Pardon My Tizzy ...

by Cliopatria

In"Reading Carefully," my friend, Clayton Cramer, fingers my"hopeless tizzy." To review, I wondered about his attack on Jonathan Dresner, Eric Muller, Greg Robinson, and others as a"truth squad." How was their criticism of Michelle Malkin's book on Japanese internment suspect as book burning and his criticism of Bellesiles's Arming America heroic, I wondered. In attacking the professors, Cramer said:

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"professional standards" are adhered to by the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S.

I took that as an insult to the"vast majority of history professors teaching in the U. S." Called on it, Cramer claimed that that wasn't what he meant to say and a Brown University student, James Kabala, (scroll down to comments) came to Cramer's rescue by pointing out some ambiguity in his language.

Pardon my tizzy, but Cramer's responsible for saying what he means in unambiguous terms. If he means only to cast aspersions on a minority, a majority but not an overwhelming majority of history professors, or an overwhelming majority of history professors, it's up to him to make his meaning clear. It isn't up to his readers to intuit it. English Composition 101, Clayton. Further, if your intent is only to cast aspersions on a substantial minority of historians in the United States, you assume responsibility for offering substantiating evidence, which of course you don't. Beyond that, if you want to cast those aspersions on the way I do history, my books and articles are there for you to check. That isn't what you do. You prefer lazy, sleazy innuendo and smears. Finally, if you're going to pretend to publish a book, don't bellyache and whine about having to live up to the standards that cost Michael Bellesiles his job.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 10/6/2004

Derek,

I think you're half right. Cramer's critics, at least the ones around here, are biased against him, but that's entirely legitimate, because it is a direct result of his record. Kilford's point is that Cramer has lost ground to make up.

Derek Charles Catsam - 10/6/2004

My apologies if I misread -- the first line in Dr. Kilford's initial post seemed to be saying that his critics are not legitimate and that they are biased against him.
dc

Ralph E. Luker - 10/6/2004

I think that Dr. Kilford's point is well taken.

Lloyd Kilford - 10/6/2004

I apologise if I seemed to be supporting Cramer - from what I know of his politics and attitudes I think I oppose nearly all of them.

He *may* have something of a point about bias in the work of some historians, but he hasn't really come up with evidence of the general case, which he really needs to do.

I would be upset if he was making unjustified assertions about *my* professionalism. I'm not asking that you be a saint, but I think that he *wants* you to be angry. He wants you to shout at him (metaphorically speaking). If you can avoid this natural temptation then maybe you can just let him rant away like a lunatic and look like a model of reason beside him.

Just because *he* is a prick, that doesn't mean that those opposing him have to seem like pricks too.

Jonathan Dresner - 10/6/2004

Derek,

I didn't read Mr. Kilford's comments that way at all. He is indeed citing Cramer's incivility and carelessness, and there's nothing in what he wrote here that is a direct indictment of those who have criticized him, or a call to 'back off' from responding to baseless accusations.

Kilford's comment that Cramer should assume that we are out to get him is another way of saying something that many of us have said: in order to effectively engage and convince those who disagree or don't have an opinion, we need to write clearly, substantively and civilly. It is indeed possible to disagree vigorously with great civility, but it requires effort.

Derek Charles Catsam - 10/6/2004

Despite your apparent support for Clayton (we're after him -- never mind that the very generalizations that you admit that he makes are generalizations against ME and against those of us who are critical of him) there is nothing uncivil about taking a strong stance against someone who has made blanket accusations against a huge group of people who care very much about the work that we do. It is he who has been uncivil. Do not expect those of us who have been painted by his brush to respond pollyannaishly. So I stand by my comment earlier -- at least Clayton now is having the cojones to say what he means. At least he is a tiny bit less gutless now, even if he is every bit as wrong.
dc

Lloyd Kilford - 10/5/2004

... would be to assume that his critics *are* politically and personally biased against him, and realise that if he wants to stand any chance of convincing them, he has to construct every argument carefully, argue reasonably even if those who argue against him don't, and to not leave any gaps (like that wretched "vast majority" statement) that distract from the thrust of his argument.

This would hopefully have the pleasant effect that it would make the debate slightly more civilised, which is always a good thing.

Also, I would (were I Clayton Cramer) go after specific historians, rather than flailing around with stereotypes. A certain level of dogmatic obsessiveness seems like a positive thing to have when fact-checking people. After two or three more examples like Bellesiles, the thesis that a significant minority of historians are not up to standard would look much stronger. This would of course be a decent amount of work all by itself.

Derek Charles Catsam - 10/5/2004

Well, at least Cramer can no longer gutlessly, fecklessly lie about previously having generalized and impugned an entire field. Now he's just wrong on the facts, wrong on the interpretations. Before he was wrong on the facts, wrong on the interpretations, and he was a wimp (this leaving out the vicious, rampant bigotry, of course). If we can correct one character flaw at a time, we'll have something resembling the redeemable by 2012 or so.
dc