VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:54:58 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
Adrian--

I think you would be well served not to impute motivations to other people.  I do not object to you disagreeing with me (or anyone else).  I do object to you doing so by making ad hominem attacks on my character (or that of anyone else with whom you are disagreeing in this forum).  This is what you do to Professor Kiracofe in the post I append below.  There is no call for that, and I for one would be grateful if you would refrain from such incivility in the future.  It really is possible for you to disagree with someone else politely.  Its a skill.  I urge you to practice it.

Your earlier post purported to be a neutral reporting of the facts.  However, it contained a number of judgments and conclusions, some of which are not sustained by the facts you adduce.  In this sense, Professor Kiracofe is correct to chide you for being misleading.  You claim to do one thing, but actually do something else entirely.  He is not blind to your points at all--he has merely stated, accurately, that your post claims to be doing one thing, and in actuality is doing something else.

I agree with you, by the way, that Annette Gordon-Reed's latest book is weak.  However, we should note that her latest book presumes the truth of the argument she makes in her earlier book.  In this sense, she is not lying at all--she is merely assuming that the truth of the argument she makes, in some close detail, in a prior book.  You will note, if you check her foot-notes, that she is quite straight forward and open about this assumption.  This is not lying or disingenuous at all--it is exactly what scholars are supposed to do.  I think her argument in her latest book is based on a bad assumption, and is in that sense is one with which I can not agree.  I do not, however, think you or anyone else can legitimately accuse her of lying.  She makes it quite clear in her annotations exactly what she is assuming, and why, and refers her readers to the books on which she is relying.  

Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US