Sources

[Savez]

Since I went into bit of a rant yesterday about authors, I thought I might should explain myself. Every professor I had at the University of Alabama was adamant about checking sources, in particular the author's themselves. In each review I had to write, it was imperative that you include the author's background. I was taught that you must understand his or her background because of biases and preconceived notions. This was ingrained in my head. It was the same way at the University of West Alabama when I was getting my masters. I was always told that you must know where the author is coming from !! I've heard a lot yesterday about "peer reviews". Peer reviews are great but they are also a catch 22. If an author wants a good review he must write what his peers want to hear. If you don't adhere to the accepted norm of the "academic elite" then you get trashed. Lets use Drew Gilpin Faust for example. I've used this before. It was mentioned she spent her childhood in the South yet, she is also the president of Harvard. In her book This Republic of Suffering she talks about the treatment of black prisoners by CS troops at Petersburg. At the end of the paragaraph she writes "and Robert E. Lee, a few hundred yards away did nothing to stop it." Her source? A master thesis from some unknown at Harvard. Really? Her book was given accolades by her peers. Of course it was. I read no further. I didn't have to. Plus her whole thesis on "the good death" was dumb in my opinion. It is garbage like that, that show's pure bias. A few hundred yards away on a Civil War battlefield? She just wanted to take a shot at Lee, plain and simple. The Treasury of Virtue is alive and well especially in the realm of academia. So i will always check the author's background. This goes both ways by the way. North and South biases. However, there is more to writing than just knowing sources. History is in our souls. If you don't know what its like to be southern, or northern, black, white, red, I don't think you can ever fully understand no matter how many citations you have in your book.

 

[RobertP]

Well said Savez.

 

[CharacterGroove]

Did that professor teach you about paragraphs? I kid, I kid.

 

[jpeter]

I'll say what I said yesterday.

Where you're from is really not an issue. We read tons of southern historians and we don't even know it. I mentioned five yesterday, and they are some of my best history books. Furthermore, there are many heavily politicized Confederate interpretations of the war that aren't by southerners at all.

"If an author wants a good review he must write what his peers want to hear"

Savez, at some point you have to ask yourselves if you don't like them because they don't say what you want to hear.

If you believe what you said in bold, then you must also believe that the peer review process is entirely slanted. As long as people deny mainstream history as heavily biased, then they must accept that, by default, there is a conspiracy to maintain it that way.

I think you can have a southern bias and still be a good historian. However, I believe there's no room in history to have a heavily weighted "Confederate" viewpoint or a "Union" viewpoint and still be taken as a serious historian. Those are political identifications, not regional ones. That distinction needs to be understood in my opinion.

A southern historian is a historian who was born or raised in the South. It DOES NOT mean the author is taking the South's political side on the issue of the Civil War conflict. That would be a historian who has a pro-Confederate bias, not a pro-southern bias.

 

[Savez]

Did that professor teach you about paragraphs? I kid, I kid.

Ha ha. Not really. I'm not a very good writer. I try but my "plain talk" and lack of things like sentence structure and subject verb agreement always shows through.

 

[Savez]

I'll say what I said yesterday.

Where you're from is really not an issue. We read tons of southern historians and we don't even know it. I mentioned five yesterday, and they are some of my best history books. Furthermore, there are many heavily politicized Confederate interpretations of the war that aren't by southerners at all.

"If an author wants a good review he must write what his peers want to hear"

Savez, at some point you have to ask yourselves if you don't like them because they don't say what you want to hear.

If you believe what you said in bold, then you must also believe that the peer review process is entirely slanted. As long as people deny mainstream history as heavily biased, then they must accept that, by default, there is a conspiracy to maintain it that way.

I think you can have a southern bias and still be a good historian. However, I believe there's no room in history to have a heavily weighted "Confederate" viewpoint or a "Union" viewpoint and still be taken as a serious historian. Those are political identifications, not regional ones. That distinction needs to be understood in my opinion.

A southern historian is a historian who was born or raised in the South. It DOES NOT mean the author is taking the South's political side on the issue of the Civil War conflict. That would be a historian who has a pro-Confederate bias, not a pro-southern bias.

Its not a question of liking them or not. My point is, just because they are "accepted" in the academic world doesn't mean they are beyond reproach. As far as someones background, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've mentioned before on this forum the concept of "home" in the minds of Confederate soldiers. Lets take Stephanie McCurry for example. She came from Ireland, has moved all over the place and apparently has only visited the South, yet she is suppose to be an expert on Southern social history, just because she's read alot of books and some documents and had it reviewed by her peers? Give me a break. When she writes about a southern soldier's idea of home or any soldier for that matter, she can't understand it. She never will. I was born and raised where I live now and will die here if God permits. I would die for my home, my hometown, politics be ****ed.

I understand what you mean by the pro Confederate bias and pro southern. But I don't always take the South's political side, but I do side with the southern soldier and his view. That is not always political. However, when I mention pro-southern since it is on this forum I usually mean pro-Confederate. I'll try to remember to specify from now on.

 

[jpeter]

Its not a question of liking them or not. My point is, just because they are "accepted" in the academic world doesn't mean they are beyond reproach.

No, but conversely it does not mean that a contrary conclusion to your belief is necessarily wrong.

I think we have to understand too, that some writers are better at explaining themselves than other writers. I've made the mistake of misunderstanding at times. It's been my fault as much as theirs.

I am less bothered than you (and perhaps others here on this board) by criticisms of the antebellum South. I think many of those criticisms are warranted. I also appreciate those who rock the boat with northern slave trade interests, and they frequently don't get the attention they deserve. But I don't believe "mainstream history" is out to paint the South in a bad light. I know too many southern historians to think there's a serious regional bias.

BTW, I always appreciate the responses I get from you - as well as RobertP, bama, and a few other regulars - who continue with a remarkably civil discourse on this subject.

 

[CharacterGroove]

"If an author wants a good review he must write what his peers want to hear"

I agree there is some danger of this in academic circles. Especially for those of otherwise sound intellect and capability that are trying to break in.

That said, I don't think it's the overreaching reality. There are certain checks and balances that keep it in line. One, academia, on any subject, is not represented by a monolithic group. The ideological infighting of those from various persuasions helps prevent any conclusion from going unquestioned.

Two, academics are for the most part arrogant and competitive people. Indeed, they make a living debating subjects. Many believe they are not only smarter than their readers but also each other. They challenge the status quo as a matter of principle and career advancement. That is how awards are given: for being groundbreaking on a subject. Thus, while "protecting one's own" undoubtedly applies in certain circumstances, throwing elbows and stepping on feet to get noticed also applies. This element of human nature, in my opinion, also keeps these "peer reviews" from becoming too stagnant.

 

[Savez]

No, but conversely it does not mean that a contrary conclusion to your belief is necessarily wrong.

I think we have to understand too, that some writers are better at explaining themselves than other writers. I've made the mistake of misunderstanding at times. It's been my fault as much as theirs.

I am less bothered than you (and perhaps others here on this board) by criticisms of the antebellum South. I think many of those criticisms are warranted. I also appreciate those who rock the boat with northern slave trade interests, and they frequently don't get the attention they deserve. But I don't believe "mainstream history" is out to paint the South in a bad light. I know too many southern historians to think there's a serious regional bias.

BTW, I always appreciate the responses I get from you - as well as RobertP, bama, and a few other regulars - who continue with a remarkably civil discourse on this subject.

Same goes for me too. I have sometimes gotten too irritated but I try not to get carried away, although sometimes I do.

 

[Savez]

I agree there is some danger of this in academic circles. Especially for those of otherwise sound intellect and capability that are trying to break in.

That said, I don't think it's the overreaching reality. There are certain checks and balances that keep it in line. One, academia, on any subject, is not represented by a monolithic group. The ideological infighting of those from various persuasions helps prevent any conclusion from going unquestioned.

Two, academics are for the most part arrogant and competitive people. Indeed, they make a living debating subjects. Many believe they are not only smarter than their readers but also each other. They challenge the status quo as a matter of principle and career advancement. That is how awards are given: for being groundbreaking on a subject. Thus, while "protecting one's own" undoubtedly applies in certain circumstances, throwing elbows and stepping on feet to get noticed also applies. This element of human nature, in my opinion, also keeps these "peer reviews" from becoming too stagnant.

Well said. Its just to me, and probably everyone here, that history is more than just primary sources and sometimes I believe the "academics" don't get it, no matter who they are or where they are from. I think common sense more often than not gets left behind, also.

 

[CharacterGroove]

I agree that it's much more than just primary sources. The entire field is based on interpretation of knowledge. For instance, the Declaration of Independence was a biased interpretation of what the King was doing to the Colonies. A contemporary historian giving an account of that document will be interpreting what others were interpreting - for their benefit. There's all kinds of room for disagreement and scholarship there.

On this board, we could use the Secession Documents as an example. "Primary sources" that are really just biased interpretations of facts - which in turn become facts of what had been advocated. To merely cite them as authority is bad history. They need to be analyzed and interpreted in context.

On your second point, I think an academic would challenge what you and others consider to be "common sense." By its nature it's based on life experiences and personal education. It's an especially specious term in the context of history. What was "common sense" to a man in 1860 might seem awfully nonsensical to a person today.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Savez]

I agree that it's much more than just primary sources. The entire field is based on interpretation of knowledge. For instance, the Declaration of Independence was a biased interpretation of what the King was doing to the Colonies. A contemporary historian giving an account of that document will be interpreting what others were interpreting - for their benefit. There's all kinds of room for disagreement and scholarship there.

On this board, we could use the Secession Documents as an example. "Primary sources" that are really just biased interpretations of facts - which in turn become facts of what had been advocated. To merely cite them as authority is bad history. They need to be analyzed and interpreted in context.

On your second point, I think an academic would challenge what you and others consider to be "common sense." By its nature it's based on life experiences and personal education. It's an especially specious term in the context of history. What was "common sense" to a man in 1860 might seem awfully nonsensical to a person today.

Just some thoughts.

Again well said. I added the bold above because that is exactly why I think where a historian is coming from is so important.