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.
First, I would like to express regret to Mr. Serewicz for any consternation my earlier supportive post might have caused him. My use of " New Left " in the preface was indeed extremely sloppy and open to multiple interpretations - in this case I actually meant nothing more than a side of the H-Diplo debate articulated in the interrelated New Left/Bernath/Appleman threads rather than the New Left itself. I do not believe I implied anything regarding Mr. Serwicz's personal political stance in my post ( unless one takes praise from me to be an inherent implication ) but if any list members so inferred, I would state that I have no familarity with Mr. Serewicz's views beyond that which he has posted on H-Diplo. I must confess though, that I am a bit puzzled by Mr. Serewicz's backtracking - after all it was he who wrote that " What makes this even more discouraging is that I often find, after going to the archives, that the authors have left out or shaded the meaning of the material they cited ". Well, either it is "often " - a frequent, common, occurrence- and thus an indictment of current standards of scholarship or it is not. It cannot be both. Most of my post dealt with this topic in a general sense of the role of political activism in historical writing and the use of footnotes, prompted by Mr. Serewicz's strong critique of Professor Buzzanco's Bernath lecture - not whether the New Left can be rebutted. I am not certain that I am alone on the list in regarding Mr. Serewicz's original posting as being exceptionally critical of Professor Buzzanco but I will accept his caveats at face value. Mark Safranski