I don't have a greyhound in this race, just don't have any time to familiarize myself with the issues enough to take a stand.
I do want to say to everyone, and especially Thomas Brown, that I'm glad the discussion is unfolding in a very reasonable way. I like a good flamefest (not sludgefests) as much as the next LOBster, don't get me wrong. Thank ghu this isn't alt.i.heart.cats.
It was just good to tune in and read Thomas Brown defend his positon without having to slug it out with people make decidedly nasty retorts -- even though I'm sure they were sorely tempted to do so. And despite what has been said that hasn't been so kind, Thomas continues to be a model of what he seems to advocate: spirted debate about the issue at hand, not personalities.
Like Doug, I _used to _ harbor the fantasy that getting the story right will be a boon to our cause. Alas, like Doug also, I've learned that the results in terms of big picture, immediate results are a big, fat ZERO. It's about power and hegemony.
Still getting the facts right matters for a different reason. Like my bud Joe (budge) has said elsewhere, what is disturbing is defending a leftist to your family and friends who aren't lefties and then getting caught out. You have ZERO credibility with them about anything thereafter. I've seen people leave organizations because they discovered some lie, fib, some leftist skeleton in the closet. I find that problematic for us, not jsut as individuals but as individuals who will influence people in our lives--at home, at work, at protests, in movement organizations, etc.
We can't change government policy at the moemnt. Our goal is to work with the people in our lives. Sometimes we talk with people who are quite likely to be moved by what we have to say. At other times, we're going for the non-revolutionary third -- to use Carrol/Yoshie's REvolutionary War analogy. All you need is a third to win a revo, they say. Well, not really. YOu need another third who doesn't hate you or disrepsect you enough to trot off to the other third's side when things heat up. The WCs of the world do us no favors in that regard.
If you're an academic, things are worse because you are called out to defend or reject this guy because you share a status position in society -- and in exchange for that status (claim to authority) you are expected to fulfill certain obligations to assure the lay public that you have a right to that status. And, as _we_ know, not all academics are leftists, but that doesn't matter in the public mind. Most of them think academics are leftwing. HEnce, those non-leftist academis will get called to account for the WCs of the world and, to have to do so repeatedly is likely to turn them into people who will, when the chips are down, support the Tories -- to extend the analogy. WE see it happen all the time.
It's in that regard that Thomas Brown's revelations about WC are disturbing. It's not enough to make me get all hot and bothered attacking the guy. It's enough to make me not give a bat's eyelash about the guy or get terribly involved in defending him. Which is another good reason to be really nitpicky about our facts, etc., and expect others to do the same. As much as some people thought Moore's F911 was full of mistatements and errors, it really wasn't that bad and the right had to go to great, laughable lengths to make Moore out to be a liar. TG -- because otherwise I might be STILL arguing with friends and family about the film. Moore learned something from the criticism.
If Churchill's the scholar he says he is, then he will too. The problem is that because WC's part of academia, his academic missteps ( which as Chuck points out are typical) will be used to boot him out. This is covered niceley in Charles Bosk's _Forgive and Remember_. MEmebers of a profession aren't typically booted out and penalized for _technical errors_. They're booted out for _normative errors_. You don't get denied tenure, for instance, because of footnoting errors or because you were just plain wrong about something or other. It's expected that knowledge is fallible and a collective, if agonistic, enterprise. Thus, criticism is launched, not to destroy careers, but to advance knowledge. That's the ideal anyway.
But, again, as Doug says: then you have the reality of power and hegemony. The academic mistep that would normally be tolerated will become the basis for punishment.
Well, enough of that rant.
Back to the grindstone.
Kelley