RE: Revisionism (#15243)
by E.T. Strobridge on July 17, 2003 at 1:36 AM

For one of many, I believe that a number of the historians who have signed this statement are full blown hypocrites. The entire second paragraph leading off with the statement "It is central to the work of historians to search for accuracy, and to revise conclusions that prove to be unsupported by evidence" is not central to many historians beliefs or practice. Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Bellesiles and others who have been taken to task for their lies, made up historical events and theft of the work of others are but a few examples who not fit that mold. But the hypocritical holier than thou historians who expound the above statement and then go on to defend those historians who have been exposed, not by their contemporaries but by minor historians, the press and others for their refusal to comply with the high standards listed have no cause to complain about President Bush and his charge of those who do rewrite history. That is exactly what many have done and I join Mr.Bush in his charge. Frankly we all are getting tired of listening to those who cry when they are criticised, held accountable and think that by signing a statement of standards they do not practice or believe in have seriously damaged their profession's credibility. I can only suggest that you needn't be so sensitive and if you want to prove your critics wrong that do it and quit your bellyaching.

RE: Revisionism (#15423)
by jim on July 21, 2003 at 2:45 AM

This statement by Appleby and company is self-serving nonsense. There is nothing here for professional historians to address. The historians have no more information in this matter at this point than I do. This is political rhetoric dressed up as a defense of the historical method. These people oppose Bush because they are liberal-leftist academics, not because they are objective professional historians.

At least, they are not committed to political rhetoric at the pathological level, as is Mr. Kriz.