View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's December 1999 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-diplo's December 1999 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-diplo home page.
> Curt Cardwell wrote: > >Similiarly, M.Safranski attacks Buzzanco when he writes, leaving no doubt >that he is referring to Buzzanco's lecture... Actually, if Mr. Cardwell were to go back and read Mr. Serewicz's original post he would discover that the statement of the latter that I refer to in the paragraph cited is a general statement and not specific to Professor Buzzanco. My paragraph is also general rather than specific though I grant Mr. Cardwell that Professor Buzzanco's lecture is subsumed within it if he is unable to rebut Mr. Serewicz's allegations ( though perhaps, if one reads the current posting by Mr. Serewicz, he is saving Professor Buzzanco the trouble. We shall see, I cannot speak to Mr. Serewicz's intent ). Regarding the truncated quotation from Kennan. I too believe that Professor Buzzanco's redacted version was considerably stronger in supporting an " empire " or " hegemonic " thesis than the full quotation warrants. In any event, Kennan's point is hardly new evidence with similar sentiments having been expressed fifty years earlier ( and with greater eloquence ) by Brooks Adams in his " Reciprocity " article ( Adams point being that empire and massive militarization was the alternative, and a costly one, to freer trade) But we can set that aside; it is up to Professor Buzzanco to justify the truncation because he is asserting it as evidence and not for me to prove the superior utility of the full quotation. > Finally, I must ask, where were L. Serewicz and M. Safranski when Gaddis's > _We Now Know_ came out? I especially direct these comments at M. > Safranski, who wrote of historians who employ "the subtle bias of omitted > context or calculated distortion to advance a dearly held political > cause." I was not at the conference nor was I aware of an H-Diplo debate on Gaddis having joined the list fairly recently. If Mr. Cardwell is asking if I would apply the same standards to Professor Gaddis as Professor Buzzanco the answer is: Absolutely and without hesitation.. > I do not have a copy before me, but if memory serves _We Now > Know_ *ignores* so much evidence, wholesale ignores topics, and provides > so little context that it practically amounts to intellectual fraud. I, > however, do not accuse Gaddis of such a thing. This disclaimer is not convincing. That's exactly the purpose of such a sentence, to accuse while disclaiming the act. I have admittedly provided intellectual support for such an accusation against Professor Buzzanco by writing on what I view as a disturbing trend within the profession but fairness requires that I give a hearing to Professor Buzzanco if he chooses to rebut Mr. Serewicz's specific charge and reevaluate the case based upon his reasoning and evidence. Mark Safranski