Customer Reviews:
Some of the truth, anyway. .......2007-01-17
Telling the Truth About History is a passionate and insightful tract about the meaning and value of history as it relates in particular to American democracy. The authors, historians at UCLA who have written on American history and on the Enlightenment, argue for a pragmatic and empirical approach to studying the past, against the "absolutisms" of a reified, capitalized, and "heroic" Science, Cold War ideologies, strong post-modernism, and "traditionalism." Against all that they make the case that history is study of an objective and to some extent knowable past, which should serve democratic values by telling a story that embraces multiple narratives.
Three issues in this book particularly interested me: their take on the epistemology of history, conservatives on campus, and how historians with an ax to grind (basically, almost all of us) can support an idea by placing it in a larger historical context.
I noted with interest that the authors, who generally wrote as secularists, found themselves using the words "faith" and "belief" to describe the historical epistemology they found most reasonable: "Belief in the reality of the past and its knowability is essential to a practice of history . . . An openness to the interplay between certainty and doubt keeps faith with the expansive quality of democracy . . . a belief in the reality of the past . . . Such faith helps discipline the understanding by requiring constant reference to something outside of the human mind."
While I am not sure the adjective "scientific" best describes historical epistemology, such comments remind us that uncertainty and knowledge are always in tension, and that this state of affairs is healthy. History is never a matter of certain proof, rather of warranted belief based on good evidence. I have argued that this form of "faith" is very close to what informed Christians have always meant by the word. This is a common sense view of epistemology that finds middle ground between the positivism of a Richard Dawkins and "blind faith."
The authors position themselves towards the middle of contemporary academic American "culture wars." They admit, on the one hand, that some "politically correct" talk goes too far in limiting free speech. I think their somewhat more emphatic criticism of the opposite tendency, what they call "traditionalism," is mostly overstated, though. They picture conservative colleagues as "muscular ideologues." They accuse those who oppose compulsory classes in women's studies or multiculturalism of carrying out an "all-out war on multiculturalism and the democratization of the university," "using the dead hand of the past . . . to muzzle the voices of the present" and creating a "national bogey in the form of political correctness." They position traditionalists as defenders of the "status quo" and de facto opponents of the "effort to democratize the university."
Much of their talk on this subject seems overwrought, and I don't think it accurately reflects the situation on American universities. The "status quo" is anything but conservative or "traditionalist" on American campuses. Making the university more "democratic" would entail participation not just by the assortment of neo-Marxists, radical skeptics, relativists, post-modernists, and "liberals" the authors describe, but also by that huge portion of the American populace that holds to "traditional" values. Forcing students to take politically radical classes, which often prove in practice to be taught by professors hostile towards the tradition in which those students have been brought up, seems by their own lights anti-democratic. The authors equate "the decision by an American university to recruit postmodernist faculty members" with "searching for scholars with a particular expertise," as if choosing ideologues of a particular stripe were the same as choosing people with expertise in a given field of study.
I have been told how an earlier generation of moderately liberal faculty members, in a desire to recruit more widely, elected scholars who were wed to some of the far-left agendas they mention. Unfortunately the new, ideological scholars did not always share an appreciation of philosophical diversity, so the faculty became more illiberal and exclusive. It would be naïve to equate radical stances with "liberality" in the ethical sense.
Towards the end of the book, Appleby, Hunt and Jacob make some interesting comments on the democratic value of historical study.
They point out that history can provide minority groups with a psychologically empowering social solidarity. Historical precedent can lend the oppressed a fellowship with the past: "roots," to use the term Alex Haley used to justify his own search for dignity as an African American descendent of slaves.
As someone who studies the process by which Christian thinkers relate their faith to pre-Christian traditions, I find this interesting. But of course historical precedent is a double-edged sword, because every tradition is diverse. Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob open the door to all kinds of "marginal" and "diverse" viewpoints to enter the mainstream, but do not help us judge between them.
The power of alternative historical narratives to strengthen marginal positions is ambivalent. One can find precedent not just for abortion, but infanticide or human sacrifice, in Western history. The Nazis also appealed to a real or imagined pre-Christian past to reinvent slave labor and a virulent form of human sacrifice.
The question, then, is what criterion one will use to decide which parts of the human heritage one should link to. For me, that's Christ. The authors make it clear that they think neither religion nor science provides an adequate criterion. The pragmatic alternative they offer seems fuzzy and open to manipulation. I guess that's the nature of pragmatism. They seem like reasonable people, though, and make many interesting points.
Don't know much about History..........2007-01-04
The book argues that various types of absolutisms (political, intellectual, or ideological) have been dethroned. Ever since the "heroic model of Science" (which in the past centuries enjoyed an aura of absolute validity) has been shown to be less than "perfectly objective," a struggle has ensued to fill the vacuum in the interpretation of history.
On one extreme we find the radical projects of the so-called De-constructionism, championed by Derrida and Focault (mutually exclusive projects, by the way), claiming that the human subject is a fiction and that all attempts to retrieve meaning and valid interpretation from the past are doomed to fail, especially when we try to derive lessons for the future. These philosophers want to deconstruct the notion of the individual as an autonomous, self-conscious agent; to de-center the subject, his primacy as a location for making judgements and for seeking the truth. Human beings are hopelessly caught in the prison of language. They attack "logocentrism," namely the idea that words express the truth of reality. Thus, the direction taken by postmodernism leads to relativism and to nihilism. Putnam, in his Renewing Philosophy, p. 133, claims that "deconstruction without reconstruction" amounts to irresponsibility; this is true, I may add, if one embraces methodological skepticism rather than dogmatic skepticism, which is instead what the deconstructionists are doing. Apparently, Putnam's critique misses the mark.The other extreme is represented by Traditionalism, "fixed" in its classicism and in a hopeless resistance to what is known today as "multiculturalism". The authors blame the traditionalists for lumping together multiculturalism, postmodernism and social history, and for resisting a process that the authors call the "democratization of the university." The authors contend that this process has exposed the racist, sexist, homophobic and Eurocentric roots of contemporary historiography. (Bloom and Hirsch scoff at this process, and remain angry at "tenured radicals" and at the "philistine critics.")The position advocated by the authors is Pluralism and Multiculturalism (heavily influenced by Historicism). The authors call for a "democratic practice of history", for "practical realism" (that somehow embraces the correspondence theory of truth). They also argue in favor of Truth and Objectivity, though not in the traditional, fixed perspective and against what they call a "debilitating relativism." They seek for a qualified objectivity; no research is neutral, since knowledge involves struggle amongst various groups of truth-seekers ("Objectivity does not require taking God's perspective, which is impossible"). The authors claim that we need to come to terms with subjectivity, artificiality and language dependence. Against post-modernists, they argue that an inquiring mind is an operative tool: the past exists and we must try to reconstruct it, since it is knowable and real. What we need is methodical skepticism. They recall the words of Diderot: "All things must be examined, all must be winnowed and sifted without exception and without sparing anyone's sensibilities." (s.v. "Encyclopedia") and again: "The follower of the Enlightenment is an eclectic, skeptic investigator who trampling underfoot prejudice, tradition, venerability, universal assent, authority - in a word, all that overawes the crowd - dares to think for himself, to ascend to the clearest general principles, to examine them, to discuss them, to admit nothing, save the testimony of his own reason and experience. (s.v. "Eclecticism")". The authors talk about the tradition of Marxist historiography; of the French Annales School, which in the 1950s and 1960s paid attention to three layers: 1) Climate, geography, biology; 2) Social structures and patterns; 3) Politics, culture and intellectual life. This "history from below" pays little attention to what traditionalists care about (statesmen, generals, diplomats, intellectuals, ideas and institutions) in favor of social history, the history of workers, servants and the poor.
As far as I am concerned, in choosing the way to study and to teach History to my students and children, I will purposely ignore and neglect a) Social history (with its emphasis on ordinary people); b) Economic history (emphasis on how economic forces work); but focus and celebrate c) History of Ideas. Ideas and views shape the world and the course of events; everything else is secondary to me and not of much interest.
Blatant misinformation and misinterpretation!.......2005-06-02
This work is grossly inaccurate and requires a multitude of corrections before it should be considered valid in any regard.
These "historians" criticize Isaac Newton: He is said to have rejected the philosophical position of Descartes because it might challenge conventional religion and lead to social chaos and atheism. Such criticisms amount only to the charge that scientists are human. How Newton was buffeted by the intellectual currents of his time is of course of interest to the historian of ideas; but it has little bearing on the truth of his propositions. For them to be generally accepted, they must convince atheists and theists alike. This is just what happened.
Appleby and her colleagues claim that "When Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, he was an atheist and a materialist," and suggest that evolution was a product of a purported atheist agenda. They have hopelessly confused cause and effect. Darwin was about to become a minister of the Church of England when the opportunity to sail on HMS Beagle presented itself. His religious ideas, as he himself described them, were at the time highly conventional. He found every one of the Anglican Articles of Faith entirely believable. Through his interrogation of Nature, through science, it slowly dawned on him that at least some of his religion was false. That's why he changed his religious views.
Appleby and her colleagues are appalled at Darwin's description of "'the low morality of savages ... their insufficient powers of reasoning ... [their] weak power of self-command,'" and state that "Now many people are shocked by his racism." But there was no racism at all, as far as I can tell, in Darwin's comments. He was alluding to the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, suffering from grinding scarcity in the most barren and Antarctic province of Argentina. When he described a South American woman of African origin who threw herself to her death rather than submit to slavery, he noted that it was only prejudice that kept us from seeing her defiance in the same heroic light as we would a similar act by the proud matron of a noble Roman family. He was himself almost thrown off the Beagle by Captain FitzRoy for his militant opposition to the Captain's racism. Darwin was head and shoulders above most of his contemporaries in this regard.
Appleby, Hunt and Jacob - these so-called historians - are in obvious need of a lesson in history. Also, it wouldn't hurt to pick up a dictionary and learn what Truth really means: a fact that has been verified; conformity to fact or actuality; a true statement.
Not the "Whole" Truth.......2004-04-15
Telling the Truth presents a very solid overview of western historiography's evolution and provides a provocative argument for the broadening of perspectives of what is valid for historians to include in their search for accurate causes for past events. The authors' intent to model the democratic practice they preach through collective authorship of the essay was evident, and one wonders if it would have been strengthened further by an examination of the impact their own historical context has had on the creation of their individual ideologies. In short, use themselves as case studies. This would be revolutionary of course, but a potentially very interesting historical version of self-analysis: three professional historians, women educated in the United States, during the 1970s, examining how their own environment and training shaped their views.
The emphasis on the significance of the printing press and the loss of clerical authority over publication was well stated. Left unexamined was the importance of the rise of the merchant middle class in Southern Europe, which is surprising considering the social history described later in the text. The Civil War's nationalizing effect and the lack of Black America's inclusion in the traditional American narrative are well founded, but leaves the subject's treatment woefully incomplete. The authors would have been able to draw a more accurate picture of rising American nationalism by including the War of 1812 in their analysis for example. And the nation's history of immigration and resulting discrimination, which includes Asians and Latin Americans as well as Europeans and Africans, is far more complex than presented. In short, the opportunity to use the immigrant experience as historical evidence for the authors' views was under utilized. The passing reference to Native American experiences underscored the authors' main point, but is not drawn out. And for American historians promoting a more gendered approach to history to leave out the suffrage movement was shocking to this reader.
Historical joy ride.......2002-07-14
Well written with ample empirical examples and insights most of us would never consider. This book is for anyone interested in tracing Western perspectives from the emergence of reason under the thumb of ignorance and dogma, through the advent of science, to muddlings of our present era returning to ignorance and dogma under the confines of censorship and totalitarian Political Correctness.
Driving forces that made America and the West what it became are surveyed - forces including the birth of reason, influence of science and our Western notion of progress. Focused on their topic, our authors properly consider what matters most to America and the West, excluding a vast array of other cultures because those cultures (Mayan, Hutu, Chilean, Eskimo - a virtually endless list) have little or absolutely nothing to do with Western development. Thus we are saved from useless inclusion of irrelevance. Nor do they waste trees on a cacophony of "voices" with something opposing to say about the facts of history as though their intent is to produce committee minutes. Noted, repeatedly, are oversights and outright suppression of females as bared from the men's club, but it is treated as a fact of history, not a call to arms.
Results of these forces included exaltation of history and "heroic science" as a means of positive reference for America (and Europe) that has since been attacked by factions wishing in part to make history's picture larger while reinventing history in ways that deny credit for anyone but their own group. It requires imagination, but the authors clarify how successful Postmodernist relatives have been in advancing the most ridiculous ideas, and, as noted, would not be given a second thought were they not becoming so dominant at our universities. Ideas such as; We invent theories in science, we do not discover them; What was not said or not written is more important than what was - as everyone in every period is said to have been political and fully so with no regard for truth. Thus whatever point was made was in fact a diversion hiding what they "really" meant. This brings to bear creative talents of our finest historians and "text interpreters" as they expend lifetimes inventing, out of thin air, what the truth "really" was. A boundless exercise as what was not spoken or written remains infinite, while what was is limited. And such conclusions from those who paradoxically preach "the truth is, there is no truth, and that's the truth".
Thankfully the authors state the obvious. "Relativism, a modern corollary of skepticism" not only reasonably questions but is now used to promote doubt in knowledge of any kind, while to the contrary our authors argue "truths about the past are possible, even if they are not absolute". For those who claim we can know nothing, and that even our theories of nature are pure, politicized imagination, we are reminded that artifacts exist - remains of civilizations, buildings, monuments, graveyards on battlegrounds, movements resulting from written words and speeches. As for inventing scientific theories as simply another false Western bias, one may wonder how all those atoms and galaxies know our political views well enough to behave precisely as predicted by theory.
The authors commit the error of confusing science with scientists - science being an ideal, while scientists remain human - and they wrongly promote a reference which claims the defense industry as dominated by scientists when it is rather dominated by engineers. This offering to reinforce a notion that science is political. (Indeed, scientists may be.) With an open mindedness bordering on mere "inclusivity" Postmodernists are given limited credit, stating they "deserve" to be heard on some matters - which left me wondering why serious historians would squander time on sophomoric reflections of declining education and trite exercises in sensitivity toward the absurd. We might consider the notion of a moon made of green cheese still holds promise if a certain vast system of conditions concerning our measurements and conceptions exist - say that we are in fact being manipulated by aliens. But any advancement in our understanding of the human condition is bound to be wasted. As a German engineer once said, "I have no time to waste on probable failures." So why waste it?
An assumption is made from the outset - common to anyone's era, which is not challenged - that the past was incorrect in their perspective. Perhaps we are wrong in refuting their positivism. Instead we assume without question the heroic models were flawed. Despite what we consider the past's delusions and narrow mindedness, we are never offered an option that their perspective, though incomplete, was superior to our own in which winners at the auction are those with the most terrible things to say about who we are. Perhaps the authors saw this as too "inclusive" and a probable failure.
Book Description
This provocative work grapples with some of the most difficult issues in Aboriginal history, showing how they raise fundamental concerns about the nature of historical knowledge, truth, and authority. Discussions of such controversial questions as How many Aboriginal people were killed in frontier conflict and was it genocide? Was there ever a massacre at Risdon Cove in Tasmania? and Does Aboriginal oral history count as real history? attempt to shed some light an Australia's historical make-up.
Book Description
People who have lived through authoritarian rule have stories to tell. They want to tell their truths: truths that have been silenced, truths that have been censored, truths that are still uncomfortable. But how do individuals begin to speak about a political past that was too horrible for words, especially when the words only came in torrents of pabulum, snake oil, and venom? How are versions of events that have slipped outside of official narratives best voiced in a society moving out of authoritarianism? This generously illustrated volume examines the art of truth-telling and the creation of stories, accounts, images, songs, street theater, paintings, urban designs, and ideas that pay witness to authoritarian pasts. This comprehensive collection, with contributions by scholars, activists, and artists from around the world, explores this theme across a range of national experiences, each featuring its own unique set of historical, institutional, and cultural conditions. This book is bold, creative in form and content, and unlike any other treatment of authoritarian transitions, with the editors and contributors daringly staking a place for cross-disciplinary conversations on modern history, creative art, politics, and social meaning. By examining the truths—both official and unofficial—about the past, we can learn how to avoid repeating atrocities in the future.
Average customer rating:
|
Telling the Truth About Jerusalem
Ann Oakley
Manufacturer: Blackwell Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 History & Criticism
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
| African
| Asian
| Canadian
| Caribbean & Latin American
| Criticism & Theory
| European
| General
| Movements & Periods
| United States
General
| British
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Marriage & Family
| Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Feminist Theory
| Women's Studies
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Women's Studies
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 063114773X |
Book Description
Challenging the rhetoric of multiculturalism, radical feminism, critical race theory, and other popular trends, Lynne Cheney calls for the restoration of truth and reason to a central place in our lives. In Telling the Truth, Cheney gives us a detailed examination of American cultural and political institutions, journalism, and education. She shows how a disdain for objective truth and principles has created a moral and intellectual crisis that threatens the foundation of America's legal, political, and social order.
Customer Reviews:
Party Line .......2006-01-14
Got it! Radical Feminism, bad. Multiculturalism, bad. Afrocentrism, bad. Queer Theory, bad. Academics, BAD. Its funny how people of Lynne Cheney's extreme political persuasion are so stuck on that what's-wrong-with-our-culture and what-happened-to-our-values? talk. They are soooo fixated on education and children. It's almost like some sort of perverted fetish. Maybe she needs to start one of those nationwide youth clubs. That way she can put her race theories into practice.
There should be a zero stars rating for Zeroes to use.......2004-07-17
This review is being restored after it was deleted by someone at Amazon several months ago- at that time, it had more "helpful" votes than either of the two "Spotlight Reviews." As stated by Amazon on the "Unfit for Command" page, (particularly) during an election year, it is inappropriate for them to engage in book-review burning.
Attempts to suppress free speech are particularly misguided in the Internet age; (literally) at Amazon's expense, I simply used my considerable presence on the 'net to publish a longer essay that ultimately was read by far more people than will ever read this.
That online essay may be read by clicking on my name, then "see more," which gives the link. It also has links to additional information (indicated by the ^'s in the text below)... AND it's more fun 'cause it doesn't suffer from Amazon's restriction of making fun of imbeciles by name!
Frankly, I wrote my "Telling the Truth" review after a long day of computer programming, and 2 or 3 beers, and I was having a bit of self-indulgent fun by being exaggeratedly arrogant- hopefully at the expense of "reviewers" who obviously never read the book (usually, their non-reviews merely comment on the book's title, then launch into an anti-administration diatribe about subjects that Dr. Cheney's book doesn't address).
Paul Simon once wrote a cute song, 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover:
She said, "It grieves me so to see you in such pain-
I wish there were something I could do, to make you smile again!"
I said, "I appreciate that,
and would you please explain about the fifty ways?"
She said, "Why don't we both just sleep on it tonight?
And I believe in the morning, you'll begin to see the light..."
And then she kissed me, and I realized she probably was right-
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover!
Fifty ways to leave your lover!
And it seems there must be at least fifty ways to be a liar.
Without further ado:
Well let's see, my cousin Mike is also Lynne's cousin Mike, which is neither here nor there. Mike used to work at Bethesda Naval Hospital, where he did surgery on Reagan, Bush #1, etc., and I was the first person from SC^ to make the top 10 in the Science Talent Search^ (I had as many 800s on my college boards as I'm ranking this book). Bad genes SOMEWHERE... or so my fellow alum Leroy Hood^ would say.
Caltech- U.S. News & World Reports decided to Tell the Truth for once, a few years back, and rank it #1^- used to have the motto "The Truth Shall Make You Free", but that had religious connotations, so they got rid of it.
But back in 1986, a Caltech professor warned- in a Challenger Commission appendix that was granted as a concession to him by the lawyer that headed it (in order to prevent Dr. Feynman's resignation from the commission)- that "In any successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
It's because the failure of engineers and scientists to deal adequately with reality (i.e., "the truth") often produces such spectacular and undeniable results (e.g., Columbia, February 2003) that someone having such a background cannot afford the same level of flippancy in this regard (e.g., "I did not have sex with that woman" ... or- at the very least- "It depends upon what your definition of 'is' is." ... an actual Bill Clinton quote! ;-) as those whose careers depend upon their ability to:
1) absorb some tiny grain of truth,
2) relieve the ensuing irritation by embellishing this particulate with layer upon layer of diseased nacre, then
3) gild the resulting twisted-lump-of-garbage with the thinnest coat of dark and malignant grease,
4) so that when they finally regurgitate it, it can readily be swallowed by those they wish to deceive, who otherwise would recognize it as unfit for consumption.
My father- who spent most of his career as an honest cop- referred to a subset of such persons as "lieyers."
And as one who has been a genuine victim of the kind of "diseased minds" alluded to in a previous^ review (can you Google, "when he lies, he speaks in his native tongue, for he is a liar, and the father of all lies"?), I particularly identify with Dr. Feynman's sentiment, which is generalized in Dr. Cheney's book.
Some say the dEvil be a mystical thing...
I say the dEvil be a walking person!
S/he a fool, a liar, conjurer and a thief!
Try to tell you what you want-
try to tell you what you need!
All you folks think you run my life!
Say I should be willing to compromise...
I say all you demons go back to Hell!
I'll save my Soul, I'll save myself!
-Tracy Chapman
The criticism that I would make is that Dr. Cheney does not acknowledge the significantly positive aspects of the 1960s; notably, the opposition to the war in Vietnam that would not have been possible had the United States been anything like the Soviet Union, and generally alluded to by Timbuk3's Big Shot in the Dark: "you used to believe in the power of music, and all that revolutionary stuff... now you're just a big shot in the dark... well, you got it right the first time."
In other words- as echoes the essential message of her book- in a solar system whose sun^ will eventually burn out- or else be swallowed by a supermassive black hole, when in 3.5 billion years the Andromeda galaxy collides^ with the Milky Way- and in a universe^ that will expand forever into a freezing nothingness, philosophy is all that matters.
Unfortunately Dr. Cheney's book is only a book; it's not a magic wand you can hit people over the head with, and instantly raise their IQs by 100 points. If that were the case, then in a few years, there could be far fewer liars in the world, and all universities (with the exception of any associated lie school) could have an Honor System^ like that of Caltech, where virtually all exams are "take-home" exams, and- despite the intense academic pressure- one can feel confident that any limits on time, and access to reference materials, specified for the exam will be observed by 99+% of one's classmates... though unfortunately, the correlation between intelligence and lying & cheating is far from absolute (Teddy Kennedy nearly got booted from Harvard after being caught in a cheating scandal, but he got into Harvard thanks to his family's political and financial pull, rather than his brains).
Some wits recommend "The Bride of Frankenstein" in addition to, or instead of, "Telling the Truth."
I recommend:
"400 Hours of Counseling with Bill & Hillary's Shrink" in addition to "Telling The Truth"
or
"Voting for John Kerry" instead of "Telling The Truth"
Here are a couple more tunes- in celebration of the re-election of Bush/Cheney (yeah... 4 more years ;-) that may help explain Dr. Cheney's book to a few left-brain challenged Kerry Kids, and Soviet Union nostalgists living in western Europe. (Just as a little right-brain IQ test, see if you can identify the references.)
I have legalized robbery- and called it a belief...
I have run with the money, and hid like a thief!
I have re-written history, with my armies and my crooks...
Invented memories- and I burned all the books.
And I can still hear his laughter; and I can still hear his song...
The man's too big, the man's too strong!
---
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners are Saints...
As I end this tale, just call me Lucifer, for I'm in need of some restraint!
So if you meet me have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste.
Use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste!
Now if all y'all Barbra Streisand-type folks would just hold your breath & wait for President Bush to take away my Mama's Social Security check, reinstate the draft, etc., like John Kerry (the lawyer) told you over-and-over Bush is gonna do... (I have the INSIDE SCOOP; it won't be long now- I PROMISE! ;-)
Pseudo-scholarship at its worst.......2004-05-02
This is hysterical nonsense typical of right-wing ideologues posing as scholars. As a professional geographer, I shudder when I think that an accredited university gave this blowhard a Ph.D. This rant is full of ridiculous generalizations and misrepresentations. To take just one: she claims environmentalists are critical of science because of its dedication to objectivity and rationality (p.12). Of course, the reality is environmentalists make extensive use of cutting-edge science while right-wing activists like the author's husband are doing their best to undermine the use of science in the environmental policy decision-making process, whether its forest policy, pollution control, endangered species recovery, or global climate change. This is just one small example of the many mistruths Cheney perpetuates. Indeed, she rewrites history with more zest than most self-styled revisionists. Having spent all of my adult life in academia, I have encountered my fair share of flaky "postmodernists" and man-hating radical feminists. But one would get the impression from some of the reviews posted here and from Cheney's book that the academy is made up of nothing but America-haters, revisionist, anti-truth, anti-morality professional liars who brainwash our kids on a daily basis. Of course, only someone who hasn't spent any time in the classroom could possibly believe this absurd nonsense. I think my GIS professor would have been surprised to find out that his forest management research was nothing but politically correct lies, and my history professor would have been shocked to learn how "relativistic" and "perverted" his research on state constitutions was. Simply put, Cheney's book is utter and complete nonsense. It should be retitled: "Telling a Very Skewed Version of the Truth, While Turning a Blind Eye to Anything That Might Be Considered Objectionable in the History of White People, Particularly Conservatives." Please don't buy this book--you'll only encourage this pseudo-scholar.
Good! But very flawed.......2004-03-16
The problem with Cheney's book is that she does not practice what she preaches. She encourages a balanced education that offers various perspectives, and then she denounces multiculturalism in the classroom. How are we to recive a balanced perspective if we ignore the voices of marganilized cultures?? Furthermore she denounces the use of words like "holocaust" and "genocide" in teaching history. How is that fair? Ultimately while Cheney's message of balanced education is good it is not practiced in her literature. Futher more (for someone who perscribes a balanced education) she points to obscure factoids to prove her case while she fails to point out that most history books still sugarcoat the atrocities of the world. Ultimately Cheney has the right idea but she is very hypocritical in her execution. If you think opposite of her then you liberalize education if you agree absolutely then you hand education to the conservatives. Neither is right and neither is the universal solution.
To sum it all up, the true path to a great educational system is to respect all perspectives and thus exist in harmony rather than jump to the left or right.
Dont waste you time on this book.
Partisan Polemic.......2004-02-06
The book begins with an explicit comparison between Mrs. Cheney and "Goldstein," the subject of the daily 'minute of hatred' in Orwell's 1984 (where citizens are required to hurl abuses and invectives at photos of a symbolic, anonymous enemy of the state). While on a partisan level such a comparison is blatant rhetorical martyrdom, it may also be a refreshingly honest glimpse into how Mrs. Cheney sees herself in relation to the 'educated elite' in the US -- innocent effigy incurring the wrath of a totalitarian regime.
In fact, Cheney has more or less co-opted Orwell, liberally sprinkling her chapters with quotes from his works. The quotes underlying intent seems to be to undermine a liberal social agenda and support compassionate conservatism -- a fact which Orwell, a staunch socialist and member of the Workers Party of Marxist Unification who fought for the party in Spain during their civil war, would probably abhor.
Her comparisons of the PC trend to the 'Thought Police,' (in which the most aburd of absurd, and unfortunately true, examples of PC militarism are drudged up), quickly devolve into sweeping condemnation of any intellectual endeavour that cannot be reconciled to her particular brand of political and social conservatism.
Cheney begins the book with a revealing quote. If you already agree with the quote (to follow), there's no need to read "Telling the Truth" unless you particularly enjoy hearing someone repeat what you already believe -- and if you disagree or haven't yet formed an opinion, no need to read "Telling the Truth" because all of her arguments already presuppose you agree on this fundamental level:
"Any attack on intellectual liberty, and on the concept of objective truth, threatens in the long run every department of thought."
George Orwell, "The Prevention of Literature"
Nowhere does Lynne explain how philosophical arguments against objective truth are simultaneously an attack on the freedom of intellectual liberty, but most people intuitively grasp that replacing the idea of Objective Truth and The Answer in the humanities with an absurdly extreme 'anything goes' relativism in which any and all ideas are equally valid just doesn't hack it. Mrs. Cheney tries to tap into fears of this extreme relativism, and at one point claims that children, somewhere in the United States, are being taught that Egyptians flew in gliders. Presuming all archeological and scientific evidence points to the exact opposite, the idea would indeed be absurd. As absurd as, say, Creationism, a subject Cheney does not address on her quest for absurd relativism in our schools. (It's a 'theory' like evolution is 'just a theory' only if the two ideas can't be judged by the same criteria, i.e. the scientific method).
The book is cleaved along partisan lines, and occasionally slips into political bickering involving current (well, 1980s-90s) events and people -- all negative and dastardly examples happen to be of liberal politicians, all forthright and righteous and right examples happen to be of conservative politicians. If you buy this book, be wary of Truths that are so intensely partisan -- and rhetoric that is so intensely political.
Book Description
This digital document is an article from The Australian Journal of Politics and History, published by Thomson Gale on March 1, 2007. The length of the article is 6207 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation Details
Title: Myths, truths and arguments: some recent writings on Aboriginal History.(Telling the Truth About Aboriginal History)(The Invention of Terra Nullius: Historical and Legal Fictions on the Foundation of Australia)(Nowhere People: How International Race Thinking Shaped Australia's Identity)(Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism)(Book review)
Author: David Ritter
Publication:
The Australian Journal of Politics and History (Magazine/Journal)
Date: March 1, 2007
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 53
Issue: 1
Page: 138(11)
Article Type: Book review
Distributed by Thomson Gale
Books:
- The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian
- The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian
- The Conquest of New Spain (Penguin Classics)
- The Count of Monte Cristo (Penguin Classics)
- The European Economy since 1945: Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond (Princeton Economic History of the Western World)
- The Gashouse Gang: How Dizzy Dean, Leo Durocher, Branch Rickey, Pepper Martin, and Their Colorful, Come-from-Behind Ball Club Won the World Series--and America's Heart--During the Great Depression
- The Gods of Eden
- The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot
- The Gospel According to Judas by Benjamin Iscariot
- The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Handbook of Employee Benefits
- Magic Tree House Boxed Set of 4, Books 9-12: Dolphins at Daybreak, Ghost Town at Sundown, Lions at
- El Corazon De La Muerte/Altars and Offerings for Days of the Dead
- History: Fiction or Science
- Making a Good Script Great
- Pensees
- Minerals for the Genetic Code: An Exposition & Anaylsis of the Dr. Olree Standard Genetic Period
- Rule's Book of Business Plans
- Follow this Path: How the World's Greatest Organizations Drive Growth by Unleashing Human Potential
- Enciclopedia De LA Auditoria
That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession (Ideas in Context)
Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge
The Historian's Craft
What Is History?
Gender and the Politics of History
