« Mfr protection passes Senate, and mfr stocks rise | Main | Lott on Demos creating fake gun groups »
Bellesiles: Clayton finds a convert
Clayton Cramer posts "Dr. Luker Sees The Light".
Clayton is of course the fellow who brought down Michael Bellesiles, and he had written an article on problems of integrity in the historical research field, which Dr. Ralph Luker had criticized as overstating the problem. But recently Luker penned an open letter to the Organization of American Historians, asking if it "has become the place where Offences Are Honored." Luker points out that the OAH has never revoked its award to Bellesiles, and is still listing some other discredited historians in its "distinguished lecturer" program.
Clayton ends by asking whether the field of history "has become so controlled by the faction that lies or excuses lies--people like Bellesiles, John L. Larson, editor of the Journal of the Early Republic, and the leadership of the OAH--that the profession of historian no longer exists in any meaningful sense."
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Sour grapes, Mr. Luker. In the specific instance Cramer refers to you, have no complaint whatsoever. Clearly you are reacting to Cramer's general criticism of the historical profession -"the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U. S. with [sic] not adhering to ‘professional standards'" which is not found in the entry in question. Based on what I read, (and I studied History as an undergrad) I am inclined to agree with him (regarding his general critique), not you. How else could the Bancroft Prize committee (a group of "professionals") not pick up on the factual and mathematical errors in Bellesile's work? If that is the best the professionals can do I'll take the amateurs.
No sour grapes here, at all. If the Bancroft Prize committee made a collosal blunder, you and Cramer seem to take that as leave to continue in that tradition by not even reading what you comment on.
Well Ralph, I did in fact read several of your blog entries at Cliopatria before responding. I admit to being "out of the profession" at this time, and I do have to work for a living (writing software) as opposed to keeping up with the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussions and journals of the "historical profession." What is clear to reasonable persons who don't have a vested interest in keeping history obtuse, academic and generally irrellevant to public discourse (as long as the the grant money is flowing, of course) is that the professionals have gone partisan. Scholarly objectivity is out and poltical correctness is in now. The Bancroft fiasco is a symptom and the disease is pervasive. Of course, I am going to be unable to provide you with 5000 cites documenting these cases (given that this is a blog, not a journal or a book) and you are going to then say I don't make my case. This is denial plain and simple. To the extent to which you acknowledge these very real issues, I applaud your efforts. To the extent to which this has become (and it certainly appears to me to be) an issue of personalities ("the Gospel According to Clayton") please be so kind as to get over it. American culture needs accurate, relevant historical scholarship - it is long past time for the "profesionals" to clean up their act.
Whether you have the time to do so or not, it remains the case in the United States that academics are not guilty until the case is proven and cases are proven against particular individuals, not against classes of people. Clayton is guilty of sloppy generalizations and, by following his lead, so are you.
Ralph, The emperor has no clothes and you are the last to admit it. To reduce the number of "sloppy generalizations" let me put a few names to a list just from memory - Doris Kearns Goodwin (plagarism), Stephen Ambrose (plagarism), etc. Add to that list any and all revisionists who claim 1) that the Soviets did not penetrate American government with spies (see the Venona decrypts) 2) that the A-bomb was not absolutely necessary to save American and Japanese lives (Tsuyoshi Hasegawa), 3) that FDR's policies did not WORSEN the Depression, and so on. The "profession's" partisanship is showing (again).
The next time you use my name, I would appreciate it if you read what I actually said, rather than merely repeat what Clayton Cramer says that I said. He misunderstands me almost entirely. I am certainly no convert to the Gospel According to Clayton and I'd appreciate it if you would correct your misinterpretation of what I have said.