Comments on: Earl Ijames Responds http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/ Where History, Heritage, and Education Intersect Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:29:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike Radinsky http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13719 Mike Radinsky Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:37:39 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13719 Mr. Radinsky, <br><br>You will please refrain from personal insults if you expect your comments to be approved. Thank you. Mr. Radinsky,

You will please refrain from personal insults if you expect your comments to be approved. Thank you.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13705 Kevin Levin Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:56:59 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13705 I am willing to allow Mr. Ijames the opportunity to compose a finished essay (endnotes and sources included) on Weary Clyburn or John Venable. He can post it here if he feels comfortable or at Civil Warriors. That way we can have a meaningful discussion about his findings and we can do so in a professional manner. I should point out that I offered my site as a venue back in 2008, but was ignored. Perhaps we can make this happen. Thanks Brooks. I am willing to allow Mr. Ijames the opportunity to compose a finished essay (endnotes and sources included) on Weary Clyburn or John Venable. He can post it here if he feels comfortable or at Civil Warriors. That way we can have a meaningful discussion about his findings and we can do so in a professional manner. I should point out that I offered my site as a venue back in 2008, but was ignored. Perhaps we can make this happen. Thanks Brooks.

]]> By: Brooks D. Simpson http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13704 Brooks D. Simpson Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:43:14 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13704 Sounds to me as if Earl Ijames has challenged Kevin Levin to a duel, so to speak. <br><br>Now, by the code duello, Mr. Levin has choice of weapons. I assume he'd rather conduct the contest on the written page/screen/blog, where all of us can see the result, not some hand-picked venue chosen by Mr. Ijames. And I think that's appropriate. I'm perfectly willing to offer Civil Warriors as a field of honor where this can happen, so that historians can judge the result. <br><br>So, Mr. Ijames, it's up to you. Are you going to make your case? Are you willing to conduct yourself according to the rules of scholarship? <br><br>Remember what you said, Mr. Ijames: " I’ll re-iterate that offer to you to put your money where your loose lips leak erroneous information.... If you don’t show, then we can conclude that you’re not as serious of a student of history as you misrepresent yourself to be."<br><br>I'd hate to see those words come back to haunt you. But it's now a matter of public record. It's up to you whether you'll be as good as your word. Sounds to me as if Earl Ijames has challenged Kevin Levin to a duel, so to speak.

Now, by the code duello, Mr. Levin has choice of weapons. I assume he'd rather conduct the contest on the written page/screen/blog, where all of us can see the result, not some hand-picked venue chosen by Mr. Ijames. And I think that's appropriate. I'm perfectly willing to offer Civil Warriors as a field of honor where this can happen, so that historians can judge the result.

So, Mr. Ijames, it's up to you. Are you going to make your case? Are you willing to conduct yourself according to the rules of scholarship?

Remember what you said, Mr. Ijames: ” I’ll re-iterate that offer to you to put your money where your loose lips leak erroneous information…. If you don’t show, then we can conclude that you’re not as serious of a student of history as you misrepresent yourself to be.”

I'd hate to see those words come back to haunt you. But it's now a matter of public record. It's up to you whether you'll be as good as your word.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13699 Kevin Levin Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:32:59 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13699 I have no idea what that resume includes. As far as I can tell it does not include one publication on this or any other subject. I have no idea what that resume includes. As far as I can tell it does not include one publication on this or any other subject.

]]> By: Brooks D. Simpson http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13698 Brooks D. Simpson Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:14:05 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13698 "Just the last fifteen years on my resume is more than you’ll accomplish over the course of your career! I just hope that you haven’t damaged too many of those captive classrooms with students in your politically correct curriculum."<br><br>Yawn. Mr. Ijames must be terribly insecure.<br><br>The fact that he so quickly resorts to insults suggests that he's afraid he can't prevail on the facts. Let him commit his findings to paper, like a real scholar, and let's go from there. Surely, if he really has you dead to rights, he'd be willing to do that. “Just the last fifteen years on my resume is more than you’ll accomplish over the course of your career! I just hope that you haven’t damaged too many of those captive classrooms with students in your politically correct curriculum.”

Yawn. Mr. Ijames must be terribly insecure.

The fact that he so quickly resorts to insults suggests that he's afraid he can't prevail on the facts. Let him commit his findings to paper, like a real scholar, and let's go from there. Surely, if he really has you dead to rights, he'd be willing to do that.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13691 Kevin Levin Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:28:46 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13691 Thanks for the comment, John, and I couldn't agree more with you have said. Serious historians usually use presentations to fine tune their analysis in preparation for publication. I can't speculate as to why Ijames has not published. What I do know is that his failure to publish is problematic and is reason to question any authority he may claim for himself. Thanks for the comment, John, and I couldn't agree more with you have said. Serious historians usually use presentations to fine tune their analysis in preparation for publication. I can't speculate as to why Ijames has not published. What I do know is that his failure to publish is problematic and is reason to question any authority he may claim for himself.

]]> By: John Hennessy http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13690 John Hennessy Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:40:29 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13690 As one who gives lots of talks, and has published a bit too, I can say that giving talks is by comparison breezy. Your words might rattle around in people's brains for fifteen minutes, then reduce to a vague memory. If a year later someone even remembers that you spoke, that's good; if they actually remember some point you made, then that's remarkable. If you make an error, likely no one will catch it or remember. More over, as politicians prove on a regular basis, the Q&A that accompanies a talk can be made as malleable as the speaker wants it to be--diverting, converting, distracting when need be. These are reasons why some historians (I use that word charitably) speak rather than write. Writing is a whole different ballgame--laying yourself out there (figuratively) for extended examination and debate among third parties, where you, the writer, have no control over the conversation. Speakers also have the great advantage of having almost total control over who hears their message; relatively few of us dare to go before audiences we know will be hostile to what we have to say, but rather we gravitate to where we know our words will be welcome (no criticism there--that's human nature). I admire great speakers, but true impact in history comes only through writing--putting new ideas and analysis out there for that potential pummeling, with no control over WHO reads what you write. People who refuse to subject their work to that scrutiny usually make that choice for a reason. Or, perhaps, they can't write, in which case they are likely doing us all a favor. As one who gives lots of talks, and has published a bit too, I can say that giving talks is by comparison breezy. Your words might rattle around in people's brains for fifteen minutes, then reduce to a vague memory. If a year later someone even remembers that you spoke, that's good; if they actually remember some point you made, then that's remarkable. If you make an error, likely no one will catch it or remember. More over, as politicians prove on a regular basis, the Q&A that accompanies a talk can be made as malleable as the speaker wants it to be–diverting, converting, distracting when need be. These are reasons why some historians (I use that word charitably) speak rather than write. Writing is a whole different ballgame–laying yourself out there (figuratively) for extended examination and debate among third parties, where you, the writer, have no control over the conversation. Speakers also have the great advantage of having almost total control over who hears their message; relatively few of us dare to go before audiences we know will be hostile to what we have to say, but rather we gravitate to where we know our words will be welcome (no criticism there–that's human nature). I admire great speakers, but true impact in history comes only through writing–putting new ideas and analysis out there for that potential pummeling, with no control over WHO reads what you write. People who refuse to subject their work to that scrutiny usually make that choice for a reason. Or, perhaps, they can't write, in which case they are likely doing us all a favor.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13678 Kevin Levin Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:52:37 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13678 Hi Matt,<br><br>Thanks for the comment and I hope you enjoy the Gallagher lectures. Actually, when you get down to it there is no disagreement between myself and Mr. Ijames over interpretation. I say this because as far as I can tell he has never published an interpretation/analysis of the subject. In other words, he doesn't have an interpretation of the subject that matters to the broader historical community. As you can see his resorting to personal insult reflects an inability/unwillingness to present his "research" in a way that can be publicly discussed and scrutinized. Hi Matt,

Thanks for the comment and I hope you enjoy the Gallagher lectures. Actually, when you get down to it there is no disagreement between myself and Mr. Ijames over interpretation. I say this because as far as I can tell he has never published an interpretation/analysis of the subject. In other words, he doesn't have an interpretation of the subject that matters to the broader historical community. As you can see his resorting to personal insult reflects an inability/unwillingness to present his “research” in a way that can be publicly discussed and scrutinized.

]]> By: Matthew Donnelly http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13677 Matthew Donnelly Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:45:27 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13677 Wise choice to (at least try to) avoid being drawn into a useless argument with this guy, Kevin. If you have a vastly different interpretation of history than what's accepted and aren't willing to REALLY put the theory and your evidence out there for public consumption and debate, then it stops being real research and becomes a glorified ego boost.<br>I'm listening to a lecture series by Gary Gallagher about the command structure of the Army of Northern Virginia and he addresses/dismisses the black Confederate soldier myth with a single killing word - "Weird" Wise choice to (at least try to) avoid being drawn into a useless argument with this guy, Kevin. If you have a vastly different interpretation of history than what's accepted and aren't willing to REALLY put the theory and your evidence out there for public consumption and debate, then it stops being real research and becomes a glorified ego boost.
I'm listening to a lecture series by Gary Gallagher about the command structure of the Army of Northern Virginia and he addresses/dismisses the black Confederate soldier myth with a single killing word – “Weird”

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13676 Kevin Levin Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:52:04 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13676 I did indeed. It's amazing to me that Ijames is convinced that Venable was a soldier. Apparently, he can't even interpret his own evidence. That said, let me be clear. I did not conclude that Venable was not a soldiers. What I stated was that the available evidence does not show conclusively that Venable was a soldier. Perhaps Ijames has additional documentation that he is not sharing or that was not sent to me. I did indeed. It's amazing to me that Ijames is convinced that Venable was a soldier. Apparently, he can't even interpret his own evidence. That said, let me be clear. I did not conclude that Venable was not a soldiers. What I stated was that the available evidence does not show conclusively that Venable was a soldier. Perhaps Ijames has additional documentation that he is not sharing or that was not sent to me.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13675 Kevin Levin Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:33:49 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13675 Hi Jonathan. Nice to hear from you. I am going to go through the process of sending a letter to the people in charge requesting the materials, but I am not sure what will come of it. As for the question of when the research was done I will leave to others. My concern is with his public presentation on this subject. Thanks. Hi Jonathan. Nice to hear from you. I am going to go through the process of sending a letter to the people in charge requesting the materials, but I am not sure what will come of it. As for the question of when the research was done I will leave to others. My concern is with his public presentation on this subject. Thanks.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/02/12/earl-ijames-responds/#comment-13674 Kevin Levin Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:31:56 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6539#comment-13674 The whole idea that I debate him publicly and/or visit him in the archives is also absurd. Responsible historians publish their findings in peer reviewed journals and engage in open dialog. As I stated before, it looks like Mr. Ijames doesn't understand the difference between debate and personal attack. I also find it funny that he would compare our "resumes". As far as I can tell Mr. Ijames has never published anything related to this research in 15 years nor can I find anything else by this individual. You would think that at some point he would publish given his claim that black Confederates have been "blotted" out of the history. How about submitting something to the North Carolina Historical Review. I've been researching one subject for the past 5 years and I have managed to publish a number of essays and book chapters. Admittedly, it's not much, but my work is out there for public consumption and it is open to criticism and debate. That's what historians do. Can you imagine if I responded to a critic by inviting him to one of my presentations or my home to discuss the matter. Rather, I would share references to published work and continue the discussion as best as I can. <br><br>I agree David. Mr. Ijames has exposed himself for the fraud that he is. The whole idea that I debate him publicly and/or visit him in the archives is also absurd. Responsible historians publish their findings in peer reviewed journals and engage in open dialog. As I stated before, it looks like Mr. Ijames doesn't understand the difference between debate and personal attack. I also find it funny that he would compare our “resumes”. As far as I can tell Mr. Ijames has never published anything related to this research in 15 years nor can I find anything else by this individual. You would think that at some point he would publish given his claim that black Confederates have been “blotted” out of the history. How about submitting something to the North Carolina Historical Review. I've been researching one subject for the past 5 years and I have managed to publish a number of essays and book chapters. Admittedly, it's not much, but my work is out there for public consumption and it is open to criticism and debate. That's what historians do. Can you imagine if I responded to a critic by inviting him to one of my presentations or my home to discuss the matter. Rather, I would share references to published work and continue the discussion as best as I can.

I agree David. Mr. Ijames has exposed himself for the fraud that he is.

]]>