I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the conversation between KC Johnson and Michael Berube is worth having, both here and at Michael Berube's blog. Over there, it's Round One and Round Two. For the most part, the conversations have been civil, even when some hard points were being made. Even if you disagree with KC's reading of Berube's essay, Tim Burke's point -- that Erin O'Connor had read the essay in a similar way -- is worth making. While not agreeing with it, he acknowledges that people of good will can read a piece differently. Once Berube tells us that it's not how it was intended, I'd say we need to take his word for it.

Speaking of conversations, eb at delayed reaction found an amazing thing the other day. A year ago, Tim Burke's"Simon Schama, I Love You" at Cliopatria launched a terrific discussion here, at Invisible Adjunct, and at a post by Kieran Healy at Crooked Timber. The discussion was about some observations attributed to Schama by a writer for The Independent on the merit of grand narrative history vs. the academic monograph. The text of the Independent piece can be found here. What eb at delayed reaction found (scroll down) was that, a week after the piece appeared in The Independent, a letter from Schama explicitly repudiated the views attributed to him. His position, Schama insisted, was one that encompassed the caveats that Burke had offered. So, Michael, there's hope for good conversation and for some of us, even if we do, initially, mis-read your position. Thanks to eb's and Sharon Howard's sharp eyes and resourcefulness for this.

The conversation with David Horowitz, on the other hand, seems one not worth having. After his underlings dismissed Oscar Chamberlain and Mark Grimsley as"Churchill Defenders" and Grimsley as a"Churchill Clone," there was even more ad hominem aimed at Jon Dresner. I'm still in recovery from an e-mail exchange in which Horowitz called me an"insufferable snot." Of course, I had baited him, but I've been more elegantly insulted by people of a better class, so I'm likely to get over it. Still, it's important to note that the story from the University of Northern Colorado that Horowitz likes to tell is only one side of a tale told by an anonymous student. The professor in question is known and he denies it. So, Horowitz tells one side of a he said/she said story and we're not to know the identity of his source. Fair enough. It should be understood in that light.

There are other conversations that are worth having. At Mode for Caleb, Caleb McDaniel and Jason Kuzniki are engaged in an interesting discussion of Caleb's Tim"Burke on Wolfowitz and War." There's a multi-sided conversation just waiting to continue among civil people. At Siris, the historians' philosophical friend, Brandon Watson, poses two challenges for us."Wherein I Exhibit Some of My Stick-in-the-Mud Wet-Blanketness" argues that terms like"Religious Right" and"Religious Left" are not useful. They don't even refer to anything that we know to exist, he says. Greg Robinson responded to Watson in comments here. The other challenge Watson offers historians is his"Believing History." Referencing the exchange among Bruce Kuklick, Richard Bushman, and Mark Noll, Watson makes some provocative claims. If we think X could not have occurred because it is a miraculous event, he argues, then rather than engage in dismissive rhetoric we must be able to show that Y did occur. I wonder if that doesn't make some big assumptions about the possibility of being able to prove Y, even if we do dismiss X out of hand.

Finally, if you tire of the hammer and tongs public discussions here at Cliopatria, I recommend Horizon, where a civil conversation about matters of historical interest can always be found.