Pat,

  While I can agree with your identification of the "bottom line",  I must ask:   Vituperation?  Have we been reading the same postings?   I've seen nothing that comes close to verbal abuse or severe censure; to the contrary, I've found it to be a very interesting and learned discussion that helps me see --and understand--  ideas that need to be considered.  The discussion that followed  Ed Ayers' question, is, I think, more interesting than his question  --perhaps because  I'm not at all certain he was asking the right one.

  Joanne


Patricia Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  The level of vituperation has increased significantly in this erudite
exchange, says Col. Foghorn Leghorn, and I, for one, regret it.
I'm also wary of joining the fray, but here goes: I'm an historian of
Europe, and I am particularly interested in losers...I mean
irredentists, not jerks. In the recent past, Americans have been
surprised at the way Serbs, Irish, Palestinians and Jews, to name a few,
have held on to, even nurtured, grudges and hatreds stemming from
ancient defeats and betrayals. However, this north/south divide shows
that Americans are obviously not immune to such viseral responses.

I know the names of all of my Confederate ancestors, which were drummed
into me on vacation visits to innumberable battlefields. I can even
point out the trees behind which my great grandfather shot at "Yankees"
in the Wilderness. As a small child I heard all the family stories of
life in Reconstruction Virginia, and I say, let it go. The South,
however noble(?) its officers may have been, was wrong; it got punished;
it's over. Would you really want to revisit that horrible time? Of
course poor whites were exploited by rich whites, and probably some
innocent white lives were lost. It happens all over the world, all the
time. However, blacks had it worse than whites. That's the bottom
line! The way "freedmen" were treated in "my" Virginia is, and was,
shameful and unconscionable. So let's swallow our indignation, folks,
on both sides.

Take a "cleansing" breath, and let's get back to Ed Ayers' question--who
are better historians, journalists or academics. I think academics are
better, because they are trained to take the long view, to always be
aware of the long-term effects and, more importantly, the connections
over time and space. This makes us different from people who are
intrinsically searching for "news." I agree that academic history can
be mind-numbingly esoteric, but it doesn't have to be. As Nicholas
Edsall my dissertation director always said, "You have to tell the
story." And, really, most stories about humans are pretty interesting.

Pat Watkinson


Patricia Ferguson Watkinson, Ph.D.
Archives Research Services
Library of Virginia
804-692-3570
[log in to unmask]


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html



---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html