Return to News Archives: Latest

Historians' Committee for Fairness (#40982)
by HNN on August 31, 2004 at 11:19 PM
Editor: HNN received the following press release from historian Greg Robinson.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We represent the Historians' Committee for Fairness, an organization of scholars and professional researchers. Michelle Malkin's appearance on numerous television and radio shows and her comments during these appearances regarding her book IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT represent a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness. Malkin is not a historian, and she states that she relied almost exclusively on research conducted or collected by others. Her book, which purports to defend the wartime treatment of Japanese Americans, did not go through peer review before publication. This work presents a version of history that is contradicted by several decades of scholarly research, including works by the official historian of the United States Army and an official U.S. government commission. In fact, the author's presentation of events is so distorted and historically inaccurate that, when challenged by reputable historians, she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect, namely that the MAGIC intercepts of prewar Japanese diplomatic cable traffic, explain and justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. As Malkin states, her critics have noted that "once the decision was made to evacuate ethnic Japanese from the West Coast, many ancillary decisions were made--and MAGIC doesn't explain all or even most of them. True...." (see her website, www.michellemalkin.com, August 6, 2004)

It is irresponsible of your producers to permit Michelle Malkin’s biased presentation of events to go unchallenged as a factual historical presentation. We therefore respectfully demand that you formally apologize to the Japanese Americans who have been slandered by Ms. Malkin's reckless presentation and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.

Sincerely yours, (list incomplete, institutions for identification only)
Allan Austin, Misericordia College
Eiichiro Azuma, University of Pennsylvania
Allida M. Black, George Washington University
Matthew Manuel Briones, Harvard University
Laura Card, University of Utah
Elena Tajima Creef, Wellesley College
Louis Fiset, University of Washington
Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Stanford University
Heather Fryer, Creighton University
Stephen Fugita, University of Washington
Thomas Fujita-Rony, California State University, Fullerton
James Gatewood, Brown University
Neil Gotanda, California School of Law
Arthur W. Hansen, California State University, Fullerton
Michiko Hase, University of Colorado
John Howard, King’s College, University of London
Moon-Ho Jung, University of Washington
Scott Kurashige, University of Michigan
Tom Ikeda, DENSHO
Tetsuden Kashima, University of Washington
Eileen Kurahashi, National Center for the Preservation of Democracy
Karl Kwong-Liem Kwan, Purdue University
Kevin Leonard, Western Washington University
Daryl J. Maeda, Oberlin College
Robert Maeda, Brandeis University
Takeya Mizuno, Bunkyo University
Mitchell Maki, California State University, Los Angeles
Eric R. Muller, University of North Carolina Law School
Don T.Nakanishi, University of California Los Angeles
Franklin Ng, California State University, Fresno
Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi, Brooklyn College, CUNY
Gail M. Nomura, University of Washington
Greg Robinson, Université du Québec À Montréal
George Sanchez, University of Southern California
Mitziko Sawada, Hampshire College
Robert Shaffer, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Stephen H. Sumida, University of Washington
Andrew B. Wertheimer, University of Hawaii
Yuh Ji-Yeon, Northwestern University


Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#40995)
by Walter D. Kamphoefner on September 1, 2004 at 8:35 AM
Please add my name to the list.

Walter D. Kamphoefner
Professor of History
Texas A&M University
(specialist in German-American immigration and ethnicity)

Good cause, poor expression (#41002)
by Oscar Chamberlain on September 1, 2004 at 12:12 PM
See Volokh Conspiracy for a good critique of this statement.

The cause is good, but the statement is not.

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#41006)
by Clayton Earl Cramer on September 1, 2004 at 1:14 PM
The letter complains about "a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness." Okay, fair enough. A professional historian has obligations in these areas. But the next sentence reminds us, "Malkin is not a historian, and she states that she relied almost exclusively on research conducted or collected by others." So why do the professional standards of the historian apply to Malkin?

I suppose that I could take the "professional standards" argument a bit more seriously if we didn't have the recent memory of the Bellesiles scandal, where professional historians did their best to prevent any serious examination of massive and obvious fraud from working its way into popular newspapers and court decisions.

There are professional historians who take what they do seriously, regardless of the political consequences of what they find. But I no longer have any illusion that these "professsional standards" are adhered to by the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S.

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#41007)
by Ron L Williams on September 1, 2004 at 1:18 PM
Letter is righteous indignation not followed by facts. Argument seems to be she’s not one of the group, that makes her wrong. Lousy logic. Book makes some compelling arguments and I would appreciate comments and corrections from this group, not petty bickering about credentials.

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#41023)
by Michelle Malkin on September 1, 2004 at 3:00 PM

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#41029)
by tom plotts on September 1, 2004 at 6:24 PM
I dunno Malkin, if you hold up as well under scholarly grilling as you did under Matthews, it could be a pretty short evening.

Oh well, I figured this book was just to lay the groundwork for making concentration camps fashionable again, for those of us who are bound to be herded up in the next wave of "forced collective happiness" or something. In the words of Trey Parker, "Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps!"

Creeps.


Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#41041)
by cameron wilson gilchrist on September 2, 2004 at 5:29 AM
Gentlemen your pants are down and your politics are showing.

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#41042)
by Keith Stone on September 2, 2004 at 5:33 AM
I thought a true study of history was supposed to be free from Politics. Sure, Historians do reflect the tenor of their times, however, they should attempt to hold back the "Political Correct" nonsense.

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#48750)
by Sam andy fields on December 13, 2004 at 10:57 PM
On http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=40982
This is said:
It is irresponsible of your producers to permit Michelle Malkin’s biased presentation of events to go unchallenged as a factual historical presentation. We therefore respectfully demand that you formally apologize to the Japanese Americans who have been slandered by Ms. Malkin's reckless presentation and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.
Sam Fields:What I am commenting about is how the persons who have put their names to this petition have decided what the evidence is- is it possible somebody else has something they consider to be evidence, only to be locked out by the selfish bigotry of the persons on the list? Who are they to say to the rest of mankind that only THEY are the TRUE holders of THE TRUTH?

Re: Historians' Committee for Fairness (#66835)
by Murray B on August 17, 2005 at 6:09 PM
Here is a anonymous joke that I have found:

>What are historians really like?

> Question: How do monkeys settle a disagreement?
> Answer: They fling turds at each >other until exhaustion and the last >one standing wins. The outcome is >never determined by the merit of an >argument but by pungency, volume, and >density of the turds as well as the >accuracy by which they are thrown.

>Question: How do historians settle a disagreement?

>Answer: Exactly the same way! Except >their turds are circular reasoning, >non-sequiturs, and arguments ad >hominem.

>Except for slight differences in the >ammunition, historians cannot be >distinguished from monkeys and, >therefore, ARE monkeys.

It is just too funny and thanks to the HCF for making it even more so. Now if Michelle Malkin is admittedly not a historian then why are these turds being slung?

Dear Historians' Committee for Fairness and Interested Parties:

I have two questions and an observation.
Is your ire aroused only when a heresy is published by a member of this country's political right? I have a history degree from a fine university, the University of Wisconsin, and I have been reading history since I graduated 36 years ago. I can state without the slightest fear of successful contradiction that the average history/political science book or lecture by Noam Chomsky is as accurate as history as "Mary Poppins" is as a biography of Sylvia Plath. Has the Historians' Committee for Fairness blasted Chomsky, too? Should his books also be peer-reviewed?
My second question is simply to ask where I can find a rebuttal to the assertions made by Malkin in her book?
End of questions; now to my observation.
I don't know what Malkin has said during her TV and radio interviews. But I don't recall her saying in her book that decoded MAGIC messages were the main reason FDR ordered the evacuation of our West Coast Japanese. In her book she presents a variety of disturbing information, all of which FDR was aware of. To me the most compelling was that local ethnic Japanese had already fought on the side of the emperor during the Japanese invasions of Hong Kong, the Philippines, and elsewhere, and that Canada and Mexico had ordered the evacuation of their own ethnic Japanese before we did.
Be that as it may, I am keeping an open mind and I would like to read the Committee's rebuttal to Malkin and find out where it stands on Chomsky. Many thanks.
Roger Kolb

Post a Comment

What rules govern discussion boards?

If you have not already done so, you must Sign Up before you can post.








Return to News Archives: Latest

ASHP-CUNY Banner

Subscribe to HNN's newsletter.

HNN Donations--click here.

Subscribe to HNN's newsletter.

Just How Stupid Are We? By Rick Shenkman

Subscribe to HNN's newsletter.

Subscribe to HNN's newsletter.

Subscribe to HNN's newsletter.