[Peace-discuss] Why the history is untold

[C. G. Estabrook]

Wilentz' snarky condescension is all too typical of professional historians in the US, back to Vietnam and before. 

One of the first tasks of the anti-war movement a half-century ago was to overthrow that ideological tyranny.

It wasn't exercised by the strength of the ideas expressed. 


On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:44 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> S&K's work has serious issues due to its reliance on alleged saviors, lost opportunties, etc., rather than an emphasis on long-term structural forces. However, the "fog" referred to at the end of the article is exactly that of Cold War liberalism or liberal anti-communism, which apparently remains part of the credentials of the historical profession that has been so kind to Wilentz.
>  
> DG
> 
> From: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
> To: Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
> Cc: sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; ocCUpy <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net> 
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 2:32 PM
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why the history is untold
> 
> Chomsky has remarked that when he did mathematics, mathematicians wanted to know if he got the right answer: when he did history, historians wanted to know where he'd got his history PhD…
> 
> The point is illustrated by the following sophomoric hatchet-job by an establishment historian on Stone & Kuznick's (not unassailable) "The Untold History of the United States":
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/21/oliver-stone-cherry-picking-our-history/?pagination=false
> 
> --CGE