If you want to read some of the clap trap that passes for revisionist history these days take a look at this. If this were submitted to me as a paper I would have given it an F. Apparently Hitler's role in World War II is so trivial that his name is worth mentioning only in so far as Churchill at some point made some (probably grudging) compliments with respect to his perseverance.
The really unfortunate thing is that there are people who read this crap and actually take is seriously.
HT: The Young Fogey
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
12 hours ago
3 comments:
No more (or less) lopsided than the earlier hagiography you posted - this is standard old conservative, old progressive fair. I am sure you can google for example for Ralph Raico's old hit on Churchill. Put the glorification and demonization pieces together and you start to get something approaching reality.
I agree with your 'F' grade were this a history paper, but it's not; it's a magazine take-down piece trying to get the goats of those who subscribe to a 'great man' theory of history, and you seem to have obliged in getting your goat got.
Of course, the Continetti article it critiques is just begging for such a correction, and would merit whatever grade falls below 'F'.
Whew...that's some mighty fine scholarship, that. You're right, if that had been presented in a Logic or History class, it would have been an F.
Post a Comment