Jeff Herf of the University of Maryland and others have drafted an American response to The Euston Manifesto. Their full text is here. David Bell of Johns Hopkins, William Chace of Emory, Marion Deshmuk of George Mason, Gerald Feldman of Berkeley, Saul Friedlander of UCLA, Daniel Goldhagen of Harvard, Alonzo Hamby and Steven Miner of Ohio University, our colleague, KC Johnson, and Steven Remy of Brooklyn College, Walter Laqueur of The Journal of Contemporary History, Andrew Lees of Rutgers, Arthur M. Eckstein, Keith Olsen and Donald Sutherland of Maryland, Stanley Payne of Wisconsin, The New Republic's Marty Peretz and Leon Wieseltier, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein and Ronald Radosh of CUNY, Thomas Schwartz of Vanderbilt, Alan Steinweis of Nebraska, Gerhard Weinberg of UNC, Jeff Weintraub of Penn, and James Young of Massachusetts are among those who have signed the statement. If you care to join them, you can do so here. Thanks to Richard Jensen of Conservativenet for the tip. See also: Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber.
comments powered by Disqus
Jeff Vanke - 9/15/2006
Herf's statement per se is an awesome standard for traditional liberalism in today's world. It also explicitly endorses the Euston Manifesto.
The Euston document aims the charge of anti-Semitism sloppily and liberally. Therein lies a difference.
Michael McIntyre - 9/15/2006
Or if you prefer your Euston served with a good dish of irony, you can read the American version here, where you can also order The Nomos of the Earth by Carl Schmitt. The editors even draw the Link between Schmitt's geopolitics and Eustonianism for you:
"But however critical Schmitt is of American actions at the turn of the nineteenth century and after World War I, he clearly was in awe of the United States and considered it to be the only political entity capable of resolving the crisis of global order."
Ralph E. Luker - 9/14/2006
I suspect that the second document was drafted as a way of rallying support for the position in the United States.
Jonathan Dresner - 9/14/2006
I'm not entirely sure what the "US Response" is that distinguishes it from what's in the original. I just read both (and signed both) fully for the first time (I'd skimmed the original one a while back, but not read it closely) and while I support both, I don't entirely see why a second document was needed.
Got me to read it, though! Thanks.
- Historians unravel mystery behind cryptic Lincoln note
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach