Oreilly's book thrown out of Ford's theater because of mistakes. (1 Viewer)

[Scott]

She'd probably be arrested today and sued by the parents. :rolleyes2:

Not Mr. Ives!

I support any teacher that can get middle schoolers to pay attention AND remember American History as long as the teachers aren't interjecting their own politics or religion into the classes.

The issue with O'Reilly's book is, did he just write a sloppy book for the $$$$ and to pad his resume along with his "Peabody Award" and porn detective novel, or did he write a sloppy book to mislead people about American history? I'd vote for the first reason in this case but I haven't read his book.

 

[Combat]

I am interested in reading up on this. Coudl you, Brad or Scott perhaps list some recent good books on the assasination of President Lincoln.
Thanks in advance

A couple of very good ones are:

"American Brutas - John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies" by Michael Kauffman

"Manhunt" by James Swanson.

 

[damian]

Thanks
Onto my Amazon wish list they go.

 

[damian]

You guys are costing me money. First you got me reading about the JFK assasination now the Lincoln one.
Once you read one book you get lead to another. It is worse than toy soldier collecting.

 

[jazzeum]

Damian,

This has nothing to do with the assassination but I'm reading William C. Harris' Lincoln and the Border States: Preserving the Union. I would add this to the wishlist, along with the others Lincoln books I've recommended to you :smile2: This is the first look at this important issue in a long time. Pofessor Harris is a noted Lincoln scholar. Among his other books are With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union, Lincoln's Last Month and Lincoln's Rise to the Presidency. This last book won the Henry Adams Prize.

If you're interested, Professor Harris was interviewed on Virtual Book Signing in late September. Here's a link to the archives, which contains that interview, http://www.virtualbooksigning.net/archive.html

 

[Combat]

You guys are costing me money. First you got me reading about the JFK assasination now the Lincoln one.
Once you read one book you get lead to another. It is worse than toy soldier collecting.

I can save you a lot of time and money on the JFK assassination: Oswald did it! LOL.

 

[Jay]

So...... my guess is the book about Lincoln killing vampires might not be availalbe at Ford's book store also?

Seriously, it's a shame how history is taught in schools, and I don't mean politically. The history teacher in high school is more often than not the foot-ball coach or basketball coach who is given that class because that way they can be on full salary. Some really have an interest in the subject, a lot don't. A kid now who majors in history and hopes to teach it in school will find the first question in an interview be "What can you couch?". If he or she can't, there is no postion available. As such, the classes often tend to be boring, and taken straight from the text.

 

[theBaron]

So...... my guess is the book about Lincoln killing vampires might not be availalbe at Ford's book store also?

Seriously, it's a shame how history is taught in schools, and I don't mean politically. The history teacher in high school is more often than not the foot-ball coach or basketball coach who is given that class because that way they can be on full salary. Some really have an interest in the subject, a lot don't. A kid now who majors in history and hopes to teach it in school will find the first question in an interview be "What can you couch?". If he or she can't, there is no postion available. As such, the classes often tend to be boring, and taken straight from the text.

I disagree with your generalization that history teachers are more often than not coaches, and you can't separate it from politics, or at least, from a world view. Most history teachers at this point are probably my age (47) or younger, and they represent successive classes who were taught and then graduated under an ever-expanding view of teaching history, and writing history, that became prevalent in the Sixties, and whose influence strengthed until the end of the 20th century. Teaching history as the stories of great individuals, and from a perspective that some societies, while worthy of study, are not equals of others, receded before a tide of teaching history from the perspective of classes and groups, and that all societies are not just equally worthy of study, but of equal merit. I do agree that the classes are taken straight from the text, but the text itself may be suspect.

I do agree that the current state of teaching history here and elsewhere in the West is a shame, because Santayana was right, and not only are you doomed to repeat history if you don't understand it, but how can you know where you are, and where you're going, if you don't know where you've come from.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Scott]

So...... my guess is the book about Lincoln killing vampires might not be availalbe at Ford's book store also?

Seriously, it's a shame how history is taught in schools, and I don't mean politically. The history teacher in high school is more often than not the foot-ball coach or basketball coach who is given that class because that way they can be on full salary. Some really have an interest in the subject, a lot don't. A kid now who majors in history and hopes to teach it in school will find the first question in an interview be "What can you couch?". If he or she can't, there is no postion available. As such, the classes often tend to be boring, and taken straight from the text.

Geeezzze, I had a couple of those "coach" types in the late 60s in High School. At least one had some good stories of his eariler work as an attendendant in the local mental hospital. (Good experience for teaching?) Too bad at that time teaching for men could get you out of the draft and I went to an all boys Catholic school so all our teachers were brothers, priests, or draft age men.

 

[Scott]

......
I do agree that the current state of teaching history here and elsewhere in the West is a shame, because Santayana was right, and not only are you doomed to repeat history if you don't understand it, but how can you know where you are, and where you're going, if you don't know where you've come from.

Prost!
Brad

I'm all for that.

History though, is more of an "art" open to interpretation rather than a "science" where you can measure and repeat data and evident in a lab.

 

[theBaron]

I'm all for that.

History though, is more of an "art" open to interpretation rather than a "science" where you can measure and repeat data and evident in a lab.

Herodotus and Thucydides would disagree with you.

 

[Scott]

Herodotus and Thucydides would disagree with you.

Thucydides maybe. You can gather a lot of documentation to prove a point but that's not science unless someone else gets the same repeatable result. "New" documentation can change how we know about a historical event but it's not science if it's open to interpretation or opinions. There could be peer review of a historical point but it would be on the method of how one got a result. In science you want peer review before you publish.

 

[Terp152]

A couple of very good ones are:

"American Brutas - John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies" by Michael Kauffman

"Manhunt" by James Swanson.

Also found Manhunt to be very informative and detailed relating the movements of Booth after the assasination. Shows the complicity of Dr Mudd.

 

[damian]

I cannot speak for how history is taught in the US but I can speak about my own experiences in my country. When I grew up we were taught a version of the Great Event, Great Man theory of history and it had a definite agenda namely that of justifying a state where 80% of its population were deliberately excluded from participation. The theme in history for us was how the Great Trek lead to the establishment of this wonderful all white Republic 100 years later. Black people and their whole experience were excluded from the story.
So whilst I am saddened by the apparent lack of historical knowledge I am not without sympathy for a more open account where all members of society are part of the story being told.

 

[Denver]

I would not read any book by O'Rielly

 

[Scott]

I cannot speak for how history is taught in the US but I can speak about my own experiences in my country. When I grew up we were taught a version of the Great Event, Great Man theory of history and it had a definite agenda namely that of justifying a state where 80% of its population were deliberately excluded from participation. The theme in history for us was how the Great Trek lead to the establishment of this wonderful all white Republic 100 years later. Black people and their whole experience were excluded from the story.
So whilst I am saddened by the apparent lack of historical knowledge I am not without sympathy for a more open account where all members of society are part of the story being told.

American Geography texts for grammar school, 1950s, excluded Russia and China. "A dark cold land to the east, next stop Greece. " I have read criticisms of Jerrad Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, from the "Great Man" proponents.

 

[wadepat]

Gentle Friends,

This thread is flirting with becoming a political discussion. Please keep in mind that posts and opinions of a political nature are not allowed on the forum. Thanks for your cooperation!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

 

[ucla1967]

Hmmm. According to the O'Riley Factor show tonight, the Washington Post article is incorrect and the book was not pulled from the Ford Theater. If they got it wrong, did they correct their error?

As someone who loves history and minored in it in college, I am both saddened and alarmed by the lack of historical knowlege found in the USA today. A recent example: I returned a pair of khaki cargo shorts to Sam's Club. They always ask you if there is something wrong with any item you return. I said that the shorts were way too long for me as they came to my knees and that the older generation (me) grew up with and prefered shorter shorts. I mentioned that Dwight David Eisenhower was president of the United States when I graduated from high school. The 20 something African-American female customer service rep gave me a blank stare. I elaborated and said he had been president from 1953 to 1961 and before that had been the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II and had led the D-Day invasion. Still not a clue. I then said that JFK followed him as president. She replied, "Oh ya, my mother talked about him." I got the distinct impression that not only did she not know who Eisenhower was, but hadn't heard of World War II either. She said that I would have to come back and teach her some more about history. I don't think she is the exception to the rule regarding being ignorant of history, but probably represents most people her age. I would like to think that I am wrong about this, but I fear I am not.

 

[Scott]

Mike, I've tried the same thing you did with "kids". In the case of some clerks, these are kids just trying to get through the day without angering a customer. Christmas is coming and they have to worry about "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas."

The opposite case is when a a "youth" tries to tell me about an era I lived through or acts like he just discovered something I knew about 40 years ago.

The problem is not O'Reilly writing a sloppy history book but writers like David Barton who rebrand American history. It's sad that a minimum wage clerk doesn't know but it's serious when those in business and government, who can affect how the country is run, act on misinformation that is considered sacred.

 

[jazzeum]

On the O'Reilly book, you might want to check out this blog post from Civil War Memory, which, by the way, is a great blog on all things Civil War. Highly recommended.