking in unknown tongues, and would expose my sedulously
concealed elitism.;-)
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Robert Taubman
Tiniunt. As for the snow, who cares where it goes, as long as it goes!!
But "We'll always have Paris."
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:878yv3o...@desktop.xx.yy...
Scribe7716
wrote:
>
>Where are the foes (populists, I mean) of yesteryear?*
Mutinous populist here.
Brian Blakistone
Actually I find much centers on how you define
populists. Hugh's statement could be interpreted, as
you do, as simple disdain for the common man. In that
he wouldn't be far from Alexander Hamilton, who termed
them 'a great beast.' But the original populists
included folks like Pitchfork Ben Tillman who played on
the people's fear and bigotry.
In today's venue, mutinous populists took over the
local school board near me and took to teaching
creationism in the Vista schools. California has also
passed several popular referendums that have appealed
to folk's fears and bigotry, mostly aimed at illegal
immigrants. Taken in that vein Hugh's statement can be
seen as a furtive wish that well informed folks could
better temper some of the baser instincts of the
mutinous populists. In that I don't find him far
separated from our founding fathers who worried about
the citizens' acumen in recognizing and rejecting base
demagoguery potentially creating a tyranny of the
majority.
Brian
Scribe7716
wrote:
>There are people in society who are just
>"naturally better" than others.
The hell you say.
>People
>like JFK Jr. or Sacha Trudeau, Martin Luther King or Cardinal Leger
>simply cannot avoid the "elite" tag....
JFK, Jr.?
>Elitism is conferred upon you by those who recognize
>your essential eliteness.
So one man's elite could be another's hoi poloi? If so that's just another way
of saying there is no elite. Careful or you'll be branded mutinous populist.
But since you believe tthere is an elite, tell me what makes them "naturally
better" than the guy who slaps fenders on Fords for 10 hours a day to feed his
wife and kids, and educate the kids so that someday they won't have to slap
fenders on Fords?
>>Hugh, of course, is self-appointed and self-annointed.
>
>Funny, I must have missed this post unless
No one post. It's the body of Huey's work that speaks to his self-appointed,
self-annointed status as "elite."
>you're talking about that
>post that the Spammer continually posts as "proof" that Hugh is really
>"Red Huey."
Nah. I don't think Huey is a communist or a Communist. I don't think he's
evil, and I certainly don't think he's dangerous. I simply think he's... well,
you can check the adjectives in other posts.
>> Since you now seem to
>>accept him as qualified to be an habitue of Duffy's Tavern, perhaps you
>could
>>tell me what you see as his bona fides for elite status.
>
>Naughty, naughty Scribe, let me speak my own words.
When I posted of Huey's "elitist posture" you responded suggesting that such a
posture was only only right for one of the elite. I took that as your
endorsement of Hugh's self-election to the elite.
> But, how can I
>jibe someone who actually knows enough to put Duffy's Tavern and
>"eliteness" in one sentence?
Check back. I never used the word -- is it a word? -- "eliteness."
Ed would congratulate you.
Ed?
>... with respect to Hugh's elite status. Since I doubt that "eliteness"
>can be partitioned into sub-categories I haven't the slightest notion
>about whether he is or isn't. I daresay you are in the same pickle.
It's not what you or I think about Huey's elite status or lack thereof that is
at question, it's Hugh's feelings on the matter which he has made clear.
Scribe7716
wrote:
>If you're talking about -this- Ed, I would congratulate
>Scribe only for taking the "Straining at Gnats and
>Swallowing Camels" Prize.
Hey, Ed. thought you'd be out protesting against the war in Iraq -- minus
marijauna of course.
Chuck Pinnegar
<je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>NO ONE WANTS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU! YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD! GET OUT
>NOW! STAY OUT!
>"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.com> wrote in message
>news:etgu7vcsjumnnj92f...@4ax.com...
>GET OUT NOW!
>
>STAY OUT!
>
>YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
>INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
Then why do you post about me on an hourly basis?
Chuck Pinnegar
Robert Willett
"Brian Blakistone" <bblak...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3e8070aa...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Those who speak of a tyranny of the majority are usually concerned because
the majority rejects their minority views. What a terrible thing in a
democracy.
Chuck Pinnegar
<snip>
>If you're talking about -this- Ed, I would congratulate
>Scribe only for taking the "Straining at Gnats and
>Swallowing Camels" Prize.
Sorry that Ed, you are not the Ed that Scribe and I are familiar with
from Duffy's Tavern. But, it does comment on your latent elitism that
any mention of "Ed" swings you into action. 8-)
<snipping my comments on elitism>
>Chuck, you seem not to understand the issue. Why,
>if anyone can post anything they want, this whole
>NG will fall to bickering, and then where will we
>be?
Not bad this Ed. You get 10 marks for the attempt.
>As to elitism, anyone who says they're not elitist
>about anything is lying, stupid, or both.
I can honestly say, . . . . whoops, better not.
>Ed "darn tootin' I'm an elitist" Frank
Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> In that I don't find him far
> separated from our founding fathers who worried about
> the citizens' acumen in recognizing and rejecting base
> demagoguery potentially creating a tyranny of the
> majority.
It's nice to be seen in a favorable light, but originally I was making
the point that in the fields of scientific and scholarly knowledge
laymen can't verify the findings of the learned communities, because
it just takes too much training and study. This is just the way
things are.
In some topics, evolution for example, cherished popular convictions
clash with the established experts. Because we have a decentralized
system with strong democratic princples, a popular majority can try to
nullify the experts' findings so far as say schools are concerned, and
sometimes they do this.
To give some acw relevance to this, the Lost-Cause history survives
because it incorporates traditions about the CSA that some (not me)
still want to cherish. They can read these TSWR books, but they don't
have time to study the established academic consensus that consigns
these books to the realm of mythology, even if they had the will to do
so.
I would go a step further and say that many posters here don't reject
TSWR because they have independently checked out its doctrines. Of
course Cash has, JFE has, Brooks has, and some others. Many of them
reject it because they accepted on authority some other interpretation
that they learned in school. This is true for me too. Although I've
had long training in history, I've investigated only one or two of the
TSWR doctrines on my own. Mostly I just believe people like Brooks,
because I'm confident he's meeting professional standards when he
talks about things in his academic area. It would take me at least a
year of hard work just to master the history books in his area and be
able to compare his findings with what others say, and that's before
even beginning to do the research needed to verify a few of them.
Another example is the Calc I method called the chain rule for taking
a derivative. At the end of the course, I asked the teacher, "I can't
remember; did we prove the chain rule?" He replied, "No. The way we
have the calculus sequence set up, you don't know enough math in Calc
I to understand a proof of the chain rule." So I had accepted it on
authority, just as I accepted the multiplication table, the
periodic table of elements, and Ohm's law in physics.
So, getting back to the Lost-Cause history, how do you diffuse the
findings of standard history among the overwhelming majority who don't
have the time and education to verify findings for themselves? The
only way I can see is if more people accept the authority of the elite
in the field, the leading history professors. In the original
quotation, I attempted a self-deprecating joke on this point. Several
of the respectable posters here got it, and said so. Scribe and Davis
didn't accept it. But they are devoted to driving me off the list, or
failing that to stigmatizing me, or just to annoying me.
What they don't understand is that I enjoy thinking and writing about
this diffusion of knowledge problem--after all I was a teacher by
profession, and the diffusion of knowledge was my business. So if they
set up a situation in which I get to reflect on these things out loud,
that's fine with me.
Cheers!
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
Nah, elitist beer drinkers drink Heineken or, if they're really dumb, Corona.
Most elitists, however, drink white wine.
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Actually I find much centers on how you define
>populists.
Since the Populist Part of the 1890s went out of business along time ago, we're
talking about the second dictionary definition of populist, that is, "a
believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people."
> Hugh's statement could be interpreted, as
>you do, as simple disdain for the common man.
IMO, Hugh does not have a disdain for the common man. He is just grateful that
he is not one us, and he is a good enough liberal that he would help us if we
would just recognize that he knows what's best for us. It's when we stubbornly
and foolishly won't agree with Hugh's vision of what's good for us that we
become "mutinous populists."
>Hugh's statement can be
>seen as a furtive wish that well informed folks could
>better temper some of the baser instincts of the
>mutinous populists.
Please don't deprive us of our baser instincts, they're the source of the most
fun we have.
By the way, I think you're taking all of this much too seriously.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
Not all of them.
I like a nice cabernet or shiraz. Goes down smooth with _Á la
récherche du temps perdu_ or _The Critique of Pure Reason_.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Son of Spam
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > As to elitism, anyone who says they're not elitist
> > about anything is lying, stupid, or both.
> >
> > Ed "darn tootin' I'm an elitist" Frank
>
>
> To borrow a line from the police officer Louis Renault in
> "Casablanca", "I am shocked! shocked! that there is elitism going on
> in here." ;-)
>
> Where are the foes (populists, I mean) of yesteryear?*
Oh, ye foolish! throw all these thunderheads overboard, and then you
will float right and light.'
Ed Frank
> > (Ed Frank)
>
> wrote:
>
> >If you're talking about -this- Ed, I would congratulate
> >Scribe only for taking the "Straining at Gnats and
> >Swallowing Camels" Prize.
>
> Hey, Ed.
Hello Scribe!
> thought you'd be out protesting against the war in Iraq -- minus
> marijauna of course.
Did you really?
Ed "I don't do a lot of things I used to do" Frank
Ed Frank
> Sorry that Ed, you are not the Ed that Scribe and I are familiar with
> from Duffy's Tavern. But, it does comment on your latent elitism that
> any mention of "Ed" swings you into action. 8-)
OK, I'll bite--what's Duffy's Tavern? (As to latent
elitism, just don't pin that lousy TV series on me ;-).)
[snips]
> Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
Beats wine.
Ed "dreadful stuff, for the most part" Frank
Ed Frank
> > Ed "darn tootin' I'm an elitist" Frank
>
>
> To borrow a line from the police officer Louis Renault in
> "Casablanca", "I am shocked! shocked! that there is elitism going on
> in here." ;-)
Oh so true.
Golly gee . . . you don't think that someone
who posts innumerable screeds about who is good
enough to post here could be an eli-- no, it's
too horrible to contemplate.
> Where are the foes (populists, I mean) of yesteryear?*
Congratulating themselves on being superior to
those darn elitists, I'd wager.
Ed "and I'd win, too" Frank
Dennis Maggard
>> Chuck Pinnegar
>
>wrote:
[snips fore and aft]
>>Elitism is conferred upon you by those who recognize
>>your essential eliteness.
>
>So one man's elite could be another's hoi poloi? If so that's just another way
>of saying there is no elite. Careful or you'll be branded mutinous populist.
>
>But since you believe tthere is an elite, tell me what makes them "naturally
>better" than the guy who slaps fenders on Fords for 10 hours a day to feed his
>wife and kids, and educate the kids so that someday they won't have to slap
>fenders on Fords?
>
> >>Hugh, of course, is self-appointed and self-annointed.
>>
>>Funny, I must have missed this post unless
>No one post. It's the body of Huey's work that speaks to his self-appointed,
>self-annointed status as "elite."
Who in relatively recent history has been more elitist than the
self-appointed and self-annointed vanguard of the proletariat?
By the way, you'd be surprised how much the guy who "slaps" fenders
onto Fords makes these days.
Dennis
Hugh Lawson
One thing for sure: We elites don't get no respect.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
YUK! ...venturing in to the land of caps. Which makes me a
capitelitist. I always thought elitists were those folks who
went to those new and trendy micobrew pubs with the
blonde-stained wood work that was mitered to perfection, where
hamburgers are $7.50 a pop, the buns are soggy and the suds have
no head on it. Then I could never be an elitist as I refuse to
join any club that would have me as a member. Does that make me
an elitist by exception?
Geoff "somehow living in the backwater of Mukwonago, WI seems to
take the 'elite' out of elitist" Blankenmeyer
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> Chuck Pinnegar <cpin...@cogeco.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>>Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
>>
>
> Not all of them.
>
> I like a nice cabernet or shiraz. Goes down smooth with _Á la
> récherche du temps perdu_ or _The Critique of Pure Reason_.
Chataneauf-du-pape. From Chateau le Mas Bordeaux Rouge. I can
taste it now.
Geoff
William G. Davis
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Hugh "Red Huey" Lawson
December 18th, 2001
in message: news:slrna1u60q....@localhost.localdomain
William G. Davis
I GOT YOUR PERMISSION TO QUOTE! RIGHT HERE!news:87wuink...@desktop.xx.yy...
William G. Davis
OF THIS NEWSGROUP NOW! STAY OUT!news:87r88vmi...@desktop.xx.yy...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030325112232...@mb-fx.aol.com...
He's probably writing for Daschle.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"When looking for a clue as
to why something goes wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
--Groucho Marx
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message
William G. Davis
news:3E80F44...@wi.rr.com...
William G. Davis
"Geoff Blankenmeyer" <glb...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
William G. Davis
FIGURE OUT! GET OUT AND STAY OUT!news:dc418vkk3kuagat14...@4ax.com...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
William G. Davis
LIES AND FRAUDS!news:no418v4b00ff8g22h...@4ax.com...
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
"Brian Blakistone" <bblak...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3e8070aa...@news.cis.dfn.de...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
William G. Davis
YOURSELF ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!
"Dennis Maggard" <dmag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:fc67b264f8e3ed66...@news.teranews.com...
KMP
Corona beer - can't stand Heineken!
And I'm strictly Union as far as history goes - it runs that way in my
family...
Kathy
Scribe7716
wrote:
>As to wine, I like merlot (not picky - does that make me a populist?) and
>Corona beer - can't stand Heineken!
Kathybear, Corona is Mexico's partial revenge for 1846.
Mutinous populists drink Budweiser and bourbon or scotch -- not mixed, unless
were doing Boilermakers. Boilermakers are a populist thing.
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Ed "I don't do a lot of things I used to do" Frank
Ah, it's hell to get old.
Hugh Lawson
While the subject of beer is on-topic, back in '64 in Bahrain Island,
Persian Gulf, I used to buy Tuborg, a Danish brew. I haven't seen
this anywhere; is it available in America at all?
--
Hugh "not a beer scholar, but enjoyed the Tuborg" Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Who in relatively recent history has been more elitist than the
>self-appointed and self-annointed vanguard of the proletariat?
>
"Proletariat?" Careful you'll get branded "Red Dennis."
Not sure who you identify as "the
self-appointed and self-annointed vanguard of the proletariat" so I can't
comment on whether he/she may or not not be elitist. But if by "vanguard of
the proletariat" you mean someone who speaks up for us common folk it seems
unlikely. Don't forget that us common folk can speak up for ourselves, we
don't need any Hughish Lady Bountiful liberals to speak for us.
>By the way, you'd be surprised how much the guy who "slaps" fenders
>onto Fords makes these days.
Are you suggesting that a living wage for auto workers somehow supports
Pinnegar's definition an "elite" that seems to have no room for auto workers?
Suppose I had asked how Pinnegar's "elite" was "naturally superior" to (low
paid) municipal garbage men, would you have the same reaction? Do you suggest
that the "elite" is measured by the size of the paycheck and that therefore
auto workers are among the elite? Or do you suggest that common folk who earn
a living wage should be so grateful that they shut up and let the "elite" tell
us what's good for us?
What exactly was or is your point?
Robert Taubman
Tried a couple of Belgian beer last week-end. Hoegarden(sp?) and Leffe. Nice.
Also a local (Ontario) beer, raspberry flavoured. Really nice when the beer is
really cold. Can't wait for summer!!
Chuck Pinnegar
>>Chuck Pinnegar
>
>wrote:
>
>>Chuck "elitists like lite beer" Pinnegar
>
>Nah, elitist beer drinkers drink Heineken or, if they're really dumb, Corona.
>Most elitists, however, drink white wine.
You're probably right but I wouldn't know. I chose "like lite" because
it can be re-formatted " lik elite" giving you "elitists lik elite
beer." Wasn't that clever? (Groan!)
Chuck Pinnegar
Brian Blakistone
>"Brian Blakistone" <bblak...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> >> Hugh Lawson wrote:[...]
> In that I don't find him far
>> separated from our founding fathers who worried about
>> the citizens' acumen in recognizing and rejecting base
>> demagoguery potentially creating a tyranny of the
>> majority.
>Those who speak of a tyranny of the majority are usually concerned because
>the majority rejects their minority views.
You think?
> What a terrible thing in a
>democracy.
It can be. Jim Crow was very popular in the South and
the United States ignored black letter law to allow it
to continue. Abolition was a minority position even
going into the civil war.
Brian
Brian Blakistone
>bblak...@netzero.net (Brian Blakistone) writes:
>[ snip ]
>> In that I don't find him far
>> separated from our founding fathers who worried about
>> the citizens' acumen in recognizing and rejecting base
>> demagoguery potentially creating a tyranny of the
>> majority.
>It's nice to be seen in a favorable light, but originally I was making
>the point that in the fields of scientific and scholarly knowledge
>laymen can't verify the findings of the learned communities, because
>it just takes too much training and study. This is just the way
>things are.
I'm not so sure. To me this sounds like a fancy way to
justify an appeal to authority. More and more I think
specialists have gotten lazy about communicating their
scholarly knowledge to people at large, but instead
focus on 'inside baseball'.
>In some topics, evolution for example, cherished popular convictions
>clash with the established experts. Because we have a decentralized
>system with strong democratic princples, a popular majority can try to
>nullify the experts' findings so far as say schools are concerned, and
>sometimes they do this.
>To give some acw relevance to this, the Lost-Cause history survives
>because it incorporates traditions about the CSA that some (not me)
>still want to cherish. They can read these TSWR books, but they don't
>have time to study the established academic consensus that consigns
>these books to the realm of mythology, even if they had the will to do
>so.
What about the Dunning school of Reconstruction? It
held sway for a long time. If you take the stance that
expert consensus is the proper interpretation you run
the risk that an insular group of experts vet each
other's misguided work. In a forward to one of his
books James McPherson talks about how he had to write
for other professionals or popular history and he
rejected that notion. He wrote for both very
successfully in a way that is very accessible to
everyone. I don't buy the notion that things are too
complex to present contrasting positions and the
evidence for both in a way that can be understood by
the layman. I think in general experts do a very poor
job of communicating to folks outside their field of
expertise (with some notable exceptions).[...]
>Another example is the Calc I method called the chain rule for taking
>a derivative. At the end of the course, I asked the teacher, "I can't
>remember; did we prove the chain rule?" He replied, "No. The way we
>have the calculus sequence set up, you don't know enough math in Calc
>I to understand a proof of the chain rule." So I had accepted it on
>authority, just as I accepted the multiplication table, the
>periodic table of elements, and Ohm's law in physics.
The basic operation of Ohm's law can be demonstrated
with parts from radio shack. Now that isn't proof, but
somebody would need to set up an experiment that showed
an instance where it didn't hold for me to give much
credence in what they say. Typically children prove
the beginning instances of the multiplication table
prior to wrote memorization. There was a physicist by
the name of Richard Feynman who used to make
extraordinarily complex theories clear to common folks.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting you again, but if people
aren't accepting expert consensus, I think the experts
haven't been communicating and demonstrating it well
enough.
A while back in physics an expert, Millikan created a
really elegant experiment to determine the charge on a
drop of oil, but in doing so he got the calculation on
the viscosity of air slightly wrong and so the
calculated value was off slightly. In doing his
experiment he tended to throw out values that didn't
match his expectations and came up with a result
similar to what his calculated amount should be. Over
the years the calculated value crept slowly upwards
until it reached the correct value. Millikan's expert
opinion incorrectly colored the experiments for years
afterward. In an interpretive field like history the
chances for error are much greater and by and large
there are no experiments we can repeat. I think a
supine acquiescence to expert consensus can be
misleading and amateur gadflies can be healthy things,
even when they are wrong.
Brian
Brian Blakistone
>>(Brian Blakistone) wrote:
>>Actually I find much centers on how you define
>>populists.
>Since the Populist Part of the 1890s went out of business along time ago, we're
>talking about the second dictionary definition of populist, that is, "a
>believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people."
OK, there is this definition too:
http://www.wordreference.com/English/definition.asp?en=Populist
1 appealing to the interests or prejudices of
ordinary people
H. Ross Perot is the last presidential candidate I saw
described as a populist and fits that definition pretty
well I think. [...]
> >Hugh's statement can be
>>seen as a furtive wish that well informed folks could
>>better temper some of the baser instincts of the
>>mutinous populists.
>Please don't deprive us of our baser instincts, they're the source of the most
>fun we have.
As long as you don't do it in the streets and scare the
horses...
>By the way, I think you're taking all of this much too seriously.
You're reading too much tone into what I wrote. Mostly
I was just woolgathering about what he was really
trying to say.
Brian
Scribe7716
wrote:
>I chose "like lite" because
>it can be re-formatted " lik elite" giving you "elitists lik elite
>beer." Wasn't that clever?
If you have to explain 'em it ain't worth the trouble.
Scribe7716
wrote:
>>Since the Populist Part of the 1890s went out of business along time ago,
>we're
>>talking about the second dictionary definition of populist, that is, "a
>>believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people."
>
>OK, there is this definition too:
>
>http://www.wordreference.com/English/definition.asp?en=Populist
>
>1 appealing to the interests or prejudices of
>ordinary people
>
Seems to me there's an important divide between "interests" and "prejudices."
Odd to see them conflated.
>H. Ross Perot is the last presidential candidate I saw
>described as a populist and fits that definition pretty
>well I think. [...]
>
IYO, what "prejudices" did Perot appeal to?
Chuck Pinnegar
<snippedy snip - Hugh told me that's how elitists do it 8-)>
>Are you suggesting that a living wage for auto workers somehow supports
>Pinnegar's definition an "elite" that seems to have no room for auto workers?
Since I come from a family of auto workers, it doesn't seem likely
that I would support your contention about my contention. When I talk
about someone who is a member of the elite I mean one who naturally
stands out from the crowd because of the totality of what he stands
for. I do not include willy nilly an elite baseball player, or an
elite teacher or an elite garbage collector unless they measure up to
society's standards for elitism. Earlier I cited Cardinal Leger. He
was a prince of the Church but gave it all up to live and care for
African lepers. Monetary compensation did not come into play. True, it
is easier to be recognized if you are also among the monetary elite,
but such is not the standard by which elitism is measured.
Unfortunately, those who recognize that they will never be among the
elite choose to denigrate them with spurious, but obvious arguments. A
society with no elite is a society with nothing to shoot for, so
before we wish them away, we should wish for enlightenment.
>Suppose I had asked how Pinnegar's "elite" was "naturally superior" to (low
>paid) municipal garbage men, would you have the same reaction?
As I said above, it is obvious to me that one who has the funds to
help others has a better chance to be recognized as a member of the
elite. But, just look around your own community. Couldn't you find a
minister or a teacher or a volunteer who gives selflessly of his/her
time to help crippled children, mentally-challenged folk or supervise
and organize events for the poor on an almost full time basis?
> Do you suggest
>that the "elite" is measured by the size of the paycheck and that therefore
>auto workers are among the elite? Or do you suggest that common folk who earn
>a living wage should be so grateful that they shut up and let the "elite" tell
>us what's good for us?
I'd claim, after reading your last sentence, that you confuse "elite"
with "superior." Elite people do not seek out organizations etc. to
dominate. They look to the public good. Americans used to call this
republicanism.
>What exactly was or is your point?
My point is that the Elite was a great car.
Chuck Pinnegar
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> >It's nice to be seen in a favorable light, but originally I was making
> >the point that in the fields of scientific and scholarly knowledge
> >laymen can't verify the findings of the learned communities, because
> >it just takes too much training and study. This is just the way
> >things are.
>
> I'm not so sure. To me this sounds like a fancy way to
> justify an appeal to authority. More and more I think
> specialists have gotten lazy about communicating their
> scholarly knowledge to people at large, but instead
> focus on 'inside baseball'.
That's a good point. Let me answer it like this. If I want to know
something about Grant, I'll ask Brooks, not because I think he's a
comprehensive genius wise in all things, but because I trust the
practices of the institutions in which he works. They vouch not for
his comprehensive wisdom, but for his professional writings, which are
mostly about Grant. I don't know what else to trust.
[ snip ]
> What about the Dunning school of Reconstruction? It
> held sway for a long time. If you take the stance that
> expert consensus is the proper interpretation you run
> the risk that an insular group of experts vet each
> other's misguided work.
Just to introduce a little vertigo, I take it for granted that there
is something now inscribed in the textbooks as the scholarly consensus
which will in the future be shown to have been erroneous. Naturally,
I don't know what that is.
What protects the academy from making an error like that of the
Dunning school? I don't think we have any protection they didn't
have, in principle. In practice, the history field includes many more
workers, from many more different social backgrounds that was the case
100 years ago. And we have American history scholars abroad than was
the case then. This may guarantee that more different viewpoints are
brought into the academic arena.
Suppose you wrote a popular book that challenged the academic
consensus. How would persuade your audience to believe you instead of
the professors?
And how would you persuade the professors?
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Chuck Pinnegar
An elitist would take you up on this so I'd better keep quiet. But,
look for further gross attempts to elevate the group through humor.
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
HONEST!
GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT!
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
I'LL STOP POSTING ABOUT YOU!
"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.com> wrote in message
news:0rp38vsk24u5amtpr...@4ax.com...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
Brad Meyer
Blakistone) wrote:
>>To give some acw relevance to this, the Lost-Cause history survives
>>because it incorporates traditions about the CSA that some (not me)
>>still want to cherish. They can read these TSWR books, but they don't
>>have time to study the established academic consensus that consigns
>>these books to the realm of mythology, even if they had the will to do
>>so.
>
>What about the Dunning school of Reconstruction? It
>held sway for a long time. If you take the stance that
>expert consensus is the proper interpretation you run
>the risk that an insular group of experts vet each
>other's misguided work.
There is an even larger problem with that line of reasoning. The
"expert concensus" is, almost by definition, incomplete at best and
mistaken at worst. If it were complete, there would not be further
research being done, nor new interpritations of existing facts
beingpublished, nor new methods of analysis being employed. One could
certainly argue that "expert concensus" represents the "best" answer
available, but one would , IMO, be foolish to believe that it is the
"right" answer.
William G. Davis
narrl...@hotmail.com
> >Ed "I don't do a lot of things I used to do" Frank
>
> Ah, it's hell to get old.
Old hell, I'm not even phflphy yet.
Ed "this place keeps me young" Frank
Chuck Pinnegar
<je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>YOU MUST HAVE MISSED MY RESPONSE. TRY AGAIN. IF YOU STOP POSTING HERE,
>I'LL STOP POSTING ABOUT YOU!
>
>"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.com> wrote in message
>news:0rp38vsk24u5amtpr...@4ax.com...
>GET OUT NOW!
>
>STAY OUT!
>
>YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
>INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
Post away. You're the jewel in my sometime dreary day. Admit it
Spammer, you'd miss me if I left wouldn't you? Think of the hours of
entertainment you've given yourself thinking up those Pulitzer-type
messages you use over and over and . . .
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
NOT COME BACK! EVER!news:48p48vgs0m0mbvg8t...@4ax.com...
Scribe7716
wrote:
>>What exactly was or is your point?
>
>My point is that the Elite was a great car.
Since you did not respond to my post to you on these lines, why are you now
responding to a post and question posed to Maggard?
cw4
don't know if that's true but if it is I can't blame him since you are
buddies with one of the biggest jerk I have ever seen on the Usenet.
Chuck Pinnegar
Is there some set of rules that I have missed Scribe? I have no idea
what post I did/did not reply to since my ISP sends what it pleases
and keeps the rest for ransom.
Chuck Pinnegar
Robert Taubman
"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.com> wrote in message
news:kr968vofs5s5uusia...@4ax.com...
William G. Davis
"Robert Taubman" <rtau...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:VHGga.26548$KlE....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
William G. Davis
LIAR AND A FRAUD! GET OUT NOW!GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
Brian Blakistone
>> >It's nice to be seen in a favorable light, but originally I was making
>> >the point that in the fields of scientific and scholarly knowledge
>> >laymen can't verify the findings of the learned communities, because
>> >it just takes too much training and study. This is just the way
>> >things are.
>> I'm not so sure. To me this sounds like a fancy way to
>> justify an appeal to authority. More and more I think
>> specialists have gotten lazy about communicating their
>> scholarly knowledge to people at large, but instead
>> focus on 'inside baseball'.
>That's a good point. Let me answer it like this. If I want to know
>something about Grant, I'll ask Brooks, not because I think he's a
>comprehensive genius wise in all things, but because I trust the
>practices of the institutions in which he works. They vouch not for
>his comprehensive wisdom, but for his professional writings, which are
>mostly about Grant. I don't know what else to trust. [ snip ]
Fair enough, I'm certainly not trying to say that
experts ought to be dismissed out of hand; I would
agree that in general the academic process does produce
good to exceptional work. [...]
>Just to introduce a little vertigo, I take it for granted that there
>is something now inscribed in the textbooks as the scholarly consensus
>which will in the future be shown to have been erroneous. Naturally,
>I don't know what that is.
I used to have a first rate Finance teacher that
started his courses off by saying that.
>What protects the academy from making an error like that of the
>Dunning school? I don't think we have any protection they didn't
>have, in principle. In practice, the history field includes many more
>workers, from many more different social backgrounds that was the case
>100 years ago. And we have American history scholars abroad than was
>the case then. This may guarantee that more different viewpoints are
>brought into the academic arena.
I do think the academic community has gotten better as
you describe. Even so, there is no reason that a lay
person couldn't have looked at what Dubois and Dunning
were saying on Reconstruction and come to the
conclusion that there were some definite gaps in the
status quo.
>Suppose you wrote a popular book that challenged the academic
>consensus. How would persuade your audience to believe you instead of
>the professors?
I think you start off by explaining the conventional
wisdom as strongly as possible. You move to the data
points that don't fit that model and describe why your
model fits the data better than the current
conventional wisdom. You footnote copiously so that
folks can examine the facts to the extent they desire.
>And how would you persuade the professors?
Hopefully using the same method, but probably using
their lingo and containing a more comprehensive
description of methodology. To the extent you know
them, acknowledge and address critiques of the new
model or theory.
Brian 'And maybe a big stick' Blakistone
Brian Blakistone
>>kathybear
>
>wrote:
>
>>As to wine, I like merlot (not picky - does that make me a populist?) and
>>Corona beer - can't stand Heineken!
>
>Kathybear, Corona is Mexico's partial revenge for 1846.
But Scribe, Corona is the beer of the workers in
Mexico. We could buy it for $1 a six pack down in
Baja, but as elitists we payed the extra 50 cents and
got Bohemia.
Brian 'And well worth it' Blakistone
Brian Blakistone
>>1 appealing to the interests or prejudices of
>>ordinary people
>Seems to me there's an important divide between "interests" and "prejudices."
>Odd to see them conflated.
>>H. Ross Perot is the last presidential candidate I saw
>>described as a populist and fits that definition pretty
>>well I think. [...]
>IYO, what "prejudices" did Perot appeal to?
Mostly I think he played on the fears of the working
class with his 'giant sucking sound'. Portraying jobs
in international trade as a zero sum game, while
ignoring the importance of infrastructure, stability
and a more literate work force to business. He played
the same game again with the Peso devaluation and
bailout, claiming the US was going to be flooded by
cheap Mexican imports. He always claimed to be
concerned for the welfare of Mexicans as well, but I
always thought that fell flat and provided scant cover
for his xenophobia.
Brian
William G. Davis
SCUM! STAY OUT!news:3e830ab7...@news.cis.dfn.de...
William G. Davis
William G. Davis
GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS NEWSGROUP NOW! STAY OUT!news:3e831411...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> I do think the academic community has gotten better as
> you describe. Even so, there is no reason that a lay
> person couldn't have looked at what Dubois and Dunning
> were saying on Reconstruction and come to the
> conclusion that there were some definite gaps in the
> status quo.
Acc. my Foner bibliography, DuBois publ. _Black Reconstruction in
America in 1935_. Claude G. Bowers publ. _The Tragic Era_, which iirc
was a free-lance book, at about that time. Bowers is still in print,
and Amazon says people who like it also like the works of (ta-da, surprise!)
Thomas Lorenzo.
Brooks knows more about this, but my guess is that the Kenneth
Stampp-style approach to Reconstruction started getting some
credibility with the reading public after college teachers started
requiring students to read it.
I don't want to give councils of despair, because I'm basically a
hopeful-type guy, and I agree fully with your thesis that the more
professors we have as popular authors the better. I wasn't much of a
scholar, so again Brooks can comment better on this than I can, but
my impression was that academic authors don't write stuffy books
because they want them that way. I think it's because writing
commercially successful historical works requires special talents.
People with advanced degrees like to read interesting books too, and
many would love being regarded as interesting authors.
> >Suppose you wrote a popular book that challenged the academic
> >consensus. How would persuade your audience to believe you instead of
> >the professors?
>
> I think you start off by explaining the conventional
> wisdom as strongly as possible. You move to the data
> points that don't fit that model and describe why your
> model fits the data better than the current
> conventional wisdom. You footnote copiously so that
> folks can examine the facts to the extent they desire.
>
> >And how would you persuade the professors?
>
> Hopefully using the same method, but probably using
> their lingo and containing a more comprehensive
> description of methodology. To the extent you know
> them, acknowledge and address critiques of the new
> model or theory.
>
> Brian 'And maybe a big stick' Blakistone
Those are good descriptions. On the popular persuasion side, you've
done a good job of briefly describing the typical thesis. Very
successful authors like Shelby Foote go around preaching the doctrine
that footnotes "interrupt the narrative flow". I think that's hooey,
but many believe it. So I think two things:
1. Better commercially successful books by professors might not break
through the wall of popular resistance of challenging the
consensus, but I agree with you that it's worth a try.
2. The problem may not be entirely with professors' values about
writing.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
William G. Davis
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
cw4
Scribe7716
wrote:
>But Scribe, Corona is the beer of the workers in
>Mexico.
But in this country Corona limeade was the long-time drink of the chic and
trendy -- the worst kind of elitists. Haven't seen much of it recently, but
that may be a product of the saloon I hang in.
Chuck Pinnegar
Blakistone) wrote:
<snip>
>>And how would you persuade the professors?
>
>Hopefully using the same method, but probably using
>their lingo and containing a more comprehensive
>description of methodology. To the extent you know
>them, acknowledge and address critiques of the new
>model or theory.
Can I give a little personal perspective. When I wrote my book, I
asked a very well known CW historian to read a part that would be
contentious. He kindly consented (its amazing how friendly some of
these people can be) and answered that he had suspected my conclusions
for some time, had actually used the erroneous material in his own
work, but doubted that my research would make any difference in the
profession. To say the least I was shocked. Now, this could be
personal pique or just a defense of a rotten book on my part, but,
since he did not read the whole manuscript, I'll take him at his word.
Interesting eh!
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
William G. Davis
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030328100212...@mb-ff.aol.com...
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> Can I give a little personal perspective. When I wrote my book, I
> asked a very well known CW historian to read a part that would be
> contentious. He kindly consented (its amazing how friendly some of
> these people can be) and answered that he had suspected my conclusions
> for some time, had actually used the erroneous material in his own
> work, but doubted that my research would make any difference in the
> profession. To say the least I was shocked. Now, this could be
> personal pique or just a defense of a rotten book on my part, but,
> since he did not read the whole manuscript, I'll take him at his word.
> Interesting eh!
>
> Chuck Pinnegar
How did you get interested in acw history, Chuck?
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
William G. Davis
LIARS AND FRAUDS. GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT! YOU ARE A COWARD AND A PHONY!news:87ptoah...@desktop.xx.yy...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
<snip>
>How did you get interested in acw history, Chuck?
From my father actually. He had been in the 1st Canadian Division, 1st
Brigade, 1st Regiment, joined on the first day of the war and was
badly wounded in France. He was very interested in military affairs
and started bringing these acw books home. Well, you know what its
like. If someone puts down a book you pick it up and read for awhile.
I got so that I could reel off the battle order of both sides in
almost every battle of the war. Got a huge library that I donated to
the local U. when my tastes changed from war to ideology. Never got
tired of trying to uncover how/why Virginians think/act. And that's
the rest of the story.
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
ONE HERE OF ANY VALUE IS IN THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN MORE OF YOUR LIES
GET OUT OF THIS NEWSGROUP NOW! STAY OUT!news:ajkb8v0ugudhk20m7...@4ax.com...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Hugh Lawson
Very interesting. The key to getting interested in a historical topic
is learning something about it. History is usually structured as
narrative, and it seems that humans apprehend stories as soon as they
get enough language to follow them. Academic historical narratives
are so fact-ridden, so dependent on strong contextual knowledge that
many beginners see it at first as just one thing after another, just a
lot of factoids and dates.
I've heard students praise a lecturer like this: "He just makes it all
seem like a story." What's funny about that is that most of the time
it *is* a story, something meant to be a true story about the actual
past. I think those with weak contextual knowledge just can't see the
story.
I got very interested in ideology and false consciousness, etc., in
college, reading a bit of Freud and Marx, as well as some Nietzsche,
and in studying the history of the development of marxism, especially
the way the social-democrats split off from the revolutionary
socialists. GB Shaw's plays were important too.
My experience as a late teen shaking off the defense of segregation I'd
heard as a kid, gave me an actual example of ideological strife that I
knew from the inside, so to speak. The most troubling aspect of it
was that I had to accept that my community had been weighed in the
balance and found wanting, and that the scales were just. But this
was helpful in the long run, as it gave me some practice at not
flinching at hard truths.
To give some civil-war relevance, this experience made it much easier
to think that people often really do believe what they say they
believe, even if it seems crazy to me. I have no trouble with the
idea of sincere proslavery beliefs or sincere beliefs in the legality
or constitutionality of secession. Once a doctrine becomes connected
with the dignity or prosperity of a community(or social class) , it
will be sure to have assiduous teachers, and many will believe it.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
William G. Davis
HUEY! GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO RUIN THIS NEWSGROUP
LIKE YOU DO! FOR ONCE IN YOGURT MISERABLE LIFE KEEP YOUR WORD AND LEAVE
NOW! STAY OUT!news:874r5mg...@desktop.xx.yy...
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Brooks Simpson
> bblak...@netzero.net (Brian Blakistone) writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > I do think the academic community has gotten better as
> > you describe. Even so, there is no reason that a lay
> > person couldn't have looked at what Dubois and Dunning
> > were saying on Reconstruction and come to the
> > conclusion that there were some definite gaps in the
> > status quo.
>
> Acc. my Foner bibliography, DuBois publ. _Black Reconstruction in
> America in 1935_. Claude G. Bowers publ. _The Tragic Era_, which iirc
> was a free-lance book, at about that time.
Bowers was a skilled writer and a damn fool. But THE TRAGIC ERA was
quite influential at the time in terms of popular perceptions of
Recionstruction among whites.
> Brooks knows more about this, but my guess is that the Kenneth
> Stampp-style approach to Reconstruction started getting some
> credibility with the reading public after college teachers started
> requiring students to read it.
My guess is that the change in writing about Reconstruction coincided
with the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Thus the
white audience was somewhat more receptive to that approach because of
what Americans saw going on. Some southern whites--C. Vann Woodward
comes to mind--started trying to point the finger at the North for
Reconstruction's failure; others (Foner) offered a much more complex
rendering.
>
> I don't want to give councils of despair, because I'm basically a
> hopeful-type guy, and I agree fully with your thesis that the more
> professors we have as popular authors the better. I wasn't much of a
> scholar, so again Brooks can comment better on this than I can, but
> my impression was that academic authors don't write stuffy books
> because they want them that way.
Some do, some don't. Some of us who do enjoy commerical success
arouse envy and jealousy.
> I think it's because writing
> commercially successful historical works requires special talents.
Yes, including the ability to write well -- something NOT taught in
most graduate history departments.
However, when people castigatye professors, they are casting a rather
wide net, for people who do write for an educated public (Jim
McPherson comes to mind, as does Gary Gallagher) are, after all,
professors.
> People with advanced degrees like to read interesting books too, and
> many would love being regarded as interesting authors.
>
> > >Suppose you wrote a popular book that challenged the academic
> > >consensus. How would persuade your audience to believe you instead of
> > >the professors?
Flawed question, badly framed.
Mark Behrendt
Typo. God I love it, what a fool. Buy the way ever here of Wiley Sword,
he's a successful writer and NOT a professor although he's vain enough
to qualify.