David E. Nye,"The Origins of 20th Century Progress," American Scientist, March/April, reviews Vaclav Smil, Creating the Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations of 1867-1914 and Their Lasting Impact; and Smil, Transforming the Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations and Their Consequences. Hat tip.
Normitsu Onishi,"In Japan, a Historian Stands by Proof of Wartime Sex Slavery," NY Times, 31 March, looks at the work of Yoshiaki Yoshimi.
The best breaking news for historians of the civil rights movement comes, of all places, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yesterday, it released the report of its recent inquiry into the death of Emmett Till in 1955. The bulk of the 464 page report is an appendix that is a copy of the original transcript of the 1955 trial in which Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam were found not guilty in Till's death. Shortly after the trial, Bryant and Milam acknowledged their responsibility for Till's death, but no subsequent charges were brought against them. Liberty & Power's David Beito and I assisted the Jackson, Mississippi, FBI office in picking up the trail to the transcript, which had been lost to researchers for nearly 40 years.
For their failures to appreciate the obvious analogy between Spartans and patriotic Americans and their recommendation of Gary Brecher's"Triumph of the War Nerd," our colleagues, Tim Burke and Scott McLemee, have re-invested their creds as"commies". Quaint, isn't it?
Finally, Day 2 at the OAH Convention.


Re: Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Re: Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Re: Argumentum ad Hitlerum
I think Keith Windschuttle's schema is helpful:
Foucault = Heidegger + Nietzsche
Lacan = Heidegger + Freud
Derrida = Heidegger + Derrida's style
From: The Killing of History, p. 197
Not that I think there's a dime's worth of difference between commies and the National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP). Slightly different theory, same results.
Argumentum ad Hitlerum
The thesis that 300 is “A Fresh Triumph of the Will” must compel the invoking of Godwin’s Law. I’ll tell you what, if Scott doesn’t call Zack Snyder, Frank Miller, numerous reviewers who recommended the movie and millions of fans who enjoyed it ignorant-fascist-Nazis, I won’t call him a “commie.” Deal?
Although I must admit Scott’s logic is overwhelming in this case:
A: Nazis admired Spartan government and society.
B: Zack Snyder and Frank Miller allegedly admire Spartan government and society.
C: Therefore, Zack Snyder and Frank Miller are Nazis.
How can one argue with such a syllogism? Another example may help clarify the issue:
A: Hitler loved his dog.
B: Scott McLemee loves his dog.
C: Therefore, Scott McLemee is Hitler.
Well, there does seem to be a problem with this form of “reasoning.” Hint: there should be an actual connection between the major and minor premises contained within the middle term.
Regards,
Re: Argumentum ad Hitlerum
2) Tim Burke also posted at Cliopatria and agrees with Scott McLemee;
3) You also called Tim Burke a "commie".
Otherwise, as usual, I don't regard the crap that you post worthy of reply.
Re: Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Re: Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Commies and postmodernists go hand in hand -- we all know how much Derrida influenced Marx.