Gee. Someone actually gets what I was trying to say! I was using Hitler as an example, only because his name had already come up, to show how ridiculous the argument really was. I’m actually relieved someone got it. So all you other guys, how’s that new American century going? LOL
Gee. Someone actulay gets what I was trying to say! I was using Hitler as an example, only because his name had already come up, to show how ridiculous the argument really was. I’m actually relieved someone got it. So all you other guys, how’s that new American century going? LOL
The notion that an event needs to sit around for a little while before historians can evaluate it seems completely bunk to me (and I am a historian, although not a modern one). I can just see people watching the clock until FINALLY they can have an opinion!
Two things:
Historians, on any topic of research, will have personal opinions. To pretend these don’t have an effect on our conclusions would be ridiculous. However, these opinions are backed up (hopefully) by reasoned analysis and fact. Nevertheless, good, respectable historians will often come up with different analyses. Two fantastic historians can have radically different opinions of the same event, and that’s okay.
Second, history can be as current as you want it to be. People who teach classes on modern American history will include all events up to and including yesterday’s events (whatever those may have been).
I have complete confidence that Richard-Melon Scaife, the Republican Party, and Fox News already have a dozen cabinets full of criticisms to level at the next non-Republican President to reside in the White House.
I think everyone gets it. A leader who commits such atrocities, such unmitigated evil, needs no prism of passing time to gauge his worth.
Oh! You were equating Bush with Hitler? To show why it’s silly to say that it’s too soon to assess Bush’s presidency? Do you really want to stand by that implied analogy? Come on, now, do you really?
Precisely.
Bush is to incompetence what Hitler was to evil.
The underlined part. To point out that it’s silly. Bush is not Hitler, not even close. If I really wanted to Godwinize, I would have done so, and would have made it much more obvious. Why do I even need to explain this? hell, for that matter some people might say it’s too soon to say Bush is any good. Yet, people do that, all the time. Maybe they should stop too? See how wrong such an argument is yet?
Next time any of us goes into the boss’s office for our performance appraisal, let’s all just tell him it’s too soon to tell. Sorry boss, but you can’t fire me yet even though I burned down the office, because it’s too soon to tell if it’s a good or a bad thing. Or, conversely, sorry boss, I can’t accept that raise and promotion, it’s too soon to pass judgement. Yeah. right. 
No, I don’t. It’s too soon to say his presidency is an unmitigated disaster, and it’s too soon to say his policies will on balance be to the good.
Steve, do you really see this as analogous? :dubious:
Its a silly analogy to try and equate Bush to Hitler. Its silly to put forth that because we can evaluate Hitlers impact on both Germany and the world (it HAS been 60 odd years after all), that we should be able to equally evaluate GW’s future ranking as a US president…WHILE his term is only a bit more than half done! The two just don’t equate. IMHO anyway.
Fair enough. Answer honestly then. You are a professional historian. The civil war is going badly for the Union, the economy is doing poorly and there are riots in New York. Please tell me how good you’d be at evaluating Honest Abe’s presidency and judging where he would eventually rank on the scale of US presidents. Where would you have ranked him at the time?
Here is another one. You are a historian and Andrew Jackson is the president. He’s an extremely popular president, and by and large the Union is running strong, with a decent economy and good strong leadership at the helm. Whats your honest evaluation of his future rank as president?
How about Madison when it looked like the Union may come completely unglued, when the several Northern states looked like they may bolt? How about Nixon in the first term, pre-Watergate? Kennedy early in his first term, or before he was killed? Truman all through his presidency?
I can look back at nearly every presidency and see how the perceptions of the times have shifted (in some cases radically) to how we perceive those same presidents today. In nearly NO cases do those current perceptions equate to how history actually looks at them…now that we can judge their effect based on what came afterward.
If you are saying that historians today think that they need not have to have some time before they can make a MEANINGFUL judgement, then all I can say is that either the historians I’ve known in the past are in the minority, or modern historians have become a rather arrogant lot.
This isn’t really about Bush you know…its about people who are professionals letting their own feelings interfer with their professional ability and professional-ISM. Again, IMHO…I’m willing to be shown the error of my ways here.
For the purposes of keeping off the ‘Bush appologist!’ rants sure to come, how about we shift the debate somewhat. Lets have a theoretical Democrat president in charge of the US. This president has done some rather unpopular things during her presidency, and has a poor rating. Its commonly believed that her judgement has been very bad, that her policies have been a disaster, etc etc. But, the country chugs along. She is now in her 5th year, having been re-elected despite her unpopularity.
How good do you think you’d be in evaluating her future rank in the pantheon of US presidents? How do you suppose your predictions would stand up to the test of time? Would you be willing to make predictions, and what would your motivation be in making them?
-XT
Again, I am not a US historian. As I’m Canadian, I’m actually quite ignorant of American history. I therefore can’t answer your questions.
I feel like maybe you don’t understand what the study of history is. It’s not about ranking people, or evaluating them ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It’s about observing and analysing trends, understanding why policies are shaped the way they are, why social institutions are they way they are. Time changes interpretations, but that doesn’t mean the original ones were wrong.
As to this poll more specifically, the people polled, by virtue of being historians (modern, one assumes) have a wider base of information upon which to draw to make evaluations, as oppposed to the average daily-newspaper reader. The fact that they have letters after their name doesn’t make their opinion about somthing related fact.
Let’s see… the best economy in years (better than the previous president’s)…
unemployment lower than an average of the 8 years of the previous president…
no planes flying into buildings…
no one has kidnapped me or my family and tried to SAW our heads off…
Gas is still cheaper than in the '70s (in comparable dollars)…
lowest inflation in a while…
My comrades in arms re-enlisting at phenomenal rates to finish the job in Iraq.
'nuff said.
Kevlaur
You’re are a guest here so perhaps you don’t know the rules of this board. The main one is that in this great debates forum, facts must be substantiated and saying “'nuff said” doesn’t substantiate anything. For the benefit of us all, please cite to the verifiable sources from which you make such factual assertions.
Prove it. Including the explosion of the national debt, and what that means to the future.
Meaningless, given how nonsensical such numbers are.
No more planes flying into buildings.
Besides, why would they bother ? The terrorists are winning victory after victory.
But it’s OK to kidnap other people and torture them to death, or rape their children in front of them ?
They lowered the standards; and we aren’t finishing anything in Iraq, except our giant embassy and military bases.
Or maybe don’t, since that discussion isn’t supposed to be taking place in this thread. But as a general rule, I agree it’s a good idea to a) substantiate claims and b) try to keep on topic.
What she said.
I never said history was about ‘ranking people’ or ‘evaluating them as ‘good’ or ‘bad’’. Certainly thats not MY definition of history. If I gave you that impression then I gave you a wrong one.
This study was about ‘ranking’ GW Bush by historians though, so the discussion sort of revolves around that. Perhaps because I’m focused on that I gave you the impression I did.
So, times change, and with it interpretations…but that doesn’t necessarily mean the original ones were wrong. I agree. Of course, the opposite is true as well…many historians attempting to interpret events that they were too close to WERE wrong. And quite wrong at that. Because they didn’t have the later historical context to fit the current events into, to know what was important, and what ultimately wasn’t…and what things done had a great impact on future events, and which ones didn’t.
Certainly they have both more knowledge of current events and of past events than I, or any other amature, would. However, they STILL don’t have the ability to: A) Know how GW’s term will end, and B) Have the knowledge of how these events will effect the future in context. Unless they have access to some kind of special future knowledge not available to us mere mortals. 
Your last sentence kind of cuts to the heart of what I wanted to debate here…because they have some letters after their name doesn’t mean that we should NECESSARILY just take their opinions as gospel…especially when they are making these kinds of predictions without knowing the future context that current events will fold into.
-XT
And does that matter ? No matter what happens, the dead will stay dead, the tortured will still have been tortured.
My point was that ‘the future’ isn’t the only benchmark of history. How present things fit into trends is also a valid subject of historical inquiry.
I’d love to see some examples, just to know what you’re talking about.
Why not? Either example is a personal judgment about the performance of another. So why not make an analogy? Do you approve of Bush’s performance? Better not say, it’s too soon to tell. Do you disapprove? Better not say, it’s too soon to tell.
At what point did it become possible to evaluate Hitler’s impact? When did it become reasonable to conclude that Hitler’s influence on world affairs was significantly negative? Was it during his political career, or decades afterward?
It’s one thing to state that historians can’t claim to judge current events with the same perspective as they can judge events at several decades’ remove. In fact I’d be surprised if any historian claimed that they could. It’s hard to weigh cause-and-effect relationships if the effects haven’t happened yet. I expect that the historians cited in the poll were simply asked for their informed opinion, not required to wager any money on it.
On the other hand, it seems equally imprudent to deny outright the value of historical study in understanding current events. What is the point of studying the past if not to learn from it? If a knowledge of history can’t be applied to current events with any success at all, then historical study in general takes on the same level of importance as comic book collecting. This would also seem to shoot a big hole in the concept of democracy itself, as it renders the notion of an informed electorate quaintly toothless. Since current political candidates exist in a kind of undefinable quantum state where it’s impossible to determine whether their policies have any merit or not, presumably voters would have to fall back on hairstyles as a basis for choosing between them.
I think the bottom line is probably that the results of the Rolling Stone poll shouldn’t be considered overwhelmingly significant, but somewhat more significant than if they had polled a random group of people without any historical credentials.