thumbnail of Focus 580; 
     Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud-american History from Bancroft and
    Parkman to Ambrose, Belles
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
In this part of focus 580 we will be looking back to charges of professional misconduct that were made against a number of American historians and all these cases came to light and in fact became something of national news in the year 2002. Two of the people who were involved were quite well-known and to a bit less so. And each case is a little bit different but our guest this morning in this hour of the show Peter Charles offer takes them as an opportunity to think about what historians do and about how the discipline has changed over time. He's authored a book on the subject which is entitled past imperfect. The subtitle facts fictions fraud American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose Belus Alice Alice and good one. The book is published by Public Affairs. And came out actually I believe last year so the book certainly should be available in the library or the bookstore if you'd like to look at it. Our guest Peter Charles offer is a professor of history at the University of Georgia. He's also a member of the American historical associations professional division which audits the standards of
academic historians work he is the author of many books of academic history. He was also invited to advise the American Historical Association on the issue of plagiarism. He's joining us this morning by telephone and as we talk questions and comments of course are welcome from people who are listening the only thing that we ask of callers is that people are brief in their comments as brief as they can be and we ask that so that we can keep the program moving along and getting as many different people in as possible but of course people who are listening are welcome to join the conversation and we always appreciate that and callers add a great deal to the show. So the number if you want to call here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 whichever those numbers works for you. You can use it and to be a part of the conversation. Fessor Hoffer Hello. Hello. Thanks for talking with us today. Oh you're perfectly welcome. Is it seems a little bit striking to me that not only do we have these four cases that got so much
attention but they all happened in the same year. Did that lead historians to think that something serious was going on in their field or was this just something of a fluke. Well of course it's something of a fluke bug. The cases have been going on for years and years and years before that. For example Ambrose Stephen Ambrose who is probably the most notable case of serial plagiarism in American Historical writing was plagiarizing materials from the 1066. So going on and on and on and on. And in fact it was the outing of Ambrose that led to a series of accusations made publicly first by online newspapers and bloggers and then of course they sort of came together reinforcing one another. But you know in the past you know we had a series of accusations of plagiarism of the leading law professors Dean and very very important historians. So you could
take just about any and following significant case. 2002 was important but not unique. What I'd like to do is have you talk a little bit about each of these cases and this is in the book you look at basic issues in history first and then look at the cases second and if you wouldn't mind I'd like to do it in the other way around to refresh people's memories and then give us something to talk about. You look at the cases of Mychal Bell or Stephen Ambrose Doris Kearns Goodwin and Joseph Ellis and in as I said each of these is a little bit different although And in the case of Ambrose and and good when we're talking about plagiarism essentially the same thing taking them in the order that you do in the book first with Bella Silas this was a man who got a lot of attention for his research on gun ownership an early American factor on a book titled arming America that was published in 2000 that made this basic argument he makes a basic argument in the book that contrary to what we might have been
led to believe that gun ownership in early America was rare and that guns didn't really become widespread until they became a mass produced product. And it was very controversial a lot of people committed to the idea of going ownership objected. And as it turned out to maybe they had good reason to object. First a tiny correction. Yes his his last name is the legal. Oh pardon me I was his. It is French and with our with our common Middle West traditions I don't know if you if you are from the west originally we tend to we have trouble with foreign stuff. Yes well I'm from all over the world. Yes but it is it is illegal. I appreciate that I appreciate the correction. He published an article that won all sorts of prizes in 1996 in which he made basically the same argument that you outlined very succinctly and I think correctly. That article drew fire if you'll forgive the metaphor from
the IRA and from and from. NRA and from everyone who love gun ownership and it seems to us and those of us who were his friends and I count myself certainly a friend. He was under attack for political reasons. As it turned out in the book that was published in 2000 by cops which won the coveted one of the coveted bankroll prizes and was reviewed on the first page of The New York Times book review all of that very very favorable that there were problems in his research in particular early in the book he made the argument that looking at probate records something that he did he claimed very systematically going to the archives going to the illegal records themselves. He claimed that he found very few guns in those probate records
as an astounding result because other people have looked at them. Probate records it found. Oh thought we over half of them had guns in them. He found 14 percent of them. Which meant along with his anecdotal evidence that there were very few guns around. What there were were in all memories. They were taken out by the militia they paraded around with them shot them off got drunk afterwards and went home when he was accused of research misconduct. He held back in the series of strategic retreat including arguments that his research materials were destroyed in a flood in his office. That his website where he put up the real evidence had been hacked by someone. A whole series of increasingly absurd responses to the criticism.
Finally Emery had enough. They asked the American Historical Association a professional division to which I belong from 2002 to 2004 it's only three year Aleck a term I'm no longer on it. He asked them. I'm sorry. Emory asked. If we were to look at the case we said you have to make a complaint. They weren't willing to do so we demurred. They then went to a blue ribbon panel of three historians on that panel looked at the evidence. They talked to belittle extensively. They even hired a researcher to go back and follow his tracks. That is to say the places where he said he went and they concluded that there were serious problems. In fact as I say in the book that he had fabricated much of that evidence. He resigned under fire again. The point is no pun intended. And he's more or less out of the profession but he's still he's
still writing he's still doing research he's still working on a major project. But he's not employed as far as I know by any college or university. It's a very sad case because he's a good guy. What happened was he was out to prove a point and you know historians they saw us mind they look for friends in the past. He was looking for evidence. He may have found in some places fewer guns than people had said and then the allure of the ideology itself the ability to say to the National Rifle Association what to opponents of gun control. Listen you're wrong. Plus the fact that he was winning all sorts of prizes for his work led him to go farther and farther and farther along the trail of falsifying what he found. I suppose you don't really you have to ask yourself the question about him and perhaps others who
might have acted similarly. Did he never think that he would be found out. And did he ever worry that in fact if he was found out that it would destroy his career. That's true of all four of the people that I look at in detail. All four of them knew what they were doing was not right thing knew however that it had broken lights. In the label them to publish faster it enabled them to become more prominent it is enabled them perhaps in their own minds to win prizes. And you sort of develop these rationalizations in your own mind. Well it's OK or I've gotten away with it or no one will find out. You sort of wall off like an like an abscess you wall off the misconduct from your own thinking. Did he know that he had to go on to these to these courthouses. Did he know that he hadn't gone through all those records.
Sure you have to let you assume that he was in a few state for three or four years where he wasn't sure where he was going. He knew that I ran into I don't put this in the book but I ran into him at a conference and I said what's going on. It was this was in Boston we just talked for two minutes and he said they're out to get me and I said well you know keep your powder dry because they were out to get him. What I didn't know was he didn't he had he had put himself in a position of peril where they would get him. Oh yes they know. Yeah. Let me introduce again very quickly our guest for this hour Peter Charles offer. He's professor of history at University of Georgia and is author of The Book past imperfect and looks at how it is we do history and how that has changed over time. And as I mentioned also looks that these four cases of professional misconduct by historians that all came to light in the year 2000 to the book is published by Public Affairs. And if you're interested
you can seek out questions are also welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. In the next section you deal with charges of plagiarism against two writers Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin and these are two people who are both were very well known were people who were bestselling authors people who were frequently interviewed on television and were charged with plagiarism. The allegation against Mr. Ambrose was that he had done it a lot over many years in the case of Doris Kearns good when the cases were smaller there were fewer. But the basic charge is the same and I guess when I think of plagiarism I mean. Maybe because I'm here on a college campus I think of when someone buys a term paper and puts their own name on it and hands it down or copy something directly out of an encyclopedia or a source book. Is it indeed clear that that's what these two did.
Well plagiarism actually has a much broader definition than that that's what you describe certainly is plagiarism. But for example let's say I read a book that you wrote and I really like it and I decided to power a phrase. A couple of pages from you but not to summarize them not to put them in my own words. What I did was I changed a few of your words and then made believe that they were mine. The rest of them put them in and then perhaps I put a citation at the end to a block of pages where it looks like I have read your book and I am summarizing. But in fact what I'm doing with the few changes I'm copying that's plagiarism. What if I. I'd like the sauces the primary sources the documents the original evidence that you went and found. So I go to your book and I take out those quotations take out the
stuff that you found and then I put it in my book and my footnotes go to the originals not to you. That's plagiarism and that's what Ambrose did both of those things. In the case in the case of Ambrose and also of Doris Kearns good one I guess one of the questions I find asking myself is these people it seemed that they were talented historians good writers smart people that they didn't really need to do this. Why did they do it. Well both of them when they were confronted with evidence of this. Explain their methods. Ambrose said what he did was he would cover a large desk with all sorts of materials and go back and forth among them as he wrote. And what happened was as he as he did that he wasn't as precise and as careful and he said next time I'll make sure that if
it's a quotation I put it in quotation marks. I don't leave them out that I if I go to a source I'll say as quoted in he said next time I'll do that because remember he was a professor for many many and he had I mean it he was he was accused of plagiarism after he had retired from the University of New Orleans but before that he had been a professor for many many years and then sadly he before he could before he could do that it left because of the law which he didn't have to put quotations in because he was talking about his own life. And you can't put your watch yourself. And then he died he passed away at the end of 2002 so we never got the chance really to show that he could do it the right way. Doris Kearns Goodwin her two big books both problems of this sort not as consistently bought the problems that she attributed to a sloppy research assistant who would take down things
but not put the quotation marks in or would paraphrase but not indicate exactly where they had taken it from. And the result was that she put her name on a piece of work that could be accused imports of plagiarism. And she said it's my fault because I should have gone over it I had the final responsibility. That raises a somewhat different problem. Ambrose used his family as a research assistant. His children. Doris Kearns Goodwin hired research assistants and some of the more recent cases there are a lot of professors who have 30 law students very bright very able people as research assistants and in almost all of these cases it was evident that the research assistant had made the mistakes. But that raises the larger question of if your research is being done by research
assistants and they're writing it up and then you're incorporating it into your work with your name on it with a thank you to the research assistant. Somewhere in the book are you the author. And if you're not the author then than they are and if they are and you're using their words then aren't you a plagiarist. And that is an issue the issue of authorship. That is the much larger looming issue because all over the place in government in the law schools in museums you have people who are writing things and not getting credit for them. We have a caller to bring into the conversation when we do that someone who's listening this morning. Indiana toll free 1 1 4 0 0 0. This is sort of a general question perhaps you've run across it. Unfortunately remember I don't remember some of the mathematicians names but a number of months ago I was reading a history of mathematics and I just was astounded the number of mathematicians
who have tried to you know basically steal each other's work even from the universal sense of you know going in and trying to get the paperwork. And also I guess the more technical aspect of reading the papers before they were actually published and then then just lifting out sections of it to add to their own work without any kind of footnoting. I know a lot of this was done particularly in the 17th century but I presume it's been going on for some time and these you know these are not just regular madmen these are the big boys and I was wondering there seems to be a I don't know I was thinking about my days of plagiarism I remember I think I was in the sixth grade and there were a number of us who went to the library I think there must have been 10 or 15 of us all we did was copy out the Encyclopedia Americana turned it in and then we all received a lecture from the teacher about is this really your work etc.. We were just following the footsteps of you know. People we knew before and an insensitive it finally came to me you know what
plagiarism really was and then became really uptight about foot no never a thing that just is about as crazy also but I wonder if you can say anything about the mathematicians if you know anything about that period. Thanks a lot. Well you raise a whole raft of wonderful questions. The first is there a difference between plagiarism in the work that you hold out as as your own as original and simply copying in a book that you say listen this is just the reporting of information that you want it. So for example if a student remembers and then copies verbatim from a textbook on an exam is that an effort for plagiarism or is that an A for a very good answer. So originalism you know that the fact that you were holding it out as if as in the original work. So yes it's plagiarism if it's in a paper that you've turned in like your sixth grade paper
but that may not be plagiarism if you're simply answering a question on the exam now you're mathematicians mathematicians are of course infamous for this kind of thing. If you remember the Tom Lehrer song The Lobachevsky song over Cesky was a Russian mathematician who is widely reputed to be to be a plagiarist and the tagline of that song Only you know please be sure to call it research. Still have a lot of spite but. Mathematicians are not the only ones who run into these kinds of problems of originality. Because we all depend upon other people's work. You know mathematical proof submitted to the original prize winner someone figures out you know for a math lesson. Theorem whatever it is
that will make your entire career forever and ever and ever. So the temptation to look over someone's shoulder is there on the history side of things. I've seen cases of people who go in they sit at a conference and they hear a paper given and lo and behold that paper appears in their work before the graduate student can publish it as his or her own. So as I say there's a series of wonderful questions. Well this gives an opportunity to raise one of the issues that you deal with in the book and that is if you look at what has been over time accepted practice within the field of history I think can you tell me if I'm reading this wrong in there would have been a time when what Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin had done would at least have been common practice and perhaps would not. Been considered to be problematic. Absolutely.
And in the book I offer some examples of how onload steamed a great 19th century historians like George Bancroft or Francis Parkman played fast and loose with the rules that we now enforce with respect to plagiarism. In the 19th century it wasn't that it was. It was still a crime but it was a it was a crime that no one prosecuted. It has become a much more serious and I think will continue to be more serious. And I think the reason is that so much text now is electronically scannable so that for example journal articles are now online which a store and use project in various other places so that if I if I found a particular phrase in a student paper that was given to me that sounded familiar I could take that phrase Go on.
And look at my electronic journals at University of Georgia on Galileo and I could find that came from somewhere. And who wasn't. According to a cited properly so the more things are electronic The more taxes the electronic the easier it is to find which text has been borrowed or promoting and not properly attributed. I want to come back to one of the fourth case that we didn't talk about and that was the case of Joseph Ellis who also was a well-known historian at least within the field of history was well known for writing early American history he won a Pulitzer Prize he won a National Book Award. He was also one of these people that was widely interviewed on this very program some years ago we talked with him about his book that he wrote about Thomas Jefferson to tell you about his Vietnam War service. No he didn't. That did not come up there. It was it was it was sometime later that of course we all read about the fact that here now it wasn't people were raising questions about his academic
work they were raising questions about his apparently care colorfully embroidered personal history. Yeah he he he. Among other things he told people. That he had been a combat veteran in Vietnam and it turns out that that was not true. Why in this but this is something sort of different to the as I say the issue is not the man's academic work. The issue is what it is that he said about himself. I think and I said in the book that reinventing to a a more heroic Joelle probably helped him write his wonderful books I think use of use is a terrific one. In fact I think old school for them writes Great stuff. I think it helped him to really enter a world that's very hard sometimes for us to go back to to the late 18th century where Honor meant so much where you sort of had your prize itself behind a public mask. I think it helped him do that and you
know I can tell you this I guess because. After all it's already happened and it's true. There was some objection from his side of the street about whether that story should appear in past imperfect. And the question that was raised was was this professional misconduct or simply a personal Billick. And if he had simply made the statement to interviewers which he did in fact the four Americans thinks before the Jefferson book he was interviewed by The Boston Globe and he told them about his military service about how he had been in the hundred first and how he had been a combat veteran and so on. If that had been all of it. I personally would have said gee.
I guess life up there in South Hadley Oh we're ever mentally OK it is not that exciting. But he also told it to his students. He told the two students at Mount Holyoke he told it to a student at Amherst because they have a consortium there where you teach around. And it was a very effective teaching device because he was talking about literature in the Vietnam War era. And here he was a guy who had seen it all. And we're not supposed to do that with our classes. But also things you can do but you're not supposed to invent yourself in front of them and you're not supposed to manipulate them that way. There is a lot of stuff going on now in state legislatures about student bills of rights because of what a former academic named David Horowitz has been arguing who very well funded that students are being manipulated by liberal professors to that to their detriment.
You get a case like this and it just goes to steps beyond the line of what a professor can do as good pedagogy as legitimate pedagogy to stimulate students to inspire students to make students think critically which is after all our real job in the humanities on imparting information so much. It's getting the students to be able to think and to evaluate critically. And he challenged all that which made it a professional question. Michael lost his job was disgraced. Joseph Ellis was embarrassed had to publicly apologize step down from teaching for a while but went back to teaching and in fact not very long ago we talked about a recent book that he read in a book on. George Washington of all things I cannot tell I George Washington and it seems that Joseph Ellis has been somewhat rehabilitated. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN I think hurt her career was not over all
damage Stephen Ambrose really died with with this cloud over him that he never did have the chance to respond to her if you asked the question. Looking at the price that these individuals paid for what they did was it was it appropriate. Do you think particularly for those people who managed to come through it sustained some damage their reputation some embarrassment but still have careers. Well Doris Kearns Goodwin was was teaching at a university. There would have been a more serious punishment simply canceling the lecture dates. Stephen Ambrose was the one harness and not retired I think that would have been some very serious questions about him remaining in his teaching position. Whenever we tell students don't plagiarize. If you plagiarize you're going to get an F or something more serious and then you have a professor who does it. So had he been still. I'm at a university I think it would have been a more serious penalty. Joseph Heller
I'm not sure whether he got back as prestigious chair I know that he had to sit down for a year. But he carries this with him forever I mean the Washington book. His Excellency is a is a fine fine book. But when people called me and they asked me they defrosting they asked me was is it is it all OK. So you know the punishment is still there a punishment for professional misconduct. In the end is a professional shame and I think they've all had a full helping of it. Well we're past the midpoint of our conversation. We have two callers who will get right to and I also would like to do so again our guest Peter Charles Hoffert He's professor of history at the University of Georgia has served on the American historical associations professional division that's responsible for auditing the standards of academic historians work he himself is the author of many books of academic history and if you're interest. Been reading about
this subject you can look for his book past imperfect and it is published by Basic Books. We have couple callers here ready to go first in line is someone calling from Danville line for Hello. Good morning when you gave the examples of plagiarism earlier in the in the show. Are there any additional ones are or I'm interested in and whether you are using the same title as another author would constitute plagiarism. I'm sorry I missed the word using the same want the same title for your book. Oh no no you can't you can't copyright a title and it's past imperfect. Mark Carnes has a book entitled past imperfect which is about movie history as there are three others and three books go past him. I just I like the title and so do we all and certainly revel and irrelevant I'm sorry to the
topic about I didn't know whether one could use the same title. Yes I'm all right thank you. All right. Go on here to lie number 1 this is a. Dollar in champagne. Hello good morning. Yes just one brief remarks here. It seems as if there are really two different levels of meaning to the word plagiarism. Notice Sometimes you talk about the NSA's spying crime well that the legal definition of plagiarism is not the same story and definition for plagiarism. I mean if you if you in order to be brought suit against you in court you have to have so many words that are exactly the same. If just the other person's idea that's not plagiarism legal sense of the word. And in fact even if you use the exact words in certain
circumstances you you would never win a case like if you were describing the assassination of Lincoln and said you know who took two steps back and then he moved to the right and so in that case the sacks were it's that some previous historian had used. No you couldn't you couldn't when it kicks in. Oh you bet. So they've just got about a minute or so. Well pleasure and your legal definition of plagiarism is not the same as what historians. Yes the plagiarism isn't. Let me put it put this way there is no legal there is no taught there is no civil action for plagiarism plagiarism is not a legal category. What you're talking about is copyright infringement. And what you're saying. Absolutely correctly is that there is a. There are certain kinds of legal exceptions to the strict rules of copyright a certain amount that you can
reprint without getting permission and or paying for the reuse of someone else's words. And yes there is a legal action for copyright infringement and you can use. A certain number of laws and freely for educational purposes or whatever. Except of course if you quote one line of music as capital so you instantly. But there is a fair use exception you're absolutely right. What's more that the other point you're making that if you're looking at the same primary source as someone else describing some historical event not only has that primary source probably out of copyright so you don't have any copyright infringement problems but also you don't have to cite in my opinion you don't have to cite to a place where you first saw it the secondary source where you first sort. If you go back to the original re read the
original and then use it even if you use the same exact words. So those are all kinds of exceptions. But again plagiarism is not a crime in the legal sense. It is however in its Latin origin the crime of kidnapping. So you're right but what I wonder is that when. An historian with regard let's say somebody uses these earlier descriptions of the assassination of Lincoln and it's pretty much exactly worded the way it was by some writer back in 1870. It does in the story and then if you have a passage that's maybe 30 or 40 words exactly a lie within the story and consider that plagiarism. Did you put it in quotation marks. Not you but I mean to the tune of the author what in quotation on its description can you use that description and in pretty much the same words maybe
changing words in your wooden historian regard that is plagiarism if you have used fragments of it and then bedded those in your. In your paragraph or you have taken it pretty much as it was we tell our graduate students put it in quotation marks. Even if you don't have footnotes or endnotes or not even if you just have a doubly graphical essay it's much if you want to avoid even the danger of someone accusing you of plagiarism and having to defend yourself if you take something from some way or use the original put it in quotation marks. That's what the quotation marks are for. That's why they were invented. That's why there's a. So you can show that this is someone else's that you are borrowing that you are using. It's OK to use it you know but use the quotation marks. Yeah right. But now let's see it was
mostly paraphrased but may be one or two sentences were exactly alike. Put one sentence in quotation marks and historian would be a pedant if they if they if they put a. Footnote for every single thing you know John Wilkes Booth's step backward. You know me then. No no no you don't have to. First of all most of us use most of us use block citations anyhow. See one one little number at the end of the paragraph and then at the end at the bottom of the page or the back of the book. It has the places that you took it from the general lot of textbooks that use quotations right. So a lot of popular histories that use quotations they don't have any notes at all. And so again when in doubt when you've taken the exact words put it in quotation marks in general that sentence reads. All right thank you. Well thanks for the CO. You get into another question sort of. A much larger question really about how
people receive history writing about history and one thing that these individuals that we've talked about all have in common is that they enjoyed popular success. Their works were not just read by other professional historians and their students at universities. They in many cases were bestsellers. And this gets to this issue of balancing professional rigor with popular appeal and whether you want the work to stand up to an exhaustive kind of examination of sources and. And when you are a writer if you're going to thoroughly footnote and acknowledge every place that you got your material from and whether that drags the work down or whether what you really want is to write something that is exciting and compelling. People who are not professional historians will want to read and whether in fact somehow those two things are mutually exclusive. Well let me put it this way David McCullough has a lot of footnotes
and it doesn't seem to affect his readership or his ability to tell a story. On the other hand go back and look at Daniel Borstein who was as popular well-read in on it in this time and he had no footnotes. It's not whether you have footnotes or you don't have one. It's whether you follow the internal rules as we were just talking about with the the previous the previous caller. If you if you take something from somewhere forbade him put in quotation marks. If you're tempted to change a few words and not put in quotation marks don't don't change the few words he put in quotation marks. Let's let the reader know what is your was and what is not. And the rest follows look good writing. Simul Ian Morrison was a superb writer. No one did better
research than he did. And we may argue whether or not his opinions with the word would pass muster these days because he has certain opinions about people and groups of people and so on but a meticulous researcher but a wonderful writer. So I mean if you want to reach a larger audience if you want to talk to people who are not specialists you know 16 people who know the subject right in a way to successful. But that doesn't mean you have to forget the old Bendel lose or ignore the rules of scholarship. And if it is the case that. People don't. Today Americans don't know their history well enough that they don't find history appealing. They don't read it. Is that because we don't have enough historians or writers who write about history who write in a compelling way. Well first of all I'm I'm not sure I agree with you or with your you're the preface to that with the preamble.
I history sells awfully well. There are and there's more. If you go into your Barnes and Noble your borders or your other major change there is more space devoted to history. It's just about as much space devoted to history on the shelves as there is to literature. So Americans love history they love to read history they love to talk about history they love to go to historical reenactments they love to visit historical museums. Where I am now is in New Jersey across the river is is Philadelphia and although the historic site and the Constitution Center they're all there honked so Americans that love history so you one can't make the argument somehow professional historians have turned Americans off what we've done is we've become so professional so skilled and so self-critical and critical of one another that we have many times tried to write just for one
another and we can't just do that. We don't have to write for Americans who want to read history written by professional historians who trust us who rely on us to send their children to study with us and we have this obligation to reach them and that means we have an obligation to go through our manuscripts whether they're published by trade publishers like Camilla or Simon Schuster the publishers of the folks that talk about the second half of the book where they're published by University of Georgia Press which is an excellent press. Well the University Press of Kansas who ever they have published by we have an obligation to go back that last time through and ask ourselves can my neighbors read this. Cat my children's parents read this. Enjoy it understand it get something out of it and if they can't then I have to go through it and get rid of some of the jargon. Get rid of some of the complexity and get
rid of a lot of the passive voice and makes it successful. And if we do that then we regain the place we once had. A spokesman for American history. But I'm leaving it to Rush Limbaugh. We have several callers who will try to accommodate them all in the time remains. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also we have a toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Our guest by the way Peter Charles Hoffer is Professor of History at the University of Georgia. First caller in line here is in Champaign County. Number two. Hello. Hi yes. Come on or quite a quite a far away from when I actually formulated my question maybe I'll get back to that but on the point that you're talking about the lack of engagement by what we might call academic historians isn't part of that maybe. The idea that the things that are so they're studying are. So
perhaps some of it is so heretical I don't know where American springs came down on you know the liaison with Jefferson and his half slave concert. But you know the the the. We have a lot of common places of American history that need to be debunked and it can be a little exhausting I think to try to take that on as a task. I think maybe a lot of historians will just stay inside the room and be inclined to stay inside. You know the smaller circle and not not try to go to the larger larger argument that you just mentioned Limbaugh on on it's you know the widest audience there is the other thing about comparing history to literature is it isn't just true that not not as much reading is going on is it. In general in I don't know relative to another country another modern industrialized country that Americans just don't read as much and I guess I'm pointing the finger back at myself
as well in that case I would react to that I guess first. Well I mean the recent world of Modern Language Association studier I can remember where I read a probably read the Chronicle of Higher Education that we are reading fewer books. That doesn't mean we're reading less. My my younger fellow is up every morning to read the New York Times The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Washington Post online right. So I think we have probably sort of remembering my childhood which was longer ago. We're reading more. But it's not always books. That's not let me skip back to Americanize ringer. I think Joe Ellis originally agreed with the older school of Jefferson biographers that there was no liaison between the Sally Hemings and Jefferson and then quite publicly changed his mind when he'd seen the evidence. But that whole episode
I think that in a way that was a wonderful episode because it it reminded us that the planters on the Hill and the bondsmen and women in the cabin the sort of downhill. Live together every day that you know that it's not a plantation culture and then slave studies you have to see them all together. So I think that that episode sort of opened up to us. Right but the one I'm saying is that that was still a controversial issue in a lot of people might not like to engage that kind of controversy and sit up in the conferences on it were fact. No they won't eventually but it's been been some years since it was proposed and it's always been I don't know it's seems to me that it's been. Oh yeah you know in sub rosa or under under under but but not not not in the
wider what we're talking about the wider commonplace when popular history I hope I mean for Brody wrote about it. She's passed away now and she was attacked by Meryl Petersen and by Dumas Malone and others. How dare she say these things and she was right and they were wrong. I was just I guess I'm someone else waiting the other thing that prompted me to call was when you're talking about people ripping off papers when they were read and it seems to me that academia is. I hear stories and I'm only peripherally related. Graduate students with great breed resentment at having their ideas picked over by their professors maybe the publish or perish thing. But you know it seems to be the one. One could just say well. In the acknowledgments say that you know in a const in a colloquium we are students and I generated this idea as opposed to someone needing to have the clear that they came up on and
upon it upon their own and that sort of pretty metaphorical to Plutus I think the easiest thing to do is have someone in the seminar. One of the students comes up with this really great idea and you're leaving the seminar and you're going to use that idea make a note of the times you've got a pad in front of you that so-and-so came up with this idea. And then when you put that idea in your article book or talk you thank the person who came up with it. It's a it's the same if you came up with the idea by reading a book or another article you do that. Isn't that the exception more than the rule though wouldn't you think. It's it's almost never done. Yeah. Well then one last thing if I could and that that is there is currently a controversy about it. The blue book by the my lawyer whose name escapes me now sickle Stein is attacking it and he's not getting a publisher. He's the lawyer that the professor's name is Alan Dershowitz.
DERSHOWITZ I don't know how you could forget his name but he is being accused by cynical sign that he's actually taken a pretty well discredited book by Joan Peters and basically recycled most of it and he goes through. But he's having a very hard time publishing this. This I guess is oh no his book is coming out of the University of California Press which is one of the Big Three university presses. Well I happen to talk to him personally and he had two publishers before that and I just looked on it at Amazon and its availability this item has not yet been released and they order it now but will ship it small Yeah he did he did have to go through what sounds like hell he had. Oh it must I don't know how many people reviewed it for California and then it was reviewed by lawyers. But I'll tell you the past imperfect was review public affairs the publisher sent it to Coudert Brothers to make sure that I wasn't going to be. But I could substantiate everything that I said. So when you get into a controversy Larry when you're going after a figure him as imposing or maybe you want to say
self imposing as Alan Dershowitz then you know you're going to have to happen. Let me tell you something. When California brings it out it's old it's controversy it's not going to hurt sales of this book. We are at the point that we're going to have to finish my apologies we have some callers we can't take but if you're interested in reading some more on this subject you can look for the book that we mentioned by our guest the title of the book is past imperfect. It is published by public affairs by our guest Peter Charles offer. He is professor of history at the University of Georgia Professor Hoffert thank you very much. Thank you.
Program
Focus 580
Episode
Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud-american History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Belles
Producing Organization
WILL Illinois Public Media
Contributing Organization
WILL Illinois Public Media (Urbana, Illinois)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip-16-fn10p0x67n
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-16-fn10p0x67n).
Description
Description
With Peter Charles Hoffer (Professor of History at the University of Georgia)
Broadcast Date
2005-08-09
Topics
History
History
Subjects
History; United States History; community; criminal justice; Crime
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:50:34
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Guest: Hoffer, Peter Charles
Producer: Travis,
Producer: Brighton, Jack
Producing Organization: WILL Illinois Public Media
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Illinois Public Media (WILL)
Identifier: cpb-aacip-a294acaa4c1 (unknown)
Generation: Copy
Duration: 50:30
Illinois Public Media (WILL)
Identifier: cpb-aacip-d51fecad92c (unknown)
Generation: Master
Duration: 50:30
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Focus 580; Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud-american History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Belles ,” 2005-08-09, WILL Illinois Public Media, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-16-fn10p0x67n.
MLA: “Focus 580; Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud-american History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Belles .” 2005-08-09. WILL Illinois Public Media, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-16-fn10p0x67n>.
APA: Focus 580; Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Fraud-american History from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Belles . Boston, MA: WILL Illinois Public Media, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-16-fn10p0x67n