And has decided, with his great "historical" knowledge, that civil rights leaders are not very important. The dude has a bachelors from Oral Roberts in "religious education" but in far right conservative circles (Mike Huckabee, for example), that makes him a professional historian.
This is what anti-intellectualism gets you.
17 comments:
Note that "far right conservative circles," in addition to Huckabee, includes the Texas Board of Education, which has retained Barton as an expert (scroll about halfway down) to review the state's social studies curriculum.
Oh, hey, probably should have read the article you linked before posting, eh?
Heh.
Yeah, lots of people on the far right prefer Barton to, you know, professional historians. He gives them the history they want, rather than the history based on facts. And looking at this story, it seems clear that they don't want anything to do with a history that emphasizes civil rights. White people all the way!
What is this guys CV like? Not to be some kind of degree snob, but I would think a doctorate from some kind of reputable institution would be a starting point for being a professional historian. Absent that, maybe a decent amount of published articles.
Lot of publications, but none of them peer reviewed (as far as I know) by historians. And like you, I don't want to be a degree snob either, but he doesn't have any training as a historian at all. Not even his undergrad is in history.
Barton is simply a polemicist, mining the past for quotes and interesting trivia that fits his pre-existing assumptions. He isn't a historian, period.
"Not to be some kind of degree snob" Why not? Personally, when I'm on the table the guy/gal with scalpel had better be an MD with a residency and experience in surgery. I expect my psychologist to have a phd and appropriate licensing. I expect my kid's math teacher to have studied math. I understand that having a degree alone does not make one qualified to practice in a given profession, but there are reasons we have these qualification processes. Among them are the rigors of study, reputation of college or university, research standards, and, hopefully, ethics. For some reason social sciences are somewhat given to self promoting lay "experts". Again, I'm not saying the degree makes you good, but it's not a bad place to start if you're serious about being taken seriously.
"Anne Hutchinson does not belong in the company of these eminent gentlemen." Just add "white" before "gentlemen" and I think we'll have a good statement of his sentiments. More pitiful grasping by white fundamentalists to minimize the contributions of those outside their white gentlemen's club. This would be laughable if it wasn't actually happening.
Later
BB
I would be willing to overlook the lack of degree if he was "self-trained" in some way and had demonstrated some degree of scholarship, but it seems like he hasn't. He sounds like an opinionated loudmouth.
Right. And there have been a lot of self-trained historians or people trained in other disciplines (journalism, for example) who have written some credible history.
But Barton's only credibility is that he gives the right the version of history they want. Facts aside, of course.
For some reason social sciences are somewhat given to self promoting lay "experts".
I think this is partly due to the social sciences being seen as a soft science and a great deal of competing theories.
Some of us don't think of history as a "social science," btw, and object when it is lumped into those other disciplines. But we do have standards and methods that credible historians follow.
When I think of social sciences I think of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. I don't really consider history a social science. FWIW, two of my degrees are in the social sciences and I don't really consider them to be easy. They also have standards, professional associations, and plenty of peer reviewed professional journals.
"Some of us don't think of history as a "social science," Sorry- no offense intended (just showing my own ignorance), but the point/principle still holds.
No offense taken. Just a note of clarification. And Steve, I don't think anyone said that social sciences don't have standards or peer reviewed journals.
My only thought here was that I am far more willing to have some idiot writing history than working as my surgeon. But of course, we all agree here, that we are fully free to criticize the idiot when he produces bad history. And that is what I have done with David Barton at every opportunity.
Man, I need a new hobby...
"I am far more willing to have some idiot writing history than working as my surgeon." I don't want to be overly dramatic here, BUT I think one could make the case that inaccurate, politicized history at the state or national level has the potential for causing more misery and even death than could result from a quack doctor here and there- the point being we shouldn't have to deal with either. I know we're in agreement and I'm splitting hairs.
FWIW
BB
BB, you are correct, but the same people that use history to justify actions would probably find some other justification if they didn't have the history to back them up.
I don't have a developed opinion on which is worse, but it seems to me that propagandists like Barton aren't looking to justify their actions, so much as to provide plausible deniability to people who happen to share a religious vocabulary with them, but wouldn't openly support their causes. It's a way to shift the Overton window toward the right.
I think where I am on this is that Barton's lack of degrees are not the main reason his history is pure crap. He could write better history, and do so without a PhD in history--and as all of us know, plenty of PhDs in history write terribly and have produced very little interesting history. The biggest problem with Barton is that he is not trying to actually write history, but to simply mine the past for the conclusions he has already reached, and that the religious right and conservative establishment want to hear about.
Post a Comment