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