[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 72°F  
High: 98°F ~ Low: 64°F
Tuesday, Sep. 2, 2014

The Professional Historian

Posted Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at 2:20 PM

There has been a lot of talk over the past week on this website about history. I started the conversation and it evolved (or devolved according to your definition from there). There are a lot of armchair historians in today's society. What I mean by armchair historian is a person who knows their history but has never studied it. A person who knows their history but adds their own personal or political ideology to that history.

The armchair historian has permeated our culture at great cost to the professional historian.

What is a professional historian, you may ask? A professional historian is someone who has gone to school specifically for history. This person typically either has a master's or a doctorate degree. In other words, they make their living by studying history.

The difference between the two historians is that the armchair historian can and will interpret history any which way they see fit, whether or not the history is factual. They do not (in their minds) need facts to back up their claims. Often times they will take an obscure quote or an obscure piece of information and claim that is all they need for proof. They will often demand that other people prove them wrong. The problem here is that because what they claim is fact does not have any actual historical backing it is impossible to prove them wrong. Unfortunately they know this and they often use this to their advantage.

An example that has gotten a lot of attention on this website was the ride of Paul Revere, what it meant, and what his intentions were.

Many people have taken what he said to the British (or the Regulars as the Colonists referred to them at the time):

"I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."

The armchair historian will claim that this quote is all the proof they need that Paul Revere was warning the Regulars that they would not be able to take the Colonists arms away from them. Unfortunately there is no proof of this what-so-ever. Revere made no mention of a protection of weapons when he was captured or at any other time in his life. The burden of proof is always on the person that makes a claim, especially when it comes to a new way of looking at historical events. The burden does not fall on a person or persons refuting that claim.

However, if a person or persons is refuting a fact that has been verified then it is their burden to prove why they are questioning a fact.

Another difference between the armchair historian and the professional historian goes back to facts. The armchair historian will often make up their own facts and claim them as such. The professional historian needs verifiable information from a number of sources before they will accept a new idea as fact.

As I have stated previously there are two versions of changing history. One is history revision, when a new group of historians look at past events and find a new meaning for what happened. They have not reinvented history have just looked at it differently. One example is the Cold War. There are actually several different key changes when looking at the Cold War but let us just stick with the Cold War itself. There is the original history, which was being written in the 50s and 60s that painted the Soviet Union as the aggressor and the United States as the country that was trying to push back. Then in the late 60s through much of the 70s we came across the revisionist history which completely reversed the thinking. The historians were looking at the exact same information but were coming up with different theories for the Cold War. Starting in the 80s and continuing to today we are in the post-revisionist history. This history has looked more at both countries being the aggressors and how they affected what was commonly known as third world countries.

The armchair historian on the other hand seems to not be concerned with any facts or what actually happened. They come up with their own stories to fit their personal and/or political ideologies. The most common concerning Paul Revere is that often repeated, but long debunked idea that he rode through the country side shooting guns, ringing bells, and shouting "The British are coming".

He actually did none of this. His ride was a very covert ride to warn the leaders of the Colonists what was happening. He stopped at Lexington and warned the collected leaders there (Samuel Adams and John Hancock specifically) that the "Regulars were coming". The reason he did not say the British is simple enough. At this time they still considered themselves to be British subjects.

The purpose of the march to Lexington and Concord was two-fold, not singular as the armchair historian believes and/or wants others to believe. The march was to destroy the munitions of the Colonists (with as little harm to citizens as possible with not looting) but they were to also arrest the Colonists leaders.

The idea that the entire Revolutionary War was solely about guns (or at least the start of the war) is jumping the shark and highly ignorant of history. This is not to say that holding their munitions was not a cause, but it was not the only cause and certainly not the main cause. Was it a final straw? Perhaps, but even on that fateful night, when the colonists were ordered to lower their weapons and retreat they had started to do so, until someone (whether that person was in the militia, the Regular army, or someone in hiding will probably never be known) fired a shot and both armies began firing on each other.

At the end of the day armchair historians and what they say about history should be taken with a very minute grain of salt. Most of what they say is, in fact, unverifiable.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Sir Didymus,

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Pot knows all about pot shots. Now that you mention it, I think he always defended them even though he says he hates people who lie. I guess it just once again shows that only people who disagree with Michael can be "outright liars".

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 10:01 PM

Mike- If I were going to take a "pot"shot at you I would.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 10:00 PM

SW,

Yeah, they were all trolls, but they were trolls that mike evidentally admired. He doesn't like it when you take pot shots (I think mike is just being juvinile an insulting by using the term pot) at his type of trolls. Remember, mike had nothing bad to say about their antics at the time, and now it almost seems as if he is defending them. And For the record,he is still not stating that he disagreed with their methods, much less their messages.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 9:48 PM

Michael,

If the "liberal" posters, who also posted as "conservatives" at times were just people who posted without any connection to the McCook area and where only posting to start arguments and trying to make people look bad as they said in thier "aditum", wouldn't it be fair to say that they were all trolls?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 5:23 PM

Mike,

There was more than one person, but they all used multiple handles, if I remember the story. The last one to be removed posted a big diatribe stating how the group made a bunch of different handles to make the people who post on this site look like redneck, racist bigots. half the "posters" they were arguing with were in fact themselves. Not that it matters, other than to point out that they are pretty bad examples as to how low liberals will sink to try and prove non liberals wrong. *wink*

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 10:48 PM

You know it's funny if there were a group of liberals having the same discussion as you all are right you'd be crying foul and demanding that they be removed. For the record, until they got themselves thrown off the site for breaking the terms of service they routinely out argued pretty much everyone on this site (myself included).

As usual Wallis gets its completely wrong just to take a pot shot. The person you are referencing was nothing more than a troll. Chunky has the right story.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 10:19 PM

Welcome to Realville Mr. Big Chief. Folks out here tend to see things as they really are...we welcome all and hope you enjoy your new community.

I do remember that group Chunky...they were what I would call the Daily KOs echo chamber. They obviously had very little real life experience.

-- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 8:19 AM

I accidentally stumbled on to the McCook Gazette and these blogs a few days ago when looking for a rental property in the area. I have been living in or around Lincoln for the last forty years. My roots are in the Eastern Colorado and NW Kansas area. I spent many happy times hunting and fishing in the McCook area as a kid and that is one of the main reasons I want to live in the area again. I see the Conservative side of issues is fairly well represented. I have felt like a Red Headed step child in Lincoln for several years.

-- Posted by Big Chief on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 2:31 PM

That's outstanding.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 8:27 AM

They were Guillermo Inglaterra, reformed rightwinger, J.I.M.T.S., Jackie Trehorn, and some other guy with a regal name. They were college buddies who tried to jostle with the conservative readers, and lost. They were ultimately removed for using profanity.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 4:07 AM

The Gazette purged the people on Mike's side as they were all the same person with different "handles". Or at least that was my understanding from some of Mike's comments and "sighs" at the time.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 3:35 AM

Oh and Guillermo or something. What happened to the posse that shoots from the left hip?

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:50 PM

Once upon a time there were some fellers who sided frequently with him...I don't recall their names specifically, maybe Senior Somethingoranother, Damu, and one other. Once in awhile they actually formed a sentence that was intelligible. Right or wrong, what happened to those folks?

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:47 PM

Looks like it's Michael against the rest of the world on this blog.

Maybe just let it die a long moaning death?

-- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:25 PM

ditto.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 4:29 PM

I second that, Sir Didymus.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:58 AM

Mike,

I read your rant(s) and are greatly amused by them. I have a some observations and questions.

The "aditum" post was in reference to a pattern I have observed with you. The two times (that I know of) that you have either taken a 'break' from the blogs have been prefaced by a blog post about how it is unfair that everyone is so mean mean to you and/or liberals and then a post about leaving for a while. To prove it, anyone can look in the archives. I will map it out...

All Quiet on the Blog Front (10/26/10) 43

Aditum (10/31/10) 34

Then....

The Fear Card Party loses their Card (05/10/11) 8

Who's Afraid of the big bad Liberal? (05/11/11) 51

Good Bye ... For Now (05/14/11) 23

See what I mean? I don't know why it matters that it was my first post or my last. You post the 'every body is bein mean to me/liberals' post every now and again. It seems to be a running theme with your blog.

Then there is this..

"Mike has a built in defense against all of you haters. He is not a professional historian. He is an armchair historian. He hinted at it himself"

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:53 P

Well played sir, or not."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:06 AM

I especially like this one. You seem to really see red when someone uses your words against you. I would suggest you think your statements through better. Especially when being elitist and condecending. I would like you to clarify. Was it well played, or not? The sentance just doesn't make sense if you aren't going to refute what I said. Did you hope that just pointing out that I used your unjustified sense of superiority against you would make me look like a big ole meany?

And finally, I find it vastly amusing that someone that you seem to always try and 'put in their place' then ignore when you can't is a professional, while you are hoisted by your own petard as an "armchair historian".

Please everybody be nice to poor mike, I would be sad to see him stop posting (again). He is a constant source of amusment to me.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:15 PM

Boomer,

My concern from "Animal Farm" isn't so much the "Four legs good, two legs bad", for me in modern society and politics the idea that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and "four legs good, two legs better" that I watch for.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 5:46 PM

Armchair Historian Pot,

You say: "However, when I note that it took you 12 hours to tell a poster to stop posting about books, suddenly I am supposed to understand that you have a life outside of this website. Basically you are forgetting that you had already attacked me for not posting and defended yourself for not posting."

You caught me, I do not have a life outside of this website, I'm sorta like Master Control Program in Tron, in reality I don't exist outside of this website. There my secret is finally out, it feels great to have that off my chest, metaphorically speaking of course since I don't really have a chest being a creature of the website.

When do you think I attacked you for not posting?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 5:33 PM

Michael,

I did not "prove" what is being taught in history classes today because Mrs. Smith had already done that. I know she posted a link to a current history test. Normally, you test what's being taught so I consider that proof enough.

I hope, when you had a student disagree with what you taught, you were more diplomatic and "professional" in your disagreement than you have been on this blog. You probably were; people tend to be kinder and less caustic in person, including me.

I went to college in 1966. My tuition and fees for that first semester were $144. I left school for a while and returned in 1973 to find a semester's tuition and fees were $444. Today at that same school a semester's tuition and fees are $3,466.

Most of what I know did not come from college classes. I got a degree and I had very high grades. It's just that a lot of things aren't taught in school; some of them can't be taught at all, I don't believe. They must be learned through hard knocks experience.

I have read an average of one book per week for the past 50 years. In fact, I waste too much time reading. Some of it is still with me.

I read "Animal Farm" again last night 45 years after the first reading. George Orwell was a lot smarter than I will ever be. He had good writing skills, too. "Four legs good, two legs bad", LOL. What a great line.

It's hard to not take it personally when someone disagrees with you. Ben Franklin struggled a great deal with that when he was young according to his autobiography. He learned better ways of getting his point across. I wish I had his skill and wisdom.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:51 PM

Ok that's enough fun for a while, Michael I really don't know who you are trying to convice with your rants today: me, other posters, yourself, I just don't know. You did do a good job of collecting some of the many ways I point out your hypocrisy though, that was amusing. Again, let me know what method of pointing out your hypocrisy will be acceptable to you.

TTFN Armchair Historian Pot

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:20 PM

Michael,

I think your whining bone isn't connected to your reasoning bone.

"That's interesting because you left out a huge part of what you complaining about. You gave me exactly 30 minutes to prove my point, when I hadn't you declared another poster as the winner (or at the very least the leader)."

You responded to MrsSmith at 11:33 by mocking her and not giving any contradicting evidence, you then responded to someone else. I remarked on this at 1:54, do you know how to read a clock? At that point she had cited support while you had, how is she not the leader at that time? BTW Kudos to you for actually posting some support for once, although it did take several days before you did, with other posts in between. I didn't cut off your time to respond, at it looks to me like you are just whining again.

"(interesting though, to me, is that when you do the exact same thing you are simply pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy of others, when I do it I'm whining)"

So if you say on the one hand that I'm attacking and mocking yet on the other use what I do as a defense for your whining, which is it? Am I whining or are you attacking and mocking? I could use some clarification here.

1. No I don't decry your mockery, I point out that you decry mockery, thus when you mock, you are being a hypocrite. I don't think I've pointed to anyone else's mockery and said they shouldn't do it, so long as it conforms to the terms of use agreement. You are wrong here.

2. I have to interpret what you say, remember the other day you said I should infer what you mean. I have to do this because you refuse to clarify your statments every time I ask.

3. Please share with me what method you would find acceptable to show your hypocrisy. I have tried asking you to clarify positions, which you refuse to do. I am left with pointing out when your deeds contradict your stated beliefs and when your comments contradict each other. So you tell me what would satisfy yourself that you are a hypocrite and I'll get to work on it.

4. When you say I call people names but leave off the important information such as the circumstances you imply that I am calling names willy nilly. It's pretty much just you that I call names, and actually I only call you one name most of the time. So again, please when you are addressing me calling you names, don't imply that I am calling several people names. I'm sorry you "add value" when you said I congratulated Wallis, I notice you don't address that, I'll assume that it's because you agree that you did indeed "add value"

So you weren't questioning Boomer's assertion that his daughter paid $1000 for a single classes books? That's sure how it read to me and I imagine if you took a survey everyone else too. I interpreted your comments if I did so incorrectly there is an easier way of letting me know. You commented about books, in a way that implied you didn't believe it then followed up with a comment about unsubstantiated claims, I read that as you were saying that his claim about books was unsubstantiated, which it was.

Whatever you say Mr. Armchair Historian Pot

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:15 PM

Thank you SW for posting pretty much exactly what I expected out of you. Except for you actually providing some evidence to your claim that social science books are less than other courses you once again just can't help yourself but attack, attack, attack. Then for fun (I'm guessing) you decide to also go back to the character attacks, calling me Mr. Pot and deciding that I was whining (interesting though, to me, is that when you do the exact same thing you are simply pointing out the flaws and hypocrisy of others, when I do it I'm whining) instead of what I was actually doing. Just another case of you deciding what people are doing and posting it as fact.

"I don't think I should have to tell you this, especially since in the past I remember you having to explain this to people, I think it was ocho, but I do have a life outside of pointing out the hypocrisy in your blog. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I have a family and work and other things that get in the way of defending you."

That's interesting because you left out a huge part of what you complaining about. You gave me exactly 30 minutes to prove my point, when I hadn't you declared another poster as the winner (or at the very least the leader). However, when I note that it took you 12 hours to tell a poster to stop posting about books, suddenly I am supposed to understand that you have a life outside of this website. Basically you are forgetting that you had already attacked me for not posting and defended yourself for not posting.

"1. Since I don't decry mockery in others as you do, it is not hypocrisy for me to engage in it as it is when you do."

Now that's just downright funny. Considering that you have decried what you perceive as my mockery yet you excuse your own mockery that's just funny. Just another case of you excusing your own behavior while calling out other's (in this case your belief of mine) behavior.

"2. Pointing out your hypocrisy isn't a character attack, you say I just attack your character, but if you are honest, I think you'll find I mock you while also picking apart your arguments at the same time. I rarely just call you names for no reason."

Actually SW, as I pointed out, you don't pick apart my arguments. You make assumptions about what I said, add your own value and then pick that argument apart. In the end you are picking apart your own arguments. You rarely call me names for no reason? That's a new one.

"3. I'm pretty sure neither Wallis nor anyone else who reads these posts, needs to base thier opinion that you are a hypocrite off my posts, your hypocrisy is plain for all to see. You can take this as "proof" you are a hypocrite, I'm not sure what objective measurement you would accept. Please let me know how many times I need to point out your hypocrisy before you accept it. By the way, agreeing with someone isn't exactly the same as coming to someone's defense."

It's nice to see that in your world or your mind all you need to do prove something as fact is have an opinion. Forget science, just have an opinion and for SW, at least, that's all the proof you need for something to be fact.

"4. Please stop trying to "add value" to people's comments. This is especially hypocritical considering how often you complain of "conservatives" doing so. You try to complain of me saying that I don't call names for no reason. Yet you change what I say trying to make me look bad. I don't call names without reason, you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite, so I feel justified in calling you one. I also never "congratulated" anyone as you claim. Please stop trying to "add value" and change the meanings of what people say.

Here you go again, SW. I never said that you call people names for no reason I simply said that you call people names. In this instance you are decrying me for adding value when you do it yourself inside the same statement.

"You said his story about his daughter's books was not believable to you and that he is saying unproven thoughts without anything to back them up. Then for some reason you felt his observation on expensive books is an "attack"."

Back to claiming I said something I never said are you SW. I never said Boomer's story was not believable. You said that. You made the claim that I said that but there is no proof that I did. I simply said that I had never paid a certain amount for books. The second part of my post was in reference to his unsubstantiated claim that American students learn more about Japanese-American internment camps than Americans fighting during the war. I asked him to prove his point and he never did.

So once again you are guilty of criticizing for something I never did. You made up what I said and then criticized me for saying something I never said. You, sir, are guilty of adding value and then just making it up as you go.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 2:12 PM

Michael,

"I'm sure you all will remember how SW constantly berates me because he says I don't back up any of my statements as facts. Well here we have Wallis stating as fact that I am a hypocrite but doesn't substantiate it, offers no proof as why I am a hypocrite but he states it as fact"

Interesting thing about this. You complain that I ask you to support your claims, yet you tacitly agree that you don't support your claims. You then try to use Wallis pointing out you are a hypocrite as "usubstatiated fact" so you whine about this but once again refuse to support your "facts" with any documentation. Isn't this using other people's behavior to justify your own, isn't that something you find repugnant?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:40 AM

Michael,

I'm sorry I took more than 12 hours before I tried to preserve some of your dignity by suggesting to Wallis that he had cited enough that even you couldn't just blow it off.

I don't think I should have to tell you this, especially since in the past I remember you having to explain this to people, I think it was ocho, but I do have a life outside of pointing out the hypocrisy in your blog. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I have a family and work and other things that get in the way of defending you.

It's funny that you would comment on this given your history, I guess it's what we should expect from Mr. Pot, more hypocrisy.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:45 AM

I was re-reading your rant about textbooks and I think you misunderstand. I don't disbelieve that you never spent $1000 a semester or whatever you said. I found your implication that Boomer must be lying distasteful. I didn't mean to imply that you were lying and if I did, I apologize. For the record: Michael is not "outright lying" he is a hypocrite.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:33 AM

I apologize, I accidentally clicked to post comment before I was done.

The syllabus for the final course can be found at:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/architecture/...

Please understand this attempt is not very extensive, but I think it is illustrative. If would like to continue this disagreement please feel free to post a couple of social science text requirements that cost more than other disciplines and we can continue. Otherwise I'll expect to hear an affirmation that you agree that in general social science text cost less.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:27 AM

Michael,

Now on to the book issue:

I left out some of what you said to save room, but apparently you've forgotten what you said and in your attempt to "change value" you've left out important parts. I guess I'll have to take up MORE room now.

After implying that Boomer was lying about the cost of his daughter's books, you followed up with:

"It seems to be you are offering up a lot of conjecture as fact with not a lot of facts ti back you up.

Just more attacks on education. Same stuff different day."

You said his story about his daughter's books was not believable to you and that he is saying unproven thoughts without anything to back them up. Then for some reason you felt his observation on expensive books is an "attack". First of all do you feel $1000 for a class worth of books is not excessive? Wallis spends much more time posting refuting evidence than I would waste and then you come back and try to backpedal and deny that you implied Boomer was lying, even though it is plain for everyone to see, you hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

Since you ask me for proof, I'm happy to try to show you, although I'm sure you won't accept it. Funny though that when I ask you to support your claims I either get ignored or mocked.

I based my comment about social science texts costing less originally on my own experience as a student. When I was an undergraduate student the "hard" science classes I took always had more expensive texts that often were not able to be sold because the next year would be using a new text.

As a graduate student, I had many more books but individually they cost little so it wasn't much of a burden. By the way I already have a M.A. while you are only working on one, so maybe I'm the professional and you are the armchair observer like Sir Didymus mentioned. I am going to be starting another graduate program this fall and I'm sure the books will cost more than I remember.

However for some objective material I have randomly selected syllabi from a couple of different disciplines and will share my findings.

I found a syllabus for a graduate level history class at NYU that listed the required reading at 12 books. The total cost of those books was $70.90 found on Half.com. Here is the syllabus:

http://history.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/15020...

I also found a syllabus for a MSW course at Wayne State Universit that listed 8 texts with a total cost of $19.59

http://socialwork.wayne.edu/syllabi/sw_7...

I found a Chemistry class at UC Irvine that listed only 2 texts at a total cost of $118.74

http://unicorn.ps.uci.edu/243/handouts/s...

Finally I found an architecture open course at MIT that had 2 texts with a combined cost of $72.98

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:23 AM

Quite a diatribe there, Michael.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 9:10 AM

Michael,

1. Since I don't decry mockery in others as you do, it is not hypocrisy for me to engage in it as it is when you do.

2. Pointing out your hypocrisy isn't a character attack, you say I just attack your character, but if you are honest, I think you'll find I mock you while also picking apart your arguments at the same time. I rarely just call you names for no reason.

3. I'm pretty sure neither Wallis nor anyone else who reads these posts, needs to base thier opinion that you are a hypocrite off my posts, your hypocrisy is plain for all to see. You can take this as "proof" you are a hypocrite, I'm not sure what objective measurement you would accept. Please let me know how many times I need to point out your hypocrisy before you accept it. By the way, agreeing with someone isn't exactly the same as coming to someone's defense.

4. Please stop trying to "add value" to people's comments. This is especially hypocritical considering how often you complain of "conservatives" doing so. You try to complain of me saying that I don't call names for no reason. Yet you change what I say trying to make me look bad. I don't call names without reason, you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite, so I feel justified in calling you one. I also never "congratulated" anyone as you claim. Please stop trying to "add value" and change the meanings of what people say.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:26 AM

Anyone know what kind of cheese goes best with this whine? BABY Swiss perhaps?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:13 AM

It really interests me that I simply asked that in your attempts to change history was to provide proof. I have yet to see any. Instead I have seen a lot of character attacks and naturally attacks on the education system for errors in teaching, that simply are not there.

However, I don't want to do this all nilly willy because apparently the onus of proof is always on me and no one else on this site.

Here are just a few examples just from this thread alone:

"A degree in history is nice. What is nicer, is when you actually learn history, based on facts, and without attempting to downplay the parts of historical fact that go against your political leanings.

This revisionist history is really disturbing."

Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 4:22 PM

Not a huge deal, Boomer is just asserting that even though I have a degree in History (and working towards a Masters) I haven't learned any history and that I downplay historical events that don't match my political leanings. His was actually one of the better ones because he was attempting to turn the tables on what I had said. It kind of goes downhill after that.

"Michael, I am sorry you feel you need wield 'Armchair Historian' around like a Colt 45, and you the only one wearing a 'Star,'"

- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 4:25 PM

I am not really sure what Navy is talking about with this statement, specifically the 'Star' part.

"Perhaps you might consider subscribing to 'Wall-builders,' for your Historical information, for (again) IMO, you are paying good money for a twisted way of not being trustworthy of clean information."

- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 4:25 PM

Sadly yet another in a very long list of attacks on education. It does make me wonder. With all the outright hatred of our American education system where did you all go to school. If education is failing as badly as is being claimed on this site, did any of you graduate high school?

But sadly, Navy wasn't quite done:

"You are intelligent to need stoop to 'twisting' to gain any advantage you need or should desire."

-- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 4:25 PM

Apparently Navy had gotten confused because I had used citizens and Colonists in the same sentence which led him to believe that I was separating out regular citizens from military men. Instead of asking what I had meant he decided that I was twisting to gain an advantage. I will admit that it was probably not the best verbiage and I should have distinguished why I was using different terms for the same group of people. Perhaps I have just convinced myself that if people can infer what Paul Revere meant over 200 years ago they can infer what I mean today and now. Maybe, sadly, I am expecting too much.

Oh, and then SW rings in. This one post (yes one post) of attack after attack without really saying anything could make anyone's head spin: I present his gems without any remarks from me.

"Well this should certainly make it less fun to point out Michael's hypocrisy, I'll just have to repost this everytime he claims one of his opinions as 'facts'."

"However, in Michael's continual effort to make himself look foolish he gives us this:"

"Michael's righteousness and fury is made to look like spin and whining"

"Mr. Pot at his finest"

And then finally after two full paragraphs of full derision and attempted humor, SW delivers one of his best gems:

"Michael, please in an effort to save what little dignity you have remaining, I ask you to stop blogging about things that make you look so stupid and stick to things like missing your dog, raising your step-grandchildren, and how great your dad is."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 8:30 AM

Let us forget for just a small minute that he, as seems to be his forte, leaves out a lot of the context in an effort to make me look "foolish" and "stupid"

There could be many reasons why Paul Revere chose to say Americans while he was captured. The main reason could be that probably even Revere realized how much better it sounded to say Americans rather than British. Another reason could be because of where they were. If today the American government started sending in troops to Nebraska and Nebraskans decided they did not want American troops marching into their area and a modern day Paul Revere was warning Nebraskans that American troops were advancing. If he was captured would he say that 500 Nebraskans were waiting or 500 Americans?

Don't worry there will be much more from SW later. He spins an awesome tale.

Then Boomer devolves into a very long and interesting tale about how University professors are purposely (my word not his) allowing their students to be taught bad and often wrong information because they have deals with publishers to write their own books. Naturally he offers no proof of this, and while I am sure that some professors are guilty of this, the majority of professors are actually in the field of teaching because they like to teach. He then finishes it wish this statement:

"My daughter took one graduate class where the textbooks for the 3 credit hour class cost over $1,000!"

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM

I questioned Boomer on that point because I have gone to different colleges over my college career (another Sarah Plain comparison for you speak speak ez) and I have never paid anywhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 dollars for a semester's worth of books let alone for three credit hours. This sparked a huge response, mostly by wallismarsh. Apparently it is believed that I am lying about how much I have paid for my books so wallis was apparently trying to prove that I was either wrong or lying. I'm not. You can accept that or not, I don't really care.

Continuing:

MrsSmith is up next with her one link that apparently "proves" that American students learn more about Japanese-American Internment camps than our allies (she even gets involved with the whole group think phenomenon when she calls me an "armchair historian" after another poster she was defending at the time had already called me that):

"I am so thankful you don't teach history these days, Mike. But then again, most "armchair historians," like you, shouldn't be anywhere near any teaching position."

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 1:25 PM

I have had this battle with MrsSmith many times. She has in the past used a poll of college professors to assert that high school teachers were liberally biased. This one, however, takes the cake. She takes one practice exam and declares that the earlier statement is true. What she leaves out is the fact that tests change on a regular basis. What was on a test this time (even a practice test) won't be on it next time and what wasn't on the test this time could well be on the test next time.

Not to be left out, Sir Didymus chimes in:

I am sensing another "Aditum" moment approaching.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:50 PM

Now, see Didymus is a fine example. His first post and the only thing he can manage is a character attack. Nothing on the blog, nothing on any of the posts. Just a straight out attack. However, maybe, sensing that his post added nothing to the blog or posts he attempts to try to link his aditum comment back to the blog:

"Mike has a built in defense against all of you haters. He is not a professional historian. He is an armchair historian. He hinted at it himself"

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:53 PM

Well played sir, or not.

I will say that the next post by MrsSmith shows that she is coming to play on this blog. She is not going to be overshadowed by the other posters on here in attacking for the fun of it without really saying anything:

"I know, it sucks to be wrong over and over again, but hey, you could just stick to subjects you know. There have to be a couple of them...

The online test is a long and very inclusive test. You should try it...but study up first. Judging by your repeat failures in writing history columns, you'll flunk badly otherwise."

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 12:09 PM

Sadly, before that comment she overplayed her hand at the start of the comment when she stated that ONE practice test from ONE school in Virginia was "thorough proof" of the internment statement.

Ahh, SW has returned the mocking and derision he claims to hate so much:

"You're just looking petulant and immature now."

Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM

Then he gets onto me for what he himself has already been doing:

"You ask for "proof" which interestingly you never seem to offer for your claims. When someone offers an example, you mock the poster and the example as not being expansive enough. I notice you didn't post any rebuttal to MrsSmith, you just deride her comment."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM

Now for argument's sake here is my posting that SW claims is full of mockery.

"MrsSmith your evidence is one online test? Okay you go with that."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 11:33 AM

Maybe I was mocking her. I don't think I was. I'm sorry but I don't feel that one online test is sufficient proof of the internment statement. However, considering that SW believes that all he needs to do is infer what one statement meant and that's all the proof he needs I guess one example would be more than sufficient for him.

Just for the record after one day SW had proclaimed MrsSmith the victor:

"MrsSmith's supporting documentation:1; Michael's supporting documentation:0"

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM

In his world apparently I am only given one day to supply my supporting evidence. I have done so in the preceding post. Is it now a tie? Do I win because I provided more, or will SW just simply ignore that I did provide the documentation?

SW is not done people and this is where he really starts to unravel .... he goes to ALL CAPS even.

Just as he did I will provide the text of what I said:

"Boomer I don't know where your daughter goes to school but I have never paid $1,000 fir an entire semester's worth of books let alone for one three hour class."

It seems cut and dry. Boomer had stated that his daughter had paid $1,000 for a three hour course. My response is that I have never paid $1,000 for a semester of books let alone one course. Pretty cut and dry.

Now, let's take a look at how SW apparently read that very same statement:

"IF MICHAEL HENDRICKS, PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN/MR. POT HASN'T DONE SOMETHING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. PROBABLY JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A LIBERAL EXTREMIST "OUTRIGHT LYING" AGAIN."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:00 PM

Wow SW, that is impressive. You were able to take a simple, cut and dry, statement and not only change the context but change the entire statement. I never said it was impossible but you put it in CAPS so it must be true. I never said that Boomer was "outright lying" but you not only put it in ALL CAPS but in quotation marks so I had to have said it in that statement. Let's look again:

"Boomer I don't know where your daughter goes to school but I have never paid $1,000 fir an entire semester's worth of books let alone for one three hour class."

Except for a misspelled word I don't see this outright lying you put in quotes. That's strange.

But he isn't finished with this post:

"Michael, do you ever offer anything other than conjectures without facts, or is this another example of everything you say is factual and everyone else is always lying?"

Here is simply restating his earlier ALL CAPS typing as if he is responding to the ALL CAPS taken from me.

Here's the fun part of the post:

"It must not occur to Michael that different disciplines require different level of book expenditures, and that social sciences such as history often are among the least expensive. But we should all rest assured that because Michael hasn't spend more than $1000 a semester that NO ONE EVER spends more that $1000 a semester."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:00 PM

In the first part he is trying to school me into understanding that different fields cost different amounts of money. Again, he is basing this on his reading of what I said as opposed to what I actually said. But don't worry SW, wallis has your back later in the posts when he gives us post after post after post ... of how much he has spent on books. This does actually lead credence to what I have said in the past. SW completely changed what I said into something I never said and then got onto me for not understanding that different fields have different costs. Wallis, apparently only reading what SW has said I posted and not what I actually posted decides to school me too on the assumption pushed forward by SW.

The second part of his statement is him once again basing his argument off of something I never said. He inferred that I said it, though he has previously stated he can't infer what I say. That's quite the conundrum.

He follows that post up with one of his greatest statements of all time:

"Michael can't refute the arguments of people so he attacks their character."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:01 PM

Thank goodness you never attack anyone's character, except when you are attacking someone's character. Need an example, read any of your posts to me.

Speak EZ then gets involved even going as far as telling SW he couldn't have said the above quote better and then giving us this little gem:

"If one should go back a year or two on this particular blog, one might note that the discussions really all degrade into a bunch of name calling and fancy descriptions of how the other poster/s are "blithering dolts". I am not pinning that name-calling on Michael, don't get me wrong, but I am saying that all of these threads tend to turn into a bunch of empty character attacks without any substance to the argument."

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:06 PM

It is nice of Speak ez to not pin the name-calling on me but what stands out is that the very person he is talking about and his ability to turn the threads into a bunch of empty character attacks is the same person he gave praise to at the start of the post.

But I suppose SW should get some praise, who else can describe themselves so perfectly while trying to describe someone else.

Now let's go back to the post that SW was being congratulated for:

"Michael can't refute the arguments of people so he attacks their character."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:01 PM

and follow that up with a post about thirty minutes later:

"I agree speak-e-z, a couple of years ago when I first started posting, I tried to have actual discussion with Michael and other posters, they weren't interested in discussion just trying to 'score points', so now I'm reduced to pointing out how ridiculous his posts and hypocrisy are."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:32 PM

Again thank goodness you don't attack character, except when you do it 30 minutes later. By the way the quotations is one of SWs favorite methods of suggesting someone has said something they probably haven't. Why put score points in quotations? Is it a direct quote by someone? Was someone actually trying to score points?

Once again just for my pleasure with some of his examples of not attacking character:

"he attacks their character."

"I'm reduced to pointing out how ridiculous his posts and hypocrisy are."

"everything you say is factual and everyone else is always lying"

"You're just looking petulant and immature now"

"Instead you are once again acting cowardly and childishly."

"Well this should certainly make it less fun to point out Michael's hypocrisy, I'll just have to repost this everytime he claims one of his opinions as "facts"."

"Michael's continual effort to make himself look foolish"

"Michael's righteousness and fury is made to look like spin and whining "

"Mr. Pot at his finest." And remember SW has stated in the past that he doesn't call names or label people.

"Michael, please in an effort to save what little dignity you have remaining, I ask you to stop blogging about things that make you look so stupid and stick to things like missing your dog, raising your step-grandchildren, and how great your dad is."

Oh and then wallis comes flying in with the assist to SW. Again, remember, that wallis is basing the next onslaught of posts on what SW said I posted and not what I actually posted.

"Mike is a hypocrite for sure."

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:18 PM

I'm sure you all will remember how SW constantly berates me because he says I don't back up any of my statements as facts. Well here we have Wallis stating as fact that I am a hypocrite but doesn't substantiate it, offers no proof as why I am a hypocrite but he states it as fact. Since, SW is such a stickler for providing proof (unless he's the one that actually has to do it) I am going to look after this post to see if SW asks for wallis to provide the proof, and then after waiting the appropriate time for wallis to answer (typically a couple of hours) and then deride him for not providing sufficient facts to back up his statement.

...

After more than 12 hours SW finally says something.

"Wallis,

I think we get the point, Michael doesn't know what he's talking about. That's probably enough examples that even he can't just make disparaging remarks the number."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 9:33 AM

Okay well no derision, but do you notice something. SW is actually congratulating wallis for proving that I don't know what I am talking about regarding costs of books.

Let's head back to a statement that SW had made to me a little bit earlier:

"It must not occur to Michael that different disciplines require different level of book expenditures, and that social sciences such as history often are among the least expensive."

So I state that I have never paid more than 1000 bucks for books in a semester and SW derides me because he doesn't accept my point. When wallis shows that he has he gets congratulated. By the way SW can you prove this statement?

"social sciences such as history often are among the least expensive."

You are so big on demanding that I prove each and everyone of my statements, so how about you prove your own statement?

This does bring me back to wallis. He often likes to post several links and posts (typically way off topic) all in one grouping. Just in this one posting he gave us 15 seperate posts all on the costs of books just so he could post this:

"Mike- You are always wrong about everything."

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:11 PM

Remember, wallis is giving us all of these posts so that he can prove that I am wrong on something I never stated. SW successfully (for one poster) convinced wallis that I had stated that there was no way that books could cost over 1000 bucks and wallis took the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

Then there is ocho who apparently does not know what a topic is since typically only a few of his many posts are actually on topic.

I think I'm done. Have a good night.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:06 AM

"At least 2 different questions on the internment camps, both answers highlight 'prejudice against Japanese Americans'"

MrsSmith I would think that locking up innocent Japanese-Americans solely based on what the Japanese military did would be prejudice.

However, seeing as I asked for proof that students were learning more about Japanese internment camps than Ally victories and your answer was one link that you later claimed was your sole piece of evidence I decided to look at a couple of states' curriculum (what is taught to the students) as opposed to guess work and assumptions.

In the State of Arkansas there are nine seperate areas of study dealing with World War 2. One section is about the Japanese Internment camps (a blot of America's history). For the rest it's all about the build up to the war, minorities involvement in the war, etc. That's hardly learning more about one portion of the war as opposed to other portions.

Here's a handy link (it is a pdf and the information about World War 2 is on page 20)

http://www.arkansased.org/educators/pdf/...

In the state of Texas they are still in the process of finalizing their Social Studies curriculum but on page 5 of their latest draft, not only do they list the internment of Japanese Americans but of prisoners of war in America of MAJOR American battles. Doesn't really seem more of one than the other to me

You can find this pdf under the section titled "Proposals approved for second reading and final adoption in May 2010" and by clicking on High School.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?i...

In the state of Nebraska there is no mention, at least in the Standards of the internments what-so-ever (even though Nebraska did have internment camps) but students are expected to "Summarize the major battles, military turning points, and key strategic decisions."

You can find this on page 20 of the document

http://www.education.ne.gov/SS/Documents...

For the heck of it I even looked at the Curriculum standards for California that "supposed" bastion of Liberal government and what did I find?

More of the same:

There is a section pinpointing the major battles of World War 2 and EVEN a section about the roles and sacrifices of American soldiers. There is also the section on Japanese-American internment camps and the restrictions on Germans and Italians.

You can find this information on page 50

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents...

All of this links do download pdfs. If you are having problems downloading these documents please let me know and I can either post the word versions or the actual websites for you to go and play around with the sites.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 11:14 PM

Wallis,

I think we get the point, Michael doesn't know what he's talking about. That's probably enough examples that even he can't just make disparaging remarks the number.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 9:33 AM

http://www.textbooks.com/Catalog/P2/Medi...

Epilepsy textbook is over $275 and only used are available.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 8:46 AM

Highest Priced College Textbooks

Acta Philosophorum The First Journal of Philosophy: $1,450

Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications: $1,215

Management Science An Anthology: $850

History of Early Film: $740

Biostatistical Genetics and Genetic Epidemiology: $665

Companion Encyclopedia of Psychology: $600

Feminism and Politics: $600

Concepts and Design of Chemical Reactors: $593

Advanced Semiconductor and Organic Nano-Techniques: $570

Ethics in Business and Economics: $550

Environment in the New Global Economy: $510

Solid State Chemistry and Its Applications: $500

Read more: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/spending/blog...

From a search. I'm lazy

-- Posted by NavyRetired on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 5:35 AM

www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Engineerin...

This page has 3 text books used in the same semester. Each book is over $150 plus we always had supplemental books or workbooks, etc.

OK I will quit. I have published real prices with books that are quite expensive. Books easily can cost $1000 a semester Mike.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:35 PM

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_...

Bought these books. Had this guy for 3 classes.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:32 PM

And the Capstone book.

http://www.amazon.com/Petroleum-Engineer...

3 used at $698.

Mike- You are always wrong about everything.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:11 PM

http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s...

Sorry this is the reservoir book. Over $170.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:09 PM

http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s...

Applied Reservoir Engineering. This class has 3 books. This is the text book. Couldn't find the workbooks.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:08 PM

http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s...

Required class. We bought 2 of these Math books.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:04 PM

http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s...

This was a Math elective I took.

Ed has the book.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM

So an Elective 3 hr class the books are $400. I randomly chose this class. It is not $1000 but it is one elective class with non-engineering books for an engineering degree.

Mike -books are expensive.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:55 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Petroleum...

Elements of Petroleum Geology list price $112 slashed to 87$.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:50 PM

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A2...

Pretty cheap. $25 but only 7 left. Geology of Petroleum.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:48 PM

http://www.amazon.com/3-D-Seismic-Interp...

3-D seismic interpretation. Used is $240 from Amazon. You can only buy from OU new.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:45 PM

http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/s...

3 required 1 recommended.

First required is $52.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:43 PM

http://www.ou.edu/bulletins/degree-sheet...

This has the requirements for OU Petroleum Engineering. We will chose GPHY 3423

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:40 PM

Mike is a hypocrite for sure. Engineering and Law books and Medical books are very expensive.

My twin brother and I shared books because they were so expensive and we couldn't afford to buy 2 of each. When College was over we drafted our books. I have half and he has the other half.

Mike has no idea.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:18 PM

I agree speak-e-z, a couple of years ago when I first started posting, I tried to have actual discussion with Michael and other posters, they weren't interested in discussion just trying to "score points", so now I'm reduced to pointing out how ridiculous his posts and hypocrisy are.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:32 PM

I'll try not to spend too many of my resources doing so!

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:30 PM

careful speak-e-z, having that much fun could be illegal in some quarters. lol

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:16 PM

You couldn't have said it better. If one should go back a year or two on this particular blog, one might note that the discussions really all degrade into a bunch of name calling and fancy descriptions of how the other poster/s are "blithering dolts". I am not pinning that name-calling on Michael, don't get me wrong, but I am saying that all of these threads tend to turn into a bunch of empty character attacks without any substance to the argument. It's bleedin' entertaining though! I couldn't sit on the sidelines any longer and let everyone else have all the fun!

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:06 PM

Thank you speak-e-z, I aim to please :)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:02 PM

Michael can't refute the arguments of people so he attacks their character.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:01 PM

I always look forward to your posts SW, I get a kick out of 'em nearly every time.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:00 PM

Here is another classic Michael tactic:

"Boomer I don't know where your daughter goes to school but I have never paid $1,000 fir an entire semester's worth of books let alone for one three hour class."

Well that settles the issue then, IF MICHAEL HENDRICKS, PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN/MR. POT HASN'T DONE SOMETHING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. PROBABLY JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A LIBERAL EXTREMIST "OUTRIGHT LYING" AGAIN.

Michael, do you ever offer anything other than conjectures without facts, or is this another example of everything you say is factual and everyone else is always lying?

It must not occur to Michael that different disciplines require different level of book expenditures, and that social sciences such as history often are among the least expensive. But we should all rest assured that because Michael hasn't spend more than $1000 a semester that NO ONE EVER spends more that $1000 a semester.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 2:00 PM

I've paid $1000/semester for books right here in the state of Nebraska! It was easy for me to relate. The text for one of my classes, see above, was $500 (I could not buy it used because it was a new edition written by a professor of THAT course), THEN we had a "supplementary" text which was only $150 or $200...we opened it twice or something. That was for ONE class. I then purchased books for the other 15 credit hours I took that semester. I used as many resources as I could including Amazon.com, purchasing used, or not buying one at all and hoping I could borrow someone's. Jumping to the conclusion that the professors change the edition of the book just to make the university and their publishers some money is only speculation, you are right (I heard the devil was giving out sleigh rides today), but to say Boomer62 is wrong about the receipt he got for his daughter's books and calling it an attack on education is...not right.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM

Michael,

You're just looking petulant and immature now.

You ask for "proof" which interestingly you never seem to offer for your claims. When someone offers an example, you mock the poster and the example as not being expansive enough. I notice you didn't post any rebuttal to MrsSmith, you just deride her comment. There are many ways to refute what she said, you could have posted a different test, or lesson plans, or links to text books that support your claim. Instead you are once again acting cowardly and childishly.

One online test might not be much, but it's much more evidence that you've posted.

MrsSmith's supporting documentation:1; Michael's supporting documentation:0

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM

Yes, Mike... in a 5 minute Yahoo search, I was able to find a link that quite nicely shows the way US history and the history of WW2 is taught today. It was a very quick and thorough proof of Boomer's statement, and it's all online so everyone can see for themselves.

I know, it sucks to be wrong over and over again, but hey, you could just stick to subjects you know. There have to be a couple of them...

The online test is a long and very inclusive test. You should try it...but study up first. Judging by your repeat failures in writing history columns, you'll flunk badly otherwise.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 12:09 PM

Boomer I don't know where your daughter goes to school but I have never paid $1,000 fir an entire semester's worth of books let alone for one three hour class.

It seems to be you are offering up a lot of conjecture as fact with not a lot of facts ti back you up.

Just more attacks on education. Same stuff different day.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 11:39 AM

MrsSmith your evidence is one online test? Okay you go with that.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 11:33 AM

Mike has a built in defense against all of you haters. He is not a professional historian. He is an armchair historian. He hinted at it himself.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:53 PM

I am sensing another "Aditum" moment approaching.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:50 PM

One point that can't be argued is that we never would have been prepared to fight for this new country we enjoy, without the weapons in the homes of the average colonist. We received weapons through more official and some very "unofficial" means later but we needed the weapons that were kept in the homes, out on the battlefield.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 5:44 PM

Made lots of people feel warm and cuddly. Hope and CHANGE! Maybe he'll give you some from his "stash".

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 4:06 PM

Mike QUOTE: "American students learn more about Japanese internment camps than about the Allies victories during the war. In fact, it is an absolute outrageous claim. Care to back it up?" UNQUOTE

http://staff.harrisonburg.k12.va.us/~cwa...

Practice US history exam online. Multiple WW2 questions.

At least 2 different questions on the internment camps, both answers highlight "prejudice against Japanese Americans"

ZERO questions on Allied victories. ZERO questions on who our Allies were, even.

I am so thankful you don't teach history these days, Mike. But then again, most "armchair historians," like you, shouldn't be anywhere near any teaching position.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 1:25 PM

@ doodle, I have read a bunch of your posts and I don't think we would disagree all that much. Maybe just in the details, but probably not in the gestalt of the matters.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 12:19 PM

speak-e-z, I dont know if we would have differences of opinion, but I LIKE THE WAY YOU WRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by doodle bug on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 12:15 PM

@ Boomer62, then they "buy them back" for pennies on the dollar. Its truly a fantastic system...or not. Even better, they'll come out with a "new edition" with about six revisions in it (BC and AD to CE and BCE, etc. since we are talking about history). Even better, they will not buy the book back at all when the professor of the course whimsically changes the edition from which they will teach and you have a $500 dead weight that you may or may not ever open again.

@ ocho, sorry about your computer. Moreover, I am a coffee connoisseur and hope that it was nothing more than Folgers or Maxwell House! If it was a good Yirgacheffe or El Salvador Bourbon, a sad day is upon us (-;

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 11:42 AM

Michael, do not place so much faith in your university history. Much of it is distorted for some important reasons.

At the university level professors are under considerable pressure to write books and get them published, in order to achieve tenure. Publish or perish, as they say. So they write history books if that is their field. And what they write about is not from first hand experience usually, and their biases naturally affect the histories in those books. They don't need to be history experts, but they DO need to write and get published.

Since they are under contract with the publisher to do what they can to encourage sales, those history professors require their testbook to be used in history classes. And the instructors and grad students, who to the actual teaching, do not generally disagree with what has been written in those textbooks, due to the career risks involved. Meanwhile the professors are too busy writing and getting published to do much actual teaching.

The whole "publish or perish", textbook pushed into classroom by the author, and intellectual chill imposed by professors on the actual history teacher, all results in disortions of the history taught. Over time the history taught deviates further and further from factual history, into opinion of professors.

A side effect is that textbook prices are astronomical, due to the limited number purchased. Each university requires the history written by its professor/authors so the publishing runs of textbooks are very limited, resulting in very high prices to achieve profits for the publisher.

It's all a very incestuous relationship between university, professor/author, and publisher. The poor student gets to pay exorbitant prices for his textbooks, the professor gets tenure, the publisher makes money, the student gets taught stuff that isn't necessarily true, and the parents of the students shell out too much for his substandard eduction.

My daughter took one graduate class where the textbooks for the 3 credit hour class cost over $1,000!

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM

@ SWNebr NICE.

To steal something from Navyblue, "IMHO" (I'm just stealing the IMHO part) how did we get to the point where a person gets paid to sit and "study" history when it seems the rest of the people on here will do it for free.

IMHO, if one cannot fully be aware of history without a masters degree or even a doctorate, how can we be expected then to understand the likes of Shakespeare or Aldous Huxley or Orwell or Steinbeck. Are we just armchair English professors? Each of us understands what those authors were trying to say in a little bit different way. My point may be weak, but did it ever occur to anyone that what Revere "said" may be able to be interpreted? Granted, I was always the student who looked at my English teacher and said, "maybe the author means just what s/he wrote."

On another note, I just read a good OPINION article in the Journal Star about the media's fascination with Palin. Its a sickness. It makes both sides look bad. Imagine if these blogs were scrutinized by the number of people that tear apart everything that passes the lips of Sarah Palin. I concede that Michael that you get you fair share of scrutiny, and good on you for staying the course, but without question, you unabashedly share what you believe are facts on a daily basis and stick to them no matter what. You're going to hate this, but in a way, you are JUST LIKE Sarah Palin.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:56 AM

A few more nuggets of joy from this blog:

"The burden of proof is always on the person that makes a claim"

Well this should certainly make it less fun to point out Michael's hypocrisy, I'll just have to repost this everytime he claims one of his opinions as "facts".

While I and most people accept the line "the British are coming" as literary license, the sentiment of the statement, regardless of whether it is a verbatim quote, is still valid. However, in Michael's continual effort to make himself look foolish he gives us this: "The reason he did not say the British is simple enough. At this time they still considered themselves to be British subjects."

Michael's righteousness and fury is made to look like spin and whining when one considers that earlier in his blog he uses the words from Revere's letter that state: "There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."

Note the interesting choice in words that Revere uses...."Americans". If we use Michael's argument as our base, shouldn't he have said "There would be five hundred British there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up"? After all they considered themselves British didn't they Michael?

Finally, and perhaps most amusingly, he chastises Boomer on one hand, yet validates and supports Boomer's claim on the other, Mr. Pot at his finest.

He says: "As fir [sic] your contention that no shooting started until the attempted taking of arms your armchair history is once again clouding your judgement. The historical facts are pretty straight forward on thus account. The colonists were ordered to drop their arms and leave. They were in fact instructed to do so and were beginning to do so until someone fired a gun and BOTH sides received orders to open fire which they did."

So let me see if I have this straight. Boomer said there was no shooting until the British, oh excuse me, "Regulars" tried to take the arms or disarm the Americans, oh excuse me, "British" at Lexington. Michael says he is wrong and then clearly says that history is settled that when the British, oh excuse me, "Regulars" told the Americans, oh excuse me, "British" to disarm, someone shot and both sides opened fire.

Michael aren't you just confirming what Boomer said, that shooting started AFTER the British, oh excuse me, "Regulars" tried to disarm the Americans, oh excuse me, "British"?

Michael, please in an effort to save what little dignity you have remaining, I ask you to stop blogging about things that make you look so stupid and stick to things like missing your dog, raising your step-grandchildren, and how great your dad is.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 8:30 AM

Boomer you made quite the claim when you stated that American students learn more about Japanese internment camps than about the Allies victories during the war. In fact, it is an absolute outrageous claim. Care to back it up? I taught US History and I spent the bulk of the war teaching about other matters than Japanese camps.

As fir your contention that no shooting started until the attempted taking of arms your armchair history is once again clouding your judgement. The historical facts are pretty straight forward on thus account. The colonists were ordered to drop their arms and leave. They were in fact instructed to do so and were beginning to do so until someone fired a gun and BOTH sides received orders to open fire which they did.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 1:13 AM

At the end of the day Michael Hendricks and what he says about history should be taken with a very LARGE grain of salt. Most of what he says is, in fact, unverified.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 5:27 PM

Michael, I am sorry you feel you need wield 'Armchair Historian' around like a Colt 45, and you the only one wearing a 'Star,' but I feel compelled to offer a comment:

You use the term, "...Regulars were coming," and cite that that term is used because they thought of themselves as still being British (paraphrase). The term 'Regular' has been used, and still is, I believe, to connote 'Full Time, Active Duty, A R M Y,' and we still use Militia, and Reserve, to connote our 'Part Time, Back up, Military folk.'

I also would like to know where you found the official orders (my words)stating that the 'Regulars' were to accomplish what they were supposed to do: '(with as little harm to citizens as possible with not looting) but they were to also arrest the Colonists leaders.'??

This quote also raises the 'twisting' of terms, IMHO, when you cite 'citizens,' and 'Colonists,' in the same sentence. The citizens, and Colonists were one and the same, but you seem to make it look as if the Colonists were military people and citizens were civilian, non-combatants (that is what it sounds like to me). The Colonists were civilian people gathering to defend themselves and their families, from the Regular Troops descending upon their homes.

Perhaps you might consider subscribing to 'Wall-builders,' for your Historical information, for (again) IMO, you are paying good money for a twisted way of not being trustworthy of clean information. You are intelligent to need stoop to 'twisting' to gain any advantage you need or should desire.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 4:25 PM

Dear Michael,

As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one who mentioned the Revolutionary War being "solely" about guns, possibly because you wish to downplay that major cause of the conflict.

On the other hand, I specifically mentioned other causes of the conflict, not just once but several times.

I DO contend that it was the most important cause, in that no shooting ever took place in the conflict until the attempt to disarm the colonists and destroy their stores of munitions. No other thing caused the colonists to shoot at the King's troops.

As I said previously, a war is an armed conflict. The armed conflict began April 19, 1775. This was after YEARS of unrest in the American colonies due to provocation by King George and his officials. Many protests were made by the colonists. Many petitions were sent to the King and Parliament.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates...

None of those protests and petitions resulted in real results. (Sort of like diplomatic efforts with Saddam Hussein.)

You know, as well as myself, that you are referring to my response to your previous blog in this current blog entry. And you indicate, with derision dripping, that I am an "armchair historian".

A degree in history is nice. What is nicer, is when you actually learn history, based on facts, and without attempting to downplay the parts of historical fact that go against your political leanings.

This revisionist history is really disturbing.

Our kids are taught more about Japanese internment camps in the US during World War II than they are about the fact that the Allies thwarted world domination by Fascists from Germany, Italy and Japan. The considerably worse treatment of US troops in Japanese prisons and on the Bataan Death March in the Phillipines and in Japan is largely ignored.

The Allied Forces that literally saved the world from fascism are made to look like the bad guys in too much of the history taught today.

It is convenient for the "armchair historians" of academia to revise history to suit themselves, from their lofty perches, far from the actual conflicts discussed.

My father was in the Battle of The Bulge. He was present when one of the many concentration camps was liberated. He knows the hardships and trials of war. He KNOWS about it.

Armchair historians only teach what little they actually know of it, slanted considerably by their 1960s anti-war, anti-American biases. While they usually do not actually lie about history, their biases show in what they emphasize and what they leave out.

The truth, the whole truth; that is important.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 4:22 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(5 ~ 6:05 PM, Aug 13)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)