Is it just me or does anyone else find it bizarre that Dimitri Rotov would question why a historiographical overview of Lincoln scholar Phil Paludan’s contributions cannot be found in eulogies published in non-academic settings?
BIZARRE
Previous post: A Positive Sign: USCTs in the Public Mind
Next post: “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Kevin -
That’s exactly what I thought. And yet I can’t say I’m completely surprised. This is the same person who found something to criticize in the news story he posted regarding a young girl’s interest in the ACW. (See his earlier posting.) In his constant denigration of “popular” history, however he defines it, I find something very elitist and condescending.
I was talking to a NPS historian when that story came out and he basically said that Dimitri had completely missed the target with his comments.
Kevin:
Thanks for this one. I too was flabbergasted. I know what Dimitri thinks about Lincoln, “the Lincoln community,” and anyone even remotely associated with Springfield and its new Lincoln Library. But surely there are better ways to make a point than to parse Tom Schwartz’s heartfelt words about his friend and fellow Bob Johannsen student. And I say that as another Bob Johannsen student. Both Tom and Phil deserve better.
If one wants scholarly assessments of Paludan’s work, those already exist anyway. I myself have written a couple of times about how Paludan’s book “Victims” was a seminal–yes, seminal–work that inaugurated the “revisionist” re-evaluation of the Appalachian Civil War home front. And who would discuss modern studies of the Northern home front without starting with Paludan’s “A People’s Contest,” another–yes, seminal–work?
When I die, hopefully a few decades from now, I hope my eulogies say more about my good qualities than about how I needed more maps in my Perryville book.
Ken
I was disappointed in what I read, and I believe it was unfair.
He also took a pop-shot at Brian Dirck. Dimitri’s comments would have us believe that he is actually familiar with Paludan’s work and I don’t buy it for a minute. I would say pretty much the same goes for his silly comments about McPherson’s scholarship.
There’s much wisdom in Ken’s post when he says “When I die, hopefully a few decades from now, I hope my eulogies say more about my good qualities than about how I needed more maps in my Perryville book.”
I think ALL of us (in any field) should be more concerned with what we do ‘outside’ of our ‘work’ than what we accomplish ‘in’ it. If we do a good ‘job’ when it comes to life’s priorities, there shouldn’t be any room left over in our eulogies for our work. It shouldn’t even merit a mention over the things in life we did that REALLY mattered.
This gentleman obviously left behind a nice legacy and his accomplishments as a historian are second to his accomplishments as a person. (I like to think that Dimitri didn’t mean to insult that.)
Thanks for mentioning this one, it upset me quite a bit. Dimitri does not have comments available on his page, nor does he list his email address.
Her’s an email address: drotov@gmail.com
I agree with you Michael. It’s just D’s way of making it seem as if he has some idea as to what historians do or should do.
I too, was shocked. And I’ve come to expect the unexpected from Dimitri. His comments were unjustified and inappropriate, and hopefully he will come to realize it.
Dimitri did retract his comment on Brian Dirck.
I noticed his retraction. It is unusual that he assumes a position of oversight over people who have dedicated their lives to serious scholarship. All I can find as a justification is that he claims not to be connected to any publisher, school or organization as if that matters one bit.
Tom Schwartz’s comments about a longtime friend were equally “heartfelt,” yet no retraction was forthcoming there. Apparently, if I read the “mea culpa” correctly, the real difference is that blogged comments should be subjected to lesser scrutiny than comments obviously made on the fly to a reporter. That’s a position that, if you think about it, turns like a mobius strip into a fascinating defense of the original post.
You are absolutely right Ken. It’s a cheap way for Dimitri to convince his readers that he has some understanding of Paludan’s significance. I am willing to bet that he hasn’t read anything of his.