The Wars of America--By Robert Leckie

[Pielorinho]

Interestingly, the last time I had a conversation like this was about a book called Biopiracy, an indictment of the genetic engineering movement. In that case, I *was* reading it in school, and when I objected to the numerous factual errors in it, I had some of my school's hard-core Marxists making almost the same arguments about the "essential political realities" that you're making, Shark, about the "essential historical narrative." And they accused me of condemning that book's Indian author from my position of Western Privilege, rather than from my position in an ivory tower.

But otherwise, it was pretty much the same argument. And I didn't buy it then, either.

Daniel

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, Daniel, what I mean by Essential Historical Narrative--is are the facts of history accurate? Are the events and the people, and the numbers and reasoning behind these larger historical movements and trends accurate?--as opposed to debate over anecdote, de, du, des, and the entymology of the term Infantry. None of those aspects of minutae are relevant to the essential historical narrative.

Again, you are welcome to your views, but since I have actually read the book, I am not aware of any inconsistencies with what is generally considered important in learning history. I find focusing on such debatable minutae and anecdote, while dismissing the larger, far more important and essential narrative elements, to be somewhat trivial and pretentious. Whether that puts you specifically in the upper eschelons of the ivory tower, I leave that for you to decide, Daniel. I just think it is important to actually read the book, and see the "big picture" as well as the details, before dismissing the book as fiction, or not informative. To do so, to me, seems the type of arrogance that someone firmly esconced in the ivory tower would embrace.

I could write entire books attempting to summarize the vast amounts of information and detail that Mr. Leckie has written throughout The Wars of America that would be entirely accurate and consistent with any dozen top scholars that you could name that are specialists in the field of World War II, and American history in general.

I think that combining the essential historical narrative, with Mr. Leckie's writing style is an excellent contribution to anyone's library--and that achievement is an especially rare one for any scholar on the subject. Again, though, unlike yourself, among others, I am in the priviledged position of actually having read the book, so I think I am armed with a greater degree of knowledge on what exactly is in the book. Do you see what I'm saying?

If Mr. Leckie's style doesn't appeal to you, that of course, is fine, though I think that you are missing out on reading a fine book on American history. I certainly don't intend to mischaracterize your objections though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[jgbrowning]

historically accurate

"Well, Daniel, what I mean by Essential Historical Narrative--is are the facts of history accurate? Are the events and the people, and the numbers and reasoning behind these larger historical movements and trends accurate?--as opposed to debate over anecdote, de, du, des, and the entymology of the term Infantry. None of those aspects of minutae are relevant to the essential historical narrative. "

there is no way for us to check for ourselves to see if it is accurate if he does not list his sources.

if he choses to use descriptive word to describe one group that can just as easily be used to describe a second, which he doesn't use that word to describe, that is not history. thats politics, which i think you'll agree with me on.

calling the natives savages may be accurate, but never calling the people who decided it was ok to take all of their land savages is a political/idialogical choice, not a historical choice. So please don't present this book as a "history." It may be about history, but its not history. Its about a persons political view extended througout history.

I can tell you hate revisionists. Why? Do you hate history or do you hate their political bias on history but dont mind a different politica bias?

personally i would consider the false entymology for the word infanty enough to question the other basic assumptions the author is making as to what is and is not a reliable source of information.

i beg of you, please, at least agree with me on this one. if a man told you he had researched the word "marine" and it didnt have this entymology: (middle English, from Latin marinus, from mare sea; akin to Old English mere sea, pool, Old High German meri sea, Old Church Slavonic morje)* , but that it came from the old english word marren, and you knew he was wrong, you wouldn't
doubt his other research? You woudn't feel the need to question his methodolgy, his scholorship? And wouldn't you feel even a little bit more questionable about his work when he said he didn't have space to list his sources?


joe b.

*per webster on-line http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

 

[jgbrowning]

fiction vrs history

Greetings!

Again, you are welcome to your views, but since I have actually read the book, I am not aware of any inconsistencies with what is generally considered important in learning history. I find focusing on such debatable minutae and anecdote, while dismissing the larger, far more important and essential narrative elements, to be somewhat trivial and pretentious. Whether that puts you specifically in the upper eschelons of the ivory tower, I leave that for you to decide, Daniel. I just think it is important to actually read the book, and see the "big picture" as well as the details, before dismissing the book as fiction, or not informative. To do so, to me, seems the type of arrogance that someone firmly esconced in the ivory tower would embrace.

----clip clip------

I think that combining the essential historical narrative, with Mr. Leckie's writing style is an excellent contribution to anyone's library--and that achievement is an especially rare one for any scholar on the subject. Again, though, unlike yourself, among others, I am in the priviledged position of actually having read the book, so I think I am armed with a greater degree of knowledge on what exactly is in the book. Do you see what I'm saying?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

How much fiction do you allow in your history books before you classify them as fiction?

Washington chopping down the cherry tree. If i included that in my history book as history not myth, would that be ok as long as i was just trying to show how the americans felt about their first president?

How many falsehoods do i have to pass off as fact in order to help someone "understand the big picture" before you'd say i wasn't writing history?

I'd like to hear you opinions about that subject. And not really generalizations. does 80% fact and 20% "fiction in order to convey an understanding of the big picture" history? 90% 10%? I'd like a number if possible.

And once you come up with that number i'd like you to estimate for me what %'s Mr. Leckies work would fall under. Though how you could do that i dont know, since he has prevented you from veryifying much of his information by leaving out his sources.

As for your using the word scholar to apply to Mr. Leckie's book i think, even by your own definition, that "fact" is questionable since he did not follow required historical method by showing his sources. That in and of itself disqualifies Mr. Leckie the title of scholar, at least for this single work.

Never mind that he cant read a dictionary, well im exaggerating there, he just didn't have the space to write the real entymology of the word "infantry".

joe b.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Greetings!

Bookstores are full of history books that are sappy, mushy-minded, politically-correct exercises in revisionism.

It's always good to avoid those like the plague.

Bookstores are also full of insensitive, hard line, right wing exercises in revisionist history.

I advocate that neither be avoided "like the plague". Read, reflect, review and learn. That's what history should be all about. Few indeed are the people who have absolutely nothing to contribute.

Books written specifically in mind for the ivory-tower scholar aren't often interesting, and unlike the best-selling Historian Robert Leckie, they don't tend to sell well, either.

As an "ivory-tower" scholar I must say that how well a book sells is utterly meaningless for judging its historical worth. Case in point, Mein Kampf is still the best selling book ever written in the German language

In addition, popular history books, though they can often eschew pedantic baggage, can also be accurate on the essential historical narrative. The fact that they are written to be accessible for the general reader does not mean that they must therefore be fiction.

I must whole-heartedly agree. there is a long distance between scholarly history at one extreme and fiction at the other. Mr Leckie's book need not be fiction just because it falls short of the strictest criteria of academic history.

For those who don't appreciate Mr. Leckie's writing style, don't read any of his books. Though I might suggest that before one smugly rests inside the throne of the ivory white tower and dismiss his very popular, very successful books, that they actually read the particular book in question before making judgments.

Yet more excellent advice. (Personally, my ivory tower has a big, cluttered work desk, a comfy chair and more books than I will ever be able to read in one lifetime - no throne.)

As for others, I highly recommend The Wars of America. It is an excellent book, evocative, and for those that have actually read it to learn, quite accurate on all essential aspects of the historical narrative. There are, of course, much room for debate for such minor details as the entymology and usage of de, des, or du , among other such minutae.

A fine book.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thank you for the recommendation, if I see it at the library I will definitely consider it.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, JGBrowning, Mr. Leckie does indeed provide direction for his sources in the Preface. If you had read my post carefully, I think you would have seen that. As for fiction and truth, and what percentages and so on?

Well, if one is to write something that is other than a compilation of footnoted statistics, then there is going to be room for debate on a number of issues. I see historians doing it all the time--"my source says this," and "well, my source says such and such," or "well, according to such and such"--I've found many such points of inaccuracy or debate even in university textbooks, that have been written and edited by whole sqauds of SCHOLARS.

I make the presence or inclusion of anecdote or opinion, to be distinguished from FICTION. You may not, but again, seeing that Mr. Leckie is a professional scholar, and has written over thirty books on history, maybe he might know something about history, heh? How many books--best-selling books even--have you written? Perhaps Mr. Leckie doesn't like to write textbooks. He obviously knows something about writing for the general audience, so maybe he's onto something, heh? Mr. Leckie has chosen to write in the style that he has for his own purposes. Considering his deployment of fact, anecdote, opinion, and so on throughout the book, he seems to understand the difference of fact, anecdote, and opinion.

But again, what do I know? I've read the book--you haven't.

I can say that unless you are as well read in history as I am, or more, there is a great deal of historical fact that you will learn from Mr. Leckie's book.

Even if one is well-read, Mr. Leckie includes often unknown snippets and interesting detail to interest anyone.

Reading the book can be quite enjoyable, and even entertaining--which is certainly unusual for many history books.

Thus, since I have read the book, I have found it to be time well-spent, and enjoyable. You haven't read the book, so you wouldn't know, but I don't think that Mr. Leckie's style would appeal to you, so maybe you shouldn't.

As for Essential Historical Narrative, reading through every section of the book, there isn't any era of American warfare that a reader wouldn't come away with accurate knowledge and understanding of the particular time and events in question. Because there may be disagreement or debate on minutae, that doesn't equate to FICTION, as NOONEOFCONSEQUENCE well mentions.

So, there you have it. Check Mr. Leckie's sources--they are in the preface--and dig all you want. Read the book, and compare the knowledge gained and asserted with what you have learned from other scholars. I have, and I have found Mr. Leckie to be essentially accurate,an excellent writer, and a good scholar. I have read several of his books, and they have all been very good. Reaf several of them for yourself, and even take some notes. Then maybe you can make a thorough assessment. Still, Mr. Leckie's style may not appeal to you, even if you do read his books. So, who can say? I would simply recommend that you read several of his books, and The Wars of America in particular.

Nooneofconsequence, I hope you do read it. It is a fine book.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Pielorinho]

Whether that puts you specifically in the upper eschelons of the ivory tower, I leave that for you to decide, Daniel.

Gee, thanks! I thought it'd be clear, but I've decided that I'm not actually a straw man.

As to the rest, I figure I've made my reservations about the book, and my reasons for not being particularly interested in it, clear. To summarize, in order of importance:
-He apparently doesn't make it easy to check his facts.
-The first fact I checked was wrong, and would have been easy for him to find out
-I think he uses emotionally-weighted language in an unequal fashion to demonize some groups and glamorize others.

I freely admit that I'd be able to give a more comprehensive critique of it if I read the whole thing rather than snippets. My complaint about his language, especially, is minor given the very little amount of the book that I've read, and I hope no one is dissuaded from reading the bok on account of that. In fact, I doubt anyone will be dissuaded based on anything I say; I'd just encourage folks to approach the book with their skeptical faculties intact.

I further agree that the fact that you've read the whole book is an important factor that folks should consider when evaluating your critique of it. I also think that they should consider your recommendation in light of your loyalties, just as they would if the book were written by your brother -- I know I'd have a hard time giving an unbiased review of a book my brother wrote.

Nonetheless, from what I've read in this thread about the book, I've not seen much to make me think I'd either enjoy reading the book or be educated more than I'd be misled by it. If I'm ever interested in learning about the Indian Wars, I'm gonna read some other books first.

YM, obv, V.

And I think that's all I have to say on the subject.
Daniel

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Fair enough, Daniel. You do realise that I was playing with you, don't you?

As an aside, what book on the Indian Wars, in your estimation, is your favorite?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Storm Raven]

As for Essential Historical Narrative, reading through every section of the book, there isn't any era of American warfare that a reader wouldn't come away with accurate knowledge and understanding of the particular time and events in question. Because there may be disagreement or debate on minutae, that doesn't equate to FICTION, as NOONEOFCONSEQUENCE well mentions.

I think the essential point being made here is that because Leike doesn't properly cite his sources, or demonstrate why his depictions and accounts are accurate, you have to take on faith that you would be able to "come away with accurate knowledge and understanding of the particular time and events in question" after reading this book.

A well written historical text (even a history text designed to be consumed by a popular audience) should cite its sources in full and not hand wave away the necessity of doing so if it desires to be taken seriously. As it is, the various posts made showing some of the contents of the work lead me to question the validity of the accounts, and as a result, I would have liked to see the author's sources for furthr investigation.

As it is, I doubt the veracity of the book, and having no way to reliably test the text put forward, I am dubious as to the useful nature of the book as a recount of history. I don't doubt that it could be interesting for creating fantasy game material, but right now I have no basis to consider the book itself to be anything other than historical fiction.

 

[Pielorinho]

As an aside, what book on the Indian Wars, in your estimation, is your favorite?

Well, as I said, I'm not much of an authority at all on this topic, so I'm not qualified to make a solid recommendation. My girlfriend, OTOH, is something of an authority (her focus is on Western NC history, but she's studied a broad range of history), and her recommendation is The Name of War, by Jill Lepore. According to her, it's fascinating, written from primary sources, well-documented, and very readable. Further, the author tries very hard to get at the motivations of all participants in the war, and talks about the difficulties involved in getting at the Indians' motivations -- specifically, there's no written record whatsoever from the Indians' point of view. If I ever decide to study the Indian Wars, this is probably where I'll start.

Daniel