As you may have seen, Kevin Levin has responded to my previous post and I thank him for taking the time to clarify a few things.
He and I are certainly on the same page when it comes to
keeping the discussion all “about the history.” I was further relieved by Levin’s
admission that, “I agree with Jimmy that many of the comments that followed the
post are troubling for the reasons he cites.”
After these preliminaries, Levin rehashed his objections to
the video in question, stating that “the views of the three individuals in this
video ought to be taken on their own merit and I find them lacking in certain
ways.”
Fair enough.
As I made abundantly clear, I also found the video lacking
and based my objections on the tone of the post and its commenters.
Predictably, some of those commenters chimed in with some unfortunate
remarks that make me question if they even bothered to read my original post or
if they just responded to Levin’s summation.
One person stated: “Mr. Price implies that a non-Chrsitian,
or anti-Christian consensus dominates the discussion of Civil War history, as
though this field has become the particular province of who? Jews, atheists,
and Wiccans?”
Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question because I
implied no such thing in the first place.
Another commenter proclaimed that “some Christians are
beginning to adopt the SCV’s ‘looking for victimhood’ mode of operation. Just
as it is wrong for any group to be pilloried based on vague generalizations, it
is equally wrong for any group to interpret any criticism as an unfair attack on
their beliefs.”
If this person was referring specifically to me, I defy them
to find one scintilla of this victim mentality in any of my published work.
I won’t hold my breath.
Conversely, an anonymous commenter here at Freedom by the
Sword said that they “tried to respond the one of Harrigan’s comments at
Levin’s blog, but was censored.” If true, this is troubling.
In sum, my objections from the start were purely in regards
to the hostile tone and some of the alarming insularity on display in Levin's original post. Any speculation beyond that misses the point entirely.
Mr Price, you wrote in response to Mr. Levin's post that:
ReplyDelete“It is unfortunate that Christians are increasingly lampooned as science-hating mindless sycophants who have no place in a discussion about history. I’m not implying that that is what Levin was going for, but the feeding frenzy that ensued shows that he certainly left the door open for what passes as civil discourse nowadays.”
What evidence do you have that Christians, as opposed to the specific professors Mr. Levin mentioned from Liberty University, are " increasingly lampooned as science-hating mindless sycophants who have no place in a discussion about history.?"
According to the Pew Center, 78% of Americans are Christians (26% Evangelical, 24% Catholic, 18% Mainline, 10% other). Any attempt by the 22% of non-Christian Americans to marginalize the 78% of Americans who are Christian by insisting that the Christians "have no place in a discussion about history" would seem to be doomed from the start, would it not?
Here is a link to the Pew study I referenced:
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Pat, I think it is interesting that you cite the overall demographics, in response to Jimmy's perception of Christians as portrayed in certain public venues. It's sort of a "price of tea in China" statistic for this line of discussion. More to the point, you seem to be insinuating that all Christians would believe and respond the same way, as a single block, to any given question. Sort of contradicts the history of Christianity as an organized religion, if you ask me.
DeleteFurthermore, I think it to be poor form to accuse someone for "generalizing" while doing a healthy bit of generalization to make the point. Again, this is about history, not hysterics. Let us save the bloody-shirt-wearing straw-men for the flag debating circle, shall we?
Mr. Hunter I never believe that all Christians respond the same way to anything. Even within the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic Church, there is great diversity of opinion.
DeleteI provided statistics on Christians because Mr. Price wrote;
that Christians are increasingly lampooned as science-hating mindless sycophants who have no place in a discussion about history.
Mr. Markerhunter, you wrote in response to my comment "this is about history, not hysterics. Let us save the bloody-shirt-wearing straw-men for the flag debating circle, shall we?" For the record, I did not engage in either hysterics or "bloody-shirt-wearing straw-men" hunting.
DeleteThe only way these statistics work is if you are making a generalization that only non-Christians can, or will, lampoon Christians. Your statistics are, as your metaphor goes, the filling for a straw man.
DeleteAnd please, I'm not "Mr. Hunter." We know each other. I would not have referred to you in the familiar were we not.
I did not realize that you were using the name of your web site Craig. Sorry, but I originally thought you were someone named Mark Hunter, as my eyes are growing dim with age. Then I saw I was wrong. Sorry again.
DeleteI was not "using" my web site or otherwise hiding. I always use Open ID. Different blogs direct different ways. That's why I suggest one should make a habit of reviewing the offered ID before jumping in response.
DeleteHi Pat,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to comment.
I would recommend starting with the work of Dr. George Yancey who has studied this problem in depth. He is a professor of sociology at the University of North Texas and has written such works as:
1. Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education (Baylor University Press)
2. What Motivates Cultural Progressives? Understanding Opposition to the Political and Christian Right (Baylor University Press) by George Yancey and David A. Williamson
3. Dehumanizing Christians: Cultural Competition in a Multicultural World
Also see: Religious Outlook, Culture War Politics, and Antipathy Toward Christian Fundamentalists by Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio (The Public
Opinion Quarterly, Oxford University Press, 1999)
I’d also take another look at the aforementioned comments that inspired me to post in the first place.
Best,
Jimmy
Thank you for reading list. I am very interested in the history and sociology of religion in the US. This will be useful reading
DeleteYou are most welcome. Dr. Yancey presents some very interesting and troubling data regarding this increasing trend in our public discourse.
DeleteProfessor Price - readers of your blog who are interested in this topic might find this talk by Professor Yancey interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/P1RRv2uTkIM
In the video, Yancey discusses the methodology of the research which formed the basis of his book (#1 in your response above). Note the chart at about 5 minutes into the video. Also, his discussion regarding cultural progressives beginning just after the 10 minute mark is rather sobering, but not surprising - at least not so to me.
I have the first book you mention. It is worth the read, as you know. I was not aware of the 2nd book you mention. I'll have to add it to my ever-growing wish list on Amazon.
Thanks again for your willingness to have this discussion.
Hi Richard,
DeleteThanks for the link, I have not seen Dr. Yancey in action before.
Also, please call me Jimmy!
I can validate the censoring of comments at Levin's blog. So when he claims to "get history right" it's not debatable.
ReplyDeleteI have heard these allegations as well, but so far that's all that they have been - allegations. Do you have proof?
DeleteThere are evidently two anonymous commenters presently responding to this post and the prior one.
DeleteI am the one who posted the comments about the lasting legacy of the Civil War. I am also the one who replied here that if one of my future comments at Levin's blog was censored I would submit it here for your consideration. Did you get that comment? I have not seen it posted here.
Nobody can "prove" that Levin censored their comment anymore than Levin can "prove" that he did not.
Dear Anon,
DeleteMy apologies, I did not get that comment. If you resend it I will be more than happy to post it here.
Also, in terms of proof, you can capture a screen shot that you can save as an image once you've submitted your comment. If you can get a screenshot showing that you've submitted a comment that is awaiting moderation and your comment never shows up, that's the best proof that you have been censored.
Best,
Jimmy
Okay.
ReplyDeleteHere is an example of how Levin censors.
I posted a response to a James Epperson at Levin's blog that noted Epperson *and* Levin had been dismissive of a book that was critical of US Grant even though both admitted not having read the book. The link is below:
http://cwmemory.com/2014/10/30/its-about-the-history/#comments
Levin posted my comment but then sarcastically said that I "worshipped at the alter of [the books author.]"
I responded to that insult by noting that it was more accurate to say that I respected those who declined to criticize a book that they haven't read. I further noted that Levin evidently felt the same way when he was the victim judging from the hostile comments he made at Amazon.com to a couple of reviewers he accused of not having read his book.
He refused to post that comment, by accusing me of making a personal attack.
Anonymous 2:40, is this the exchange you saw on Amazon.com?
Deletehttp://www.amazon.com/review/R3GUPMWTH1G9PN/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0813136105
I did think your take on this was interesting, although my impression was more of an author engaging a combative reviewer in a playful, generous manner.
This reviewer does develop his position further across many posts on his personal blog "jerryd14" -- if you wanted you could look up and consider his recent post entitled "Kevin Levin, Moron anti South Trouble maker or Super Hero."
Likewise, I had the impression that since you had said Levin worshipped at the altar of Grant, he may have just been echoing your phrase as a way of saying that you certainly seem to like Frank Varney. I thought the smiley emoticon was a friendly touch.
I do agree his last comment to you was quite stern, but perhaps you had just been talking about things like perceived sarcasm, insult, and hostility, things not necessarily intended or done?
*
Mr. Douglas,
You are welcome to leave a comment about the subject of this post. If you just want to write personal attacks than I suggest that you start your own blog. This is your final warning.
CWM
To: Anonymous (11.2.2014) 11:09 PM
DeleteYou point underscores the fact that when Levin insults someone he regards it as harmless "banter", but when a commenter replies in kind on his website he labels it a personal attack and censors it.
It is simple hypocrisy.
Mr. Douglas,
DeletePerhaps you could post your comment here, so we can guess why it does not appear on the Civil War Memory blog.
Have you meanwhile tried to comment on the subject of the post? Or started your own blog?
Here's that CWM thread where you are detecting the other party's hostility & hypocrisy:
~~~~~~~~Michael Douglas Nov 1, 2014
You and Levin also worship at the alter of US Grant and unjustly criticize anyone who is critical of the general.
For example, you referred to Professor Frank Varney’s book “General Grant and the Rewriting of History” as trash even though you admitted not having read it. Similarly, Levin devoted a blog post to criticizing the book, also without having read it.
But, if you can’t be bothered to read Professor Varney’s book you might prefer the less industrious task of watching his presentation to the Chicago Civil War Roundtable. The audience was naturally proud of the general and readily capable of defending him against “trashy” criticisms. Yet the speech alone is convincing. His performance in the lengthy Q & A session suggests he made his points effectively…even against those who actually read the book before attempting to criticize him.
In case you still haven’t read the book a link to the address is provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpLm-zUqalk
~~~~~~~~Kevin Levin Nov 1, 2014
Thanks for the comment. Looks like you worship at the altar of Frank Varney. :)
~~~~~~~~Michael Douglas Nov 1, 2014
Mr. Douglas,
You are welcome to leave a comment about the subject of this post. If you just want to write personal attacks than I suggest that you start your own blog. This is your final warning.
CWM
To Anonymous on November 25, 2014:
DeleteWhy, yes. I have started my own blog. Mr. Levin is the subject of the first post.
https://civilwarmemorycrossroads.wordpress.com
More proof of Levin Censorship.
ReplyDeleteLevin has refused to post two of my comments that elaborate on the poverty in the South as a legacy of the Civil War.
I have tried to post the screen shot showing that one of them was submitted into this comment, but it is not working. Can you provide an email address where I may send you a copy?
Anonymous 3:17, you seem to be in the same position as Connie Chastain, who is complaining today on her blog that Mr. Levin has not posted her elaborations on the poverty in the South as a legacy of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteIn Ms.Chastain's case however a reasonable moderator might rightly consider her a crackpot and bar her. After all, she did recently wage a very nasty & wrongheaded smear campaign against Mr. Levin.
Anyhow, I hope that is not the case for you and that you are able to work something out. Perhaps you could ask privately whatever the issue might be.