- This topic has 7 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
Are there any historians you all know of who should just be avoided? Have any of you heard of these guys: Peter Heather (he has a few of books on the Late Antiquity period and the Migration), Malcolm Todd (ditto) Dennis Showalter (my professor says he's an excellent historian of WWI).May add to the list later as I get more familiar with the subject matter. Right now, just concerned with who, if any, to avoid.What are some signs to look for when judging historians? Usually when I see "a new history of" or "revised" it sort of raises some alarm, but not all the time.
I sir, would have to say, show me the money/history/proof. And make lemonaid. Will it ever matter if lemonade is brewed another way? What would Charley Varrick do?
Avoid Jon Butler on American religious issues. Avoid any New Left historian (they seek to tear down America's noble image wherever they can). Avoid Bible scholars who depend solely on literary criticism to obtain their theological findings. I could go on, but I won't. It's not hard to see where bad scholarship lies.
I try to avoid any Revisionist or New Left historians. I also particularly despise post-modernists and post-structualists of the Derrida or Foucault camps, what they do is not so much history as moral relativism cloaked as history or theory. The various post- types are generally trying to cram their lack of morals down our throats in my opinion, and are not engaged in any serious study. Their Marxist origin is also easy to detect.
If you have found a useful idea in Foucallt, your'e a better man than me. Mostly what reading his work does is give me a headache. I have never read anyone who can write in circles better than him, though Derrida gives him a run for his money.
I read a book on John Smith called “Jamestown and the birth of the American Dream” by Thomas and Dorothy Hoobler…in it they insiuated that he was gay because he had never taken a wife. I was very frustrated with this book after that. I dont think I will read anymore by them.
His analysis of the prison system has some merits.
I have the impression from reading him that he would rather there were no prison system. He seems to argue that prisons are counterproductive, I have found very little analysis in his work but quite a bit of ontificating and obfuscation. I found his idea of the Great Confinement particularly ignorant. He provides very little evidence to back up his claim that prior to the 17th century madmen walked free and were an integral part of society.
I read him to mean that the current prison system failed in its original purpose. I might have to reread him again to see if I missed something. Prisons are counterproductive in terms of rehabilitating criminals. Their only purpose now seems to be to remove unwanted elements from society at a terrible cost…very counterproductive in terms of the human element. However, it is difficult to see how else we can do differently. Foucault at least tried to analyse something few others seem to care about.
I read a book on John Smith called "Jamestown and the birth of the American Dream" by Thomas and Dorothy Hoobler...in it they insiuated that he was gay because he had never taken a wife. I was very frustrated with this book after that. I dont think I will read anymore by them.
Don't be surprised if you find that "speculation" in a number of other books from more modern scholarship. On one hand it may increase the "juiciness" factor of the research and give it more attention, and on the other hand it can go toward expanding modern socio-political power through the use of history. I recall going into a bookstore in the mid-90s and seeing this book about the top 100 gay people in history, and when I looked who it included was surprised to find some of the most famous names in history....Augustine, I think either Michelangelo or da Vinci, etc. I thought the book was somewhat absurd.
I read him to mean that the current prison system failed in its original purpose. I might have to reread him again to see if I missed something. Prisons are counterproductive in terms of rehabilitating criminals. Their only purpose now seems to be to remove unwanted elements from society at a terrible cost...very counterproductive in terms of the human element. However, it is difficult to see how else we can do differently. Foucault at least tried to analyse something few others seem to care about.
I agree that from the perspective of rehabilitation, prisons are indeed counterproductive. However, I am a crime and punishment type, I believe the purpose of a prison is to remove unwanted elements of society.As to Foucault and most other postmodernists I have read. They lose me as soon as they start spouting their watered down version of Marxism. They see everything as relative, morality included. What is Foucault's conception of the episteme if not moral relativism? They claim that bias cannot be avoided and since bias is inevitable why not revel in it. Postmodernism is very Narcissistic in that respect. I stand by my assertion that Foucault did not so much analyze as attempt to find fault with something that only he can define. I have a paper I wrote on postmodernism and history that I could forward you if you like. It explains my thoughts much better than these few short lines can.
I read him to mean that the current prison system failed in its original purpose. I might have to reread him again to see if I missed something. Prisons are counterproductive in terms of rehabilitating criminals. Their only purpose now seems to be to remove unwanted elements from society at a terrible cost...very counterproductive in terms of the human element. However, it is difficult to see how else we can do differently. Foucault at least tried to analyse something few others seem to care about.
I agree that from the perspective of rehabilitation, prisons are indeed counterproductive. However, I am a crime and punishment type, I believe the purpose of a prison is to remove unwanted elements of society.As to Foucault and most other postmodernists I have read. They lose me as soon as they start spouting their watered down version of Marxism. They see everything as relative, morality included. What is Foucault's conception of the episteme if not moral relativism? They claim that bias cannot be avoided and since bias is inevitable why not revel in it. Postmodernism is very Narcissistic in that respect. I stand by my assertion that Foucault did not so much analyze as attempt to find fault with something that only he can define. I have a paper I wrote on postmodernism and history that I could forward you if you like. It explains my thoughts much better than these few short lines can.
That would be an interesting read.I totally Agree that Foucault is a pinko Marxist of the most disgusting sort. He was shoved down my throat in a class I had. However, as a Christian and a former seminarian, I see the relevance of trying to rehabilitate human beings. Foucault was more interested in seeing the inmates rehabilitated so they could go back to being productive workers in the economy. I'm looking at it from a religious point of view admittedly. I want our prison system to rehabilitate inmates so they can be product servants of God in preparation for the coming Kingdom. But we're talking history here and not religion so I drop this point from the discussion.
