From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Douglas Kwitney's _Endless Enemies_ (was Re: She's baaaaack.....Camille Paglia)
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:58:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep30.121852.15971@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> In article <12553@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> CC:
# #I have not a clue how most of my history professors vote.  They manage
# #to keep their own political beliefs sufficiently hidden, in spite of
# #the relevance of the topics covered, that I can't tell if they are
# #conservatives, radicals, liberals, libertarians, etc.  On the other
# #hand, in the "sloppy sciences" (philosophy, English), it's real
# #easy.  Pretenses of objectivity and balance at Sonoma State seem to
# #have been utterly dropped by professors in some departments.  Let
# #me give you one recent example.
# 
# Without wishing to challenge the validity of the esteemed Mr Cramer's
# poignant personal observations, I'll venture a reason against generalizing
# them to a universal rule.  Most historians, as practicioners of the

I don't think that I did generalize them to a universal rule, unless
Sonoma State University qualifies as the "universe."  (Say it ain't
so, Joe!)

# idiographic arts, are committed to the description of the particular, and
# so find it impossible to separate their own political sensibilities from
# their professional goal of evaluating the past events.  Accordingly, their
# political position may be readily discerned each time their narrative
# passes from the descriptive to the normative.  (For more on this subject,

1. Certainly -- assuming that a historian makes a normative statement.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  It is possible to interpret
WHY something happens, without making a normative statement about
that event.  Now, it is frequently true that historians sometimes
engage in value judgements, such as, "Slavery is wrong," or "Genocide
is bad," but frequently they avoid such observations at all.  Leni
Yahil's _The Holocaust_ is remarkably free of value judgements,
perhaps because the description speaks for itself.

2. A professor when writing a book has less of an obligation to
be completely balanced in his presentation, then when giving a
lecture in an introductory American history class.

# the gentle reader would be well advised to consult Herbert Butterfield's
# _The Whig Interpretation of History_, and, in the opposite corner, Max
# Weber's _Science as a Vocation_.)  On the other hand, most philosophers
# specializing in the nomothetic aspects of their discipline will profess to
# eschew value judgments altogether, and in any case will direct their
# attention to the timeless abstract universals having little to do with
# mundane political positions.  Hence their writings will not generally lend
# themselves to a facile classification of this sort.

I guess I just have a philosophy professor, not a philosopher.

# CC:
# #Perhaps one reason I felt no need to finish reading Roger Kimball's
# #_Tenured Radicals_ is that there wasn't anything terribly surprising
# #to me in it.
# 
# Something tells me that Mr Cramer is unlikely to be terribly surprised by
# anything he might find in a book.  Based on his past record, I conjecture
# that he would either accept it wholesale as gospel of all right-thinking
# individuals, or reject it out of hand as pernicious liberal propaganda.
# 
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu

Oh, heavens, no.  I get surprised a frequent basis.  I find things
that I would not have suspected.  If they seem bizarre or unbelievable
enough, I attempt to determine their falsity.  I have started many
an effort seeking proof of X, and ended up with proof that X was
false, or even more often, that X is a trivial issue, and the real
issue is Y.

Douglas Kwitney's _Endless Enemies_ is a counterexample to your
assertion about my approach to books.  I started out largely in
agreement with Kwitney's claim -- that the U.S. Government,
through incompetence and venality, has played a major role in
creating many of the hostile governments around the world.  But
by the time I finished reading Kwitney's manipulative, and in many
cases severely distorted accounts, he had pretty well persuaded
me that the beliefs I entered the book with were quite wrong.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books