A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
The real lesson of Parson Weems’ is that as historians we must continually look to the sources of our information and not blindly accept what “is written” as gospel. Weigh the evidence before considering it valid.
That is very good advice. I wish that Mr. Harrington had included footnotes or links to enable us to follow it easily in this particular instance.
Rather a fuzzy attack, not particularly accurate. For all his demerits, David Barton simply doesn't fabricate stuff, which Parson Weems did. He reads far too much into his evidence, and has in the past accepted existing bogus quotes as authentic. Barton is one of the worst at it and is easily busted, but as we've seen, there are far more clever types who do the same thing to a less egregious degree and get away with it.
2 comments:
The real lesson of Parson Weems’ is that as historians we must continually look to the sources of our information and not blindly accept what “is written” as gospel. Weigh the evidence before considering it valid.
That is very good advice. I wish that Mr. Harrington had included footnotes or links to enable us to follow it easily in this particular instance.
Rather a fuzzy attack, not particularly accurate. For all his demerits, David Barton simply doesn't fabricate stuff, which Parson Weems did. He reads far too much into his evidence, and has in the past accepted existing bogus quotes as authentic. Barton is one of the worst at it and is easily busted, but as we've seen, there are far more clever types who do the same thing to a less egregious degree and get away with it.
For instance, this sloppy attack on Barton. ;-P
Post a Comment