Historians - Stop It

Time to vent. I have no need to name names - you've read the reviews and you know who they are. But I swear if I read one more historian's erudite treatise attacking Spielberg's Lincoln for not delivering a comprehensive history of the abolition movement I am going to light myself on fire and jump out a window into oncoming traffic. So instead of doing that I think I will take a long winter's nap. It is an activity far less dangerous and far more interesting. Here's an idea for all scholars of history, American studies, or anyone else who feels a burning desire to weigh in on this film. Why not write about what Lincoln does do instead of what it doesn't .
Okay here I go...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wake me up when this is all over.

K

Wing Nuts, Yahoos, and Historical Evidence

I just wanted to say good morning to you all and remind you that Cosmic America welcomes the opinions of everyone - even those of you who disagree with me.

I would remind you, however, that if you make a claim and say you have evidence to support it and then fail to produce said evidence, you are doing a disservice to yourself and the others who think like you do. I mean, I know evidence can be a bit of a bother. But it really comes in handy when you are trying to make a historical argument.

The age old tactic of "if I think so it must be true" or the more recent "I read about it on the Internet" just won't do. Things that happen(ed) in one's mind do/did not necessarily happen in the real world. That sort of methodology just won't get you the respect you think you deserve, and...if you make a wild enough claim, you might even earn yourself a wing nut or yahoo title.

Now there are many reasonable ways to illustrate an argument. Emphasizing the words and/or actions written or undertaken by historical actors is a good place to start. Now I know that one can interpret words, actions, or events differently depending on any number of factors - but again...evidence should play a part in the interpretation somewhere. Shouting (virtually), making bizarre and tenuous connections, and then skedaddling when challenged is not an especially effective way to convince people of anything. In the end, it will only make them want to expose you for the charlatan that you are.

But I will let your comments through anyway. Just because.

K

Name the Historian Who Most Influenced You

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So, who was it? I ask this question from time to time on the C.A. Facebook page and Twitter...purely out of curiosity. I am not developing any thesis or historiographical essay, I just want to know.

I find it interesting that a handful of names come up repeatedly. David Potter set the bar for excellence for many professional historians, and of course Bruce Catton's magnificent prose is unmatched (one person referred to Catton as the "gateway drug" for Civil War history...I found that to be about right). Barbara Tuchman taught one person (on this last round of inquiries) that women could write compelling history, and, to rocket us into to the twenty-first century, fellow blogger Brooks Simpson got a few tips o' the hat (despite his love of the NY Yankees). Allan Bogue, Albert Castel, and James Robertson made the list this time out as well.

So I ask again - who influenced you the most?

Keith

James McPherson, Slavery, State Rights, and Youtube

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I love love love Youtube. Why?? - because you can access all of these wonderful videos for free. I thought I would highlight this one featuring James McPherson because it was short and to the point. He quickly discusses why former Confederates moved away from the slavery cause and toward the state rights cause once the war had been lost.

What I really love is the comment section. Here you have a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Princeton professor and author of The Battle Cry of Freedom, Antietam: The Crossroads of Freedom, and a number of other books - who some knothead dismisses as an "idiot" because...well, I am not quite sure why. The individual in question is not that coherent.

You know...there are all kinds of people out there who can anonymously shoot their mouth off about whatever they want - no matter how asinine. I suggest heading over to Youtube and checking some of them out. You can pretty much search for any Civil War related topic and something interesting will come up - just be warned that what you say may get some pretty hostile responses. Seriously. I can attest to the crazy factor from experience. I have been called a number of things - from a Yankee liar to...well...much worse.

Whatever - I have decided that knotheads will be knotheads. I do not take the hostility personally (bitter...table for one??). Hehehe

As always, peace,

Keith

The Civil War Historian/Civil War Buff Nexus

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

The other day, I tweeted what I thought would be a sort of "throw it out there and see what happens" tweet. My command, if you will: Civil War historians and buffs unite!!

I got the most intriguing response from my Twitter friend @josephaswanson. A straight forward question, really...he asked: is there a middle ground between the two, and if so, what is it called?

That is such an excellent question and one that I thought deserved a little attention. For starters - my position...as a credentialed Civil War historian (meaning: I have a lot of fancy pieces of paper hanging in my office and some people call me "Dr. Harris"). I think that scholars have a tendency to sort of look at so-called "buffs" or rather, those to whom popular history appeals, with a sense of superiority. Now this is not true of all scholars, so don't get the wrong idea. But I have run across many who speak of buffs in a dismissive tone. This is a very bad idea. Very bad indeed.

Here is the situation as I see it. 1) Civil War buffs and historians have an unquenchable thirst for war history. I think that point is well established. 2) A whole lot of Civil War era scholars publish books loaded down with esoteric language and academic jargon, which are thus inaccessible to the majority of the population. 3) Both groups tend to be insular. One seeing the other as either "drums and bugles" or academic claptrap.

But Joseph asks: what is the middle ground? I think the answer is apparent. Social media provide the platforms through which historians and buffs can engage in thoughtful conversation, debate, sharing of knowledge, etc. Oh sure - my experience tells me that you will come across plenty of crackpots, wingnuts, and knotheads along the way - but that is just life. Get used to it.

What you will find more of are people - those who hold advanced degrees and those who do not - with an interest in engaging with one another...speaking about, writing, and publishing Civil War history online. And there are may outlets. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, blogs and a host of others provide free places to say whats on your mind. trust me - go on the web and start talking and people will respond. Lots of people.

I am writing an article as we speak on the value of social media and Civil War history. I (naturally) think it is of the utmost importance. I also accept the fact that there is a ton of information out there - some of it is just plain ridiculous. But that's OK - those of us with sense will see through it. I hope anyway. Another problem could be the sheer volume of historical documentation that we all have at our disposal. How do we begin to wade through the mountains of information currently being digitized a put on the Internet? I suppose our problems could be worse - and the answer(s) remain to be seen.

But of course, the historian/history buff nexus, from where I sit, are social media. Embrace, explore, publish. Who knows what we might figure out together.

peace,

Keith

btw - the guy in the picture is a random Civil War relic collector with his buckle display. He was the among the first in an image search for "Civil War Buff."