Why American squads "penalized"?

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:

For the record Steven Ambrose IS a hack.

...

I casually browsed through one of his books at a bookstore and I found numerous errors in a matter of minutes. Errors such as a reference to the 57mm German anti-tank gun, or referring to the Panzer Lehr division as a SS division. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

are you sure about him referring to the panzer lehr as ss? i have two of his books on my desk now and i looked at each mention of panzer lehr in the index: nothing about it being ss, but it does frequently mention panzer lehr AND a second separate division, the 12th ss. did you glance at the book a bit too casually?

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[This message has been edited by russellmz (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Keith]

Russellmz,

It has been a while, but I recall Ambrose inserting a famous quote from the commander of Panzer Lehr describing how his division was shot to pieces by Allied air power while trying to get to the beaches. Ambrose refered to the unit as being an "elite SS" unit. The really bad thing about Ambrose is that he makes a very minimal attempt get the "other side of the hill" perspective into his books and he pulls quotations from U.S. veterans as truth whithout corraborating the statements with other sources/facts. He is almost like a cheerleader, trying to put the American "citizen soldier" on a pedestal compared to his Axis or English counter part.

No doubt by 1944 the German high command had its hands tied by Adolf which caused a certain amount of command indecision and inflexibility from the divisional level on up. But Ambrose makes a huge leap to contend that the German Army was nothing but a bunch of mindless automatons that had no initiative and blindly followed orders. Furthermore Ambrose makes an unfounded contention that Amercian democracy produced a superior soldier to German fascism.

[Guest wwb_99]

A couple of points

On Ambrose: Yes, he is a hack, but with moments of brilliance. It should be noted that he teaches out of the University of New Orleans, which is not known as a garden spot of intellectual development. And that he is by far the most famous historian in the country yet is still at a second rate institution is no coincidence.

But he does have moments of brilliance, like the D-Day chapter in Americans at War. Note that he does not get involved in historical argument, but merely describes the ground in Normandy. While his interpertations often leave something to be desired, his collection of first person memoirs is a priceless contribution.

On American Education

Like you Steve, I spent four years studying history. (Fat lot of good it did, now I am in IT.)Your comment rings very true. I avoided american history as much as I could, and I still understand it better than most. I can say my college education was first rate.

But my high school education was also in theory first rate, or at least my high school was supposed to be in the top 3% of public schools. But I left there with an image that history began with Martin Luther (I later specialized in Classical & Medieval military history) and the US won WW II single handedly. I don't think Stalingrad even appeared in the textbook.

There was an exception to this. Mr. Biedron was both an excellent teacher and a trained historian. Note also that he did not use textbooks.

We should remeber that childhood education has more to do with indoctrination (sp?) than actual learning. They want to make you good, patriotic and obedient citizens who will become 'productive members of the community.'

The point is: never believe anything that came out of a public school textbook.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Chupacabra]

I think that the best education one can receive is traveling to a different country, or studying with teachers and students of different nationalities than one's own.

I feel very fortunate to have been able to do both. It's erased a lot of preconceived notions.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guest Big Time Software]

About Ambrose...

I haven't read much of his works (I have two here, but no time), however I have been VERY unimpressed with some of his comments on TV shows. Some of the stuff he put out onto the airwaves is just dead wrong.

And you guys might get a kick out of this... Charles wrote Ambrose a letter about a bunch of errors in one of his books. This was about 2 years ago. He talked about the Panthers have 88s for example There was some other point that was not technical that Charles had a big problem with, but I can't remember what that was.

wwb_99 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But my high school education was also in theory first rate, or at least my high school was supposed to be in the top 3% of public schools.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... I feel like we are long lost twins My HS was (and still is) one of the top rated in the country. I even had a German-American FEMALE history teacher who really knew her stuff about WWII. But the problem is that there is no substitute for taking 8 semesters worth of courses on WWII compared to the average 2 weeks or so that most kids get in their primary schools.

Chupacrabra, I totally agree. I studied in London for a semester and has an excellent history professor (British born and raised) that really opened my eyes up a bit. Not only did I learn that the British fought in WWII, but that they allowed us to fight along side of them to secure Monty's flank while he won the war

Steve

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:

Russellmz,

No doubt by 1944 the German high command had its hands tied by Adolf which caused a certain amount of command indecision and inflexibility from the divisional level on up. But Ambrose makes a huge leap to contend that the German Army was nothing but a bunch of mindless automatons that had no initiative and blindly followed orders. Furthermore Ambrose makes an unfounded contention that American democracy produced a superior soldier to German fascism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe he makes no such assertion or leap. I believe instead he refutes the German wartime claim that the United States and Great Britain were incapable of producing fighting men who could stand against the German armies. Note: stand against, in the sense of giving as good as they got, not beat in all circumstances.

And I don’t think he’s anti-British, either, at least in two of the books I read of his, in one of them he was focused on the American Army (Citizen Soldiers) and in the other (D Day) I think that the US landings were tougher fights than the British landings, and took more pages to describe.

Also, in one of his books on Eisenhower (Supreme Commander) , he paints a very nuanced and fascinating portrait of Montgomery in which Monty comes out very well.

Just curious: couldn’t you describe the British Army in WW2 as citizen soldiers as well? (not that he does, but still….)

Anyhow, this contention of Ambrose's that the US and England produced tough soldiers. may sound stupid and obvious, and to a grognard audience, it is. But keep in mind that Ambrose was writing a popular history, which is, for the most part, being read by people who did not know that Hitler claimed that his western democratic opponents were not capable of producing fighting soldiers.

And I think that if you look at the records of British and American units, (arnhem, el alamein, etc) and, in one of the examples that Ambrose cites, which is of elite US Airborne units facing the elite German units at Bagstone with no air cover. I think you will agree that this is correct – both the us and Britain were capable of producing tough soldiers.

(Personal note: And I think that my uncle, if he were alive today, would testify to that as well. But he cannot, because he fell with others in the regular army 104th infantry division at Eschweiler, fighting the Waffen SS. A fight that the Timberwolves, as his division was known, won. )

Another valuable point that Ambrose makes is that the German army was a constantly changing system. We cannot say “The German Army in WW2 X” or the “German Army in WW2 Y” (where x and y are statments describing the German army )for the entire war period and expect to be taken seriously.

The force evolved and changed dramatically under intense conditions. Analysis demands a diachronic approach.

The Wermacht in 1944 was not the same force that stampeded across France or drove the Red Army back to the outskirts of Moscow. A lot had changed by then. Thousands of soldiers had died. Training was rushed and not as thorough. Supply problems due to allied strategic bombing were present.

Morale was not as good in many units. A thousand factors that change the way a given military unit will perform were in effect. With all of that happening over a span of years im not sure how we can make any useful generalization about the entire German Army during the war.

And I think this is a useful issue to keep in mind as well.

albest,

Terence

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence:

I think that the US landings were tougher fights than the British landings, and took more pages to describe.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that many would take issue with you on this one. Omaha was a very tough fight indeed, but Utah was something of a walkover, and probably no more difficult than the fights at Juno and Sword.

Basically, Ambrose is an American historian whose understanding of other nations is quite lacking. He makes a lot of highly questionable statements, and should be taken at best with a grain of salt.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guy w/gun]

Ok all this is OT but:

I agree with the majority saying that buddy should know there will be disagreements, but I do agree with buddy on one point. Inflamatory statements of disagreements are rude, discourage discussion, and add absolutely no credibility to your retort. I'm no perfect angel, but when I disagree and do so in a rude way, I usually come off as being an a-hole and discourage the person from further comunication.

And lastly, I know nothing about Ambrose nor the University of New Orleans. But using his University as a sighn of his intelligence isn't valid. I don't no what the rest of the US thinks about the University of Texas, but I don't even attend that. I go to U.T.S.A. (University of Texas at San Antonio). Are you going to tell me that my intellectual prowess (or lack there of) is based on my University, and that any information I give that is wrong is because San Antonio isn't a good generator of intellectuals?

I'm sorry if I sound like the "behavior police" I don't mean to be. Frankly if you vehemently disagree with someone that much, it wouldn't make much sense to not be inflamatory.

Thanks

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Basically, Ambrose is an American historian whose understanding of other nations is quite lacking. He makes a lot of highly questionable statements, and should be taken at best with a grain of salt.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The best thing to be done with any book by Ambrose is to throw it in the trash.

The guy is not a historian, he is a cheerleader.

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

As I mentioned earlier, I think Ambrose is an excellent interviewer, who gets excellent material out of the vets he speaks to. Which is why it's such a pity that he's such a poor historian. The American tradition of oral history is not particularly well served by Mr. Ambrose, I agree.

IMO a far better oral history of WW2 is Studs Terkel's The Good War. It shares all of the flaws of oral history, but Terkel is a better historian by leaps and bounds than Ambrose.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guest wwb_99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Ok all this is OT but:

And lastly, I know nothing about Ambrose nor the University of New Orleans. But using his University as a sighn of his intelligence isn't valid. I don't no what the rest of the US thinks about the University of Texas, but I don't even attend that. I go to U.T.S.A. (University of Texas at San Antonio). Are you going to tell me that my intellectual prowess (or lack there of) is based on my University, and that any information I give that is wrong is because San Antonio isn't a good generator of intellectuals?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My main point is that given his revenue and hype generating capabilities, which History departments kill for, it is suprising that he has not moved up to a larger or more prestegious institution.

For those of you unfamiliar with UNO, it is essentially a community college. While it is not completely devoid of intellectual activity it is by far the worst of the five big schools in New Orleans, only two of which are of national reputation in more than specialized fields.

I should also note that his daughter is a very comptent and well respected history professor in her own right.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I believe that many would take issue with you on this one. Omaha was a very tough fight indeed, but Utah was something of a walkover, and probably no more difficult than the fights at Juno and Sword.

Basically, Ambrose is an American historian whose understanding of other nations is quite lacking. He makes a lot of highly questionable statements, and should be taken at best with a grain of salt.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

regarding d day, that's what I meant, and what I should have said.

And in the book on D-Day, the recounting of the fighting on Omaha beach takes up about a third of it.

As far as your statement on Ambrose goes, I guess I agree that he's an American historian, which seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable thing to be.

People study British history or British foreign policy or German scientific development, so why not American military history? He says he's trying to capture the American experience and doesn't claim anywhere that his book is a definitive history of the entire operation.

But, you know he's been writing for quite some time and has produced some excellent work. His book Supreme Commander is a fascinating hard core history of Eisenhowers role in the war and he doesn't spare Ike or Patton at all -- they both take their licks.

And if his popular histories take their shots from the grognard crew, well, thats par for the course.

In every dicipline that I can think of the people who write "popular" books are sneered at and dismissed by the serious and the scholars.

There's no excuse for being lazy or consistently wrong about things though, so if you can cite any examples of his understanding of other nations being wrong or his facts being shoddy, i'd love to hear them.

In fairness to the guy, though, you should look for some of his serious work (stuff he worked on after extensive interviews with eisenhower, for example) as well. You won't regret it, I promise.

albest,

Terence

ps. yeah, taking cheap shots at his univerity is not only dumb, is a debating tactic unworthy of the gentlemen and ladies on this board.

The university may have been the one giving him the most money to start the D-Day Center, cause the guy who made the landing crafts was based in New Orleans. (Eisenhower later said that this boat maker was responsible for victory in the ETO) There are any number of reasons why he ended up there. And having a famous historian at a 2nd or 3rd tier school could be a way that the school is trying to immprove itself.

Anyhow, where he teaches certainly has NO reflection on his intellectual capacity which, let me assure you, is of high order, whether you like him or agree with him or not.

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Terence,

The problem with Ambrose is not that he writes popular history, it is that he writes very bad popular history.

And it is bad on a variety of levels. It sucks on the basic level, such as getting facts wrong (the infamous 88mm armed Panther), and it is bad because the conclusions he draws are not supported by the evidence he provides in even a token manner.

When I read a text purporting to be non-fiction, I expect to be able to trust that the facts portrayed in that text are correct, to the best of the authors knowledge and ability to certify. Further, I expect that the conclusions the author might draw are in some way supported by those facts. Neither case is true for Ambrose and his popular "histories".

Your assertion that serious scholars always deride popular books is incorrect on the face of it. I can name several popular books that serious scholars have praised. The problem is when someone writes a popular non-fiction book that has the effect of leaving the typical reader worse off than they were before. And that is what most of Ambrose's books do. They re-affirm the already incorrect notion that the USA carried the brunt of the fighting in WW2, and that every German gun was an 88mm, every German tank a Panther, all German soldiers mindless automations, etc., etc., etc.

The sad part is that Ambrose knows better. I think he made a conscious decision to sell out and write what will get him readers and fame rather than what he knows to be factual. That is why he has no respect amongst both professional historians and the "grognards" you so callously deride.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

As far as the references to his school is concerned, I think some people are missing the point.

tey are not saying he is stupid because he teaches at a poor university. Theya re saying that if he had any stature in the field of history, he would be at a more prestigious school.

I know it is not PC these days to suggest that any school (or anything for that matter) might be of higher uality than some other school, but it is still the case that when it comes to institutions of higher learning, there is a marked difference amongst many of them.

The same way I would be more likely to believe a physics professor from MIT on a matter of physics over my local community college professor, I am more likely to question why the most popular writer of WW2 history in the US is unable to secure a position at anything other than a 3rd tier institution.

If you know anything about how tenure is acheived in universities, you would also question why he is where he is. There are a lot of politics involved, but at the same time a popular professor typically generates a lot more in grant money, hence they are much more likely to get a position at a more prestigious institution.

There could certainly be an answer other than that he does not deserve a position at anything better, but from what I have seen of his writing and integrity, I do not see any reason to believe their is at this point.

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

Terence - I'm not sure why you're convinced that serious scholars deride popular history. I personally believe that the study of history would be extremely well served if more scholars were writing so-called popular histories. Nothing but good can come out of more people being interested in and engaged by history. Or more precisely, by good history.

Unfortunately Ambrose is simply not good history. If I presented a paper with the same level of generalization, specious reasoning, and pure untruth that Ambrose demonstrates, I would be laughed down, and rightly so!

Likewise, being an American historian is quite alright. I am one after all. The trouble with Ambrose rises because he is unable or unwilling to separate his nationality from his scholarship. As Jeff said, he makes a better cheerleader than a historian.

Historians very rarely succeed at being completely unbiased. Unfortunately it is quite difficult for human beings to completely separate themselves from their work. However, we are required to make the effort. I don't believe Ambrose makes this effort, and so, disregarding his intelligence, which university he teaches at, or anything else, I believe he is a poor historian for this reason.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The sad part is that Ambrose knows better. I think he made a conscious decision to sell out and write what will get him readers and fame rather than what he knows to be factual.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this.

There was a thread on here a while back where we were joking that the History Channel was really "The Ambrose Channel" I think he is a great story teller, but some of the things I have heard him say have clearly moved me to think of him as just that -> a story teller. And that is what gets him the jobs and book deals. That and the fact that he is still alive

So while I don't want to say I have NO respect for the man, I can safely say that I don't feel comfortable taking what he has to say at face value. And when you are looking for credible sources to research something, the lack of such faith means one should look elsewhere for information first.

Steve

[Terence]

"And that is what most of Ambrose's books do. They re-affirm the already incorrect notion that the USA carried the brunt of the fighting in WW2, and that every German gun was an 88mm, every German tank a Panther, all German soldiers mindless automations, etc., etc., etc."

_________________

Really? I don't think they do, and Ive read two of them twice each.

Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

In my previous post, I said I'd be very interested in some acutal examples. I know we've talked about the 88 mm armed Panther, and that is certainly an error and should certainly be corrected, unless it was in a direct quote from some source.

But can you point to anything else that he has written that I could look at that would convince me of your point?

I'm quite happy to be convinced, by the way.

As to Grognards and callous derision, that was the furthest thing from my mind. I never intended to deride anyone, to say nothing of deriding them callously. I certainly apologize if you took it that way.

And upon reflection I think I made too much of a generalization, writing in haste (at work) on the issue of popular writers and serious writers.

Let me say that I belive that there is a tendency for writers of "popular works" to create abstractions in the course of explaining complicated events to the general public.

And these abstractions, I believe, will irritate the serious student of the subject.

Have any people here actually read anything of Ambrose's besides Citizen Soldiers and D-Day? I ask truly out of interest. (and im not his publicist, in case anyone asks , nor do i own stock in his publisher

He's written a multi-volume history of Eisenhower, a history of West Point, a book called Nothing Like it in the World about the trans continental railroad, a very well received biography of Nixon, an analysis of American foreign policy called Rise to Power, another one called Undaunted Courage about Meriwether Lewis and that Clark guy.

And there are others as well.

Surely you can't advocate throwing it all in the trash??

Terence

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 11-30-2000).]

[dumbo]

Hmmm I hate to rise to Ambroses defense but..

First of all there are two Ambroses, one the long haired rebel who appears in "The World at War" and the current one who is essentially the official patriot-laureate of the united states.

The old Ambroses opinions were fairly wide ranging and in particular (in my judgement) had a fairly canny eye for the macro global view of the war.

The new Ambrose is part of the "greatest generation" industry. Sadly this can appear to be making a fast buck off WW2 vets to some of us. But one also has to suspect that Ambrose has come to love the vets he has interviewed so often and perhaps thats no bad thing.

He has never had a good grasp of technical details (and I suspect he might claim this wasnt his job) but always digs up excellent human accounts.

One thing should be clarified though, and its best to come from a Brit. There is no way Ambrose is anti british , I submit his "Pegasus Bridge" as exhibit A for the defense, read it and come away singing "Rule Brittania" Sure he has voiced a few of the complaints Americans had about Monty but its always worth remembering that Montys harshest critics in WW2 were British not American as he made very few freinds in the RAF or RN.

Just my 0.02c

_dumbo

Uh oh I mentioned Monty, duck and cover

[Terence]

And while we are on the subject, gentlemen, can anyone reccommend some histories that they do like?

After having confessed liking Ambrose's work, to a chilly reception, I'm a little skittish about listing off some of the others that I read and enjoyed, but I'll trust that should you determine my list to be the ramblings of a fool, you'll say so gently

Here it is in no particular order:

The Last Battle

A Bridge Too Far

(both by Cornelius Ryan)

The Forgotten Soldier

(Guy Sajer. Ive heard this was unmasked as fiction, but its a hell of a read, really)

Barbarossa

(Alan Clark, )

Lost Victories

(Von Mannstein)

Stalingrad

(Anthony Beevor)

Achtung Panzer

(Heinz Guderian --although my play of CM does not reflect that I absorbed any of what he wrote!)

Panzer Commander

(Hans Von Luck)

Battle For Stalingrad

(Vasily Chuikov) I struggled through this in the original, which was heavy lifting, let me tell you!

Moving back, I also liked David Howarth's books on Trafalgar and Waterloo, and Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August.

There are more, of course, but a small voice is telling me that you may be sick of my drivel for today.

Albest,

Terence

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:

Hmmm I hate to rise to Ambroses defense but..

One thing should be clarified though, and its best to come from a Brit. There is no way Ambrose is anti british , I submit his "Pegasus Bridge" as exhibit A for the defense, read it and come away singing "Rule Brittania" Sure he has voiced a few of the complaints Americans had about Monty but its always worth remembering that Montys harshest critics in WW2 were British not American as he made very few friends in the RAF or RN.

Just my 0.02c

_dumbo

Uh oh I mentioned Monty, duck and cover <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, by God!!! When I finished Supreme Commander, I wanted to run out and buy a bio of Montgomery, Ambrose painted such an interesting nuanced picture of the man.

I still haven't. Can Anyone recommend one? I thought I'd maybe read one by an American and one by a British historian...

[Jeff Heidman]

Terence,

I do not really agree with your assessment of Ambrose, but I would hardly call your posts drivel.

The other books you listed were (IMO of course) a mixed bag. Some (Stalingrad, Barbarossa, The Forgotten Soldier) are very good, and some are so-so.

The Sajer story should be true, even if it is not.

AS far as other Ambrose works, I have not read most of the ones you cited, although I have read several of his books, and they turned me off enough that I am no longer interested in investing any more of my very limited reading budget (time, not money) on his works when there is so much sitting on my shelf waiting for me.

If you liked "A Bridge Too Far" I cannot stress enough that you should read "It never Snows in September". I think it is the single best one volume account of the Market Garden campaign. It is told from the German perspective, and it opens up an entire new window into the campaign. One of my very favorite WW2 history books.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1885119313/o/qid=975630693/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/103-5459933-8488650

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

Terence -

I don't believe anyone is attacking you personally for liking Ambrose. It's your time and money, you should read whomever you like. However, do realize that Ambrose is, in my opinion and in that of others, at best not to be taken at face value. He simply gets too much wrong. I don't have any of his books in front of me, and so cannot quote them, but I believe quite adequate evidence of his failings has been shown, and I don't really want to belabor the point any further.

As for a suggested reading list, I'd add as well

B.H. Liddell Hart. History of the Second World War

Winston Churchill The Second World War An excellent prime source. Of course, Churchill's view of the war is hardly unbiased, and is flawed in that the books were written before Ultra was declassified.

John Erickson The Road to Stalingrad and The Road to Berlin Primarily a look at the war from the Russian POV. Excellent.

John Keegan The Second World War and Six Armies in Normandy. British bias, but his facts are (as far as I can tell) correct, and he's quite readable.

Russell Weighley Eisenhower's Lieutenants

Michael Doubler Closing with the Enemy

Dwight Eisenhower Crusade in Europe

In addition, Guderian, Manstein, and IIRC Paulus have all had their memoirs translated into English. All are worth reading.

There are more, of course, but these are all that spring to mind.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Terence]

Thank you Jeff. I certainly will try to find that book.

Yes, that is a motley collection of books. Some I read for beautiful use of language, some for the ring of military authenticity, and some for the pace of the narrative.

The best have all three. And since i don't design military simulations, it matters little to me what kind of gun the Panther carried. (if you told me it was an 88, I'd happily walk off believing it and probably repeat it in a knowing tone at a cocktail party.)

Althought let it be known : I'm VERY happy that BTS cares about all that stuff, and I wish them every success.

As far as Ambrose is concerned, we may have to agree to disagree. I've been posting on bulletin boards and similar systems since since 1989, I never step away from a discussion or a disagreement and have yet to change anyone's mind about anything. Ever

In that sense, at least, I have a perfect record.

All the best to you, sir.

Terence

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

But the problem is that there is no substitute for taking 8 semesters worth of courses on WWII compared to the average 2 weeks or so that most kids get in their primary schools.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 weeks! I WISH we had 2 weeks for WW2 in any history class I ever took, usually my history classes went like this:

"blah blah Ancient Greece blah blah"

"blah blah Early Europe blah blah"

"blah blah Discover America blah blah"

*Mideterm*

"blah blah 1776 blah blah"

"blah blah kill all the indians blah blah"

"blah blah Civil War blah blah"

"blah blah Cold War blah blah"

*Final*

Never did I receive more than 1 day (if that, usually a casual mention that WW2 happened) of anything to do about WW2. In my "History of American Involvment in the 20th Century" class in College, WW2 was prominetly featured in the text book.. the professor skipped the whole kit and kaboodle.

So don't deride your 2 weeks of WW2 history it is much more than some of us got

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

May be it is in the US since primacy is still attached to culture as the core concept, insomuch as the US form of anthropology is separated into Biological, Archaeological, Cultural anthropology, (there is one other which I always forget making it a 4 school discipline) as opposed to the neboules form of ‘British’ Social Anthropology which is holding on in its ‘original’ form in only one University which still follows its precepts of studying ‘social relations’. (Massy) I would certainly not call the wide and nascent fields of visual or urban anthropology within Social Anthropology or with the critics of post-modernist though and the attempts at the rejection of culture as a primary paradigm, and its actual validity, as in a rut. But I’m not really that familiar with ‘American’ Cultural anthropology other than passing contact with its New Zealand forms in the university of Auckland. The problem with having Culture as the core or central pillar of anthropology makes things a bit sticky in that questioning its validity means questioning anthropologies validity. Most of this is a bit of rambling, why do you think anthros in a rut? You can email me if you prefer.

Regards Keay<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they are in a rut because much of their research in the field has failed to come up with an answer to an answer to the difficulties of the Rashoman Effect (see the article by Karl Heider) making the field dependent on descriptive rather than predictive science, and that descriptive science highly attached to areas of thinking in which the cognitive dissonance is so think no meeting of minds is ever likely to be found.

That said -- I think much of the work in physical anthropology related to gene mapping, and a lot of the primate studies are not in a rut, I think they no longer belong in anthropology but history, as does archeology. Social and cultural though is devolving into a quagmire of mudslinging and politics, with their work being duplicated (better) by sociology, criminology, communications, and even poly sci researchers.