Sunday Notes

by Cliopatria

Military History Carnival #7 is up at Airminded!

Philip Pullella,"Knights Templar win heresy reprieve after 700 years," Reuters, 11 October, announces publication of Processus Contra Templarios -- Papal Inquiry into the Templars, a record of the trial of the Knights between 1307 and 1312 CE. Accused of heresy and sexual misconduct, the Knights were absolved by Pope Clement V's Parchment of Chinon in 1308, but dissolved by him in 1312"for the good of the church." This fine reproduction of the original trial transcripts bears a premium price: 5,900 euros ($8,333).

Stacy Schiff,"Founding Chauvinist Pig," NYT, 14 October, reviews Jon Kukla's Mr. Jefferson's Women.

Tim Rutten reviews Garry Wills's Head and Heart: American Christianities for the LA Times, 10 October.

Blake Gopnik,"Vive la Similarité," Washington Post, 14 October, reviews"Déjà Vu? Revealing Repetition in French Masterpieces," an exhibit at Baltimore's Walters Art Museum. The exhibit and the review focus on how technological change affected the role and the value of 19th century painting. Repetition in pre-photography paintings raise questions of sequence comparable to those Errol Morris explores in his posts about photography.

James Heartfield,"New Left, Old Pessimism," Mute, 10 October, reviews Duncan Thompson's Pessimism of the Intellect: A History of the New Left Review.

Charles Piot,"KC's World," Transforming Anthropology, 15:2, is a Duke anthropologist's critique of KC Johnson's blog, Durham-in-Wonderland. At Tenured Radical, Claire Potter sees D-i-W as a" cult" and KC as its"leader". KC promises a reply to Piot's article at D-i-W on Monday.

Finally, three former Oral Roberts University professors, including John Swails, former chairman of ORU's History, Humanities and Government Department, who are suing its administration for wrongful termination, have just ramped things up several notches. There's no sex scandal hot as a Pentecostal sex scandal. Here's the amended court filing. Hat tip.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 10/15/2007

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Manan. It is the kind of criticism that we need here and that I found lacking in Chris Pettit's oft-repeated ad hominem attack on KC.
Having said that, the most offensive comments that Piot reproduces were from e-mails sent to Duke faculty members -- not from KC's blog. Piot acts as if they were generated by D-i-W, but we really can't know that. A number of other blogs sprang up around the Duke case that may well have encouraged those e-mails. Or, they may have been inspired by non-blog sources. Who knows?
Having said that, it's certainly true (KC even acknowledges) that some of the comments at D-i-W were "vile". At least one of the commenters there, "Shouting Thomas", an advocate of white/male identity politics, was banned at HNN years ago. He's frustrated that KC rejects identity politics across the board.
Having said that, and just, myself, having threatened to get Chris Pettit banned from HNN for adding nothing but ad hominem, there are limits to the usefulness of banning certain commenters. To let a "Shouting Thomas" express himself reminds us that such people are out there and banning them can create a kind of cocoon in which we hold the illusion that they fading away.
I mentioned several days ago that, in different ways, the case of Michael Bellesiles's Arming America and the Duke lacrosse case had shaken me deeply because they blind-sided me -- they pointed to where my blinders are. In a larger sense and in different ways, I think they both point to the academic left's blinders. And, to a large degree, I see the academic left's reaction to the two cases as indications that the academic left chooses to embrace its blinders.
The JAH has never yet rescended its highest award to Bellesiles's 1996 article which was already deeply flawed and that award only told Michael to dig his flawed research hole deeper. Similarly, as I think Tim Burke noted, Duke's Group of 88 might have forestalled much of the criticism it has received, if it had simply acknowledged that its ad in the Duke Chronicle was precipitated by the lacrosse party and false rape allegations and apologized to the accused. Instead of that, they continue to deny that fact (Piot is only the latest denier) and continue to pretend that the problem was the DA's "mishandling" of the case or that its end was that the "charges were dropped." They refuse to confront the facts that their ad was prompted by the rape allegations, there was no rape, and that a year in the lives of three young men was wrongly eaten up by false charges from which they've been absolved by the state's Attorney General.
Instead of embracing our blinders, the academic left has got to learn from these kinds of cases that our operative assumptions do include blinders and if we continue to embrace them, it will continue to encourage and leave us vulnerable to broad-ranging criticism of higher education in general.

Manan Ahmed - 10/15/2007

I have to say that I cannot imagine why KC allows comments - such as were reproduced in Piot's critique - on his blog. While I don't agree with KC, I think he has the right to his DiW and his book but the comments serve exactly what?

He approves every comment, and he states in a post: "These posts generated over 90,000 comments. Some comments were intellectually dubious; a few were vile. Most, however, came from people knowledgeable about the case, and provided insight not only for me but for other readers"

I will be honest and say that I have never read KC's blog or the posts there until I just went and clicked on some random posts (after reading the Piot). The unscientific survey was enough to convince me of never returning there. I am sure there is intelligent discourse there. I just won't be wading through the rest of (often racial) harangues to find it.

I know that there are plenty of places on the internets where all manner of speech holds sway and I am sure that KC's audience deserves their voices heard - I am just unclear of why KC lets his blog be such a venue.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/14/2007

Chris, Your comments here are consistently without intellectual merit. Your animus toward KC is now well established. Your comments are mere ad hominem. There's no need to repeat it ad infinitum. If you have nothing else to say, do not continue in this vein. I will, if necessary, ask that you be banned from commenting at HNN.

chris l pettit - 10/14/2007

Nice to see KC having his rear end handed to him (again). It will be interesting to see how he spins this into oblivion and somehow makes himself the victim in all of this.

CP