Why American squads "penalized"?

[Terence]

Anthro in a rut?

Because every discussion of ethnography dissolves in a burst of post modernist static? Thank you Foucault!

And after that, the ruins are picked over by

epistemologists. who ask "What does it mean to "know" something.

At which time, there is No Hope.

albest,

Terence

[Slapdragon]

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

Jeff is 100% right about this. New Orleans is not a bastion of historical insight. Compared to Historicans like Jack Stroup and Marcia Synnott at my own University (known mostly for its heavy hitting scholarship on the Civil War, with the University of Tennessee probably the best instiution for that) he really ranks down about 500 slots. For serious academics, he is not heavy duty.

He does, however, write easy to understand books that are popular. When someone says to me, "What book should I start with", I would say Ambrose in a second. He is good at looking at the forest and calling it green, even if he screws up his plant identification from time to time. One of his books is on my suggested reading list for college honors students. And, unlike Stroup, who is a great historian, people have heard of him. The "big time" historians who are at the biggest universities write books like: "Analysis of 3rd Army Campaigns, 1944-1945: the Battalion Commanders", "When the odd were even, the Vogses Mountains campaign", and "Eisenhowers Lieutenants" each of which is a great book, but each of which is a bit heavy going unless you have the time to take 8 WW2 history courses in college.

[Slapdragon]

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

Anthro in a rut?

Because every discussion of ethnography dissolves in a burst of post modernist static? Thank you Foucault!

And after that, the ruins are picked over by

epistemologists. who ask "What does it mean to "know" something.

At which time, there is No Hope.

albest,

Terence

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't blame Foucault monsiegnor Terrence, post modernism and Foucault just opened our eyes to the reality of viscous memes and a true difficulty in finding the golden mean. I blame research methods that allow four anthropologists to watch the same event and write four different and contradictory accounts of it that cannot be logically rationalized, even if the actors at Rashoman Gate did it for the finale, and even if the worthy Karl Heider thinks that it can be done (a la balancing Mead - Freeman when a journalist asked several islanders their opinions of that debate and got and answer, "they are all full of sh-t".)

Historians are surviving and benifiting from Foucault by understanding Social Construction of Reality without even getting stuck in arguements about prison towers and all seeing eyes. At some point though you are right about cultural anthropology, it needs to take less Foucault and start breaking those Xanax pills in half.

[Guy w/gun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sadly this is true. Yet some professors choose to base their work from smaller universities (like U.T.S.A.) to take advantage of the small classes and teach.

I feel this is the most important part of being a professor, not the reaserch.

I have a Geology professor who is world renown. When ever a Volcano erupts some where in the world, he usually gets a call. When he's not teaching, he's usually in some far off place studying Volcanos.He bases his work at U.T.S.A. for the reasons i previously stated.

[Guest wwb_99]

I did start the whole school thing, and it is only fair I point something out: New Orleans is an extremely pleasant place to live. Cheap, great food, good weather, wine, women & song, etc. Many come to the city and just can't leave, and I wish I could go back.

So, If anyone you know is hiring Network Administratiors in NO let me know, please. Its only December and winter is already too much, and I am going to miss Party Gras.

WWB

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

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Bimmer]

Before this thread disappears I thought I'd offer a few other reading recommendations, in no particular order:

GENERAL WWII

The Second World War, Keegan - An excellent overview text that provides a fine starting piont for those with little WWII background.

A World at Arms, Weinberg - More detail, deeper analysis, and clearly a more modern book, moderity having both good and bad points.

TECHNOLOGY/DOCTRINE

Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, Murray and Millett, eds. - Brilliant essay collection covering a wide range of technical developments between the wars that had direct impact on the course of the Second World War.

The Roots of Blitzkrieg, Corum - Perhaps the best book I've read about the development of Wehrmacht (and Reichswehr) doctrine and structure. Absolutely a must-read for any serious student of German military operations.

Luftwaffe, Corum - An equally good book about the Luftwaffe's development. See also The Luftwaffe, 1933-45, Murray, for a good wartime account.

CAMPAIGNS

Hitler's Panzer's East, Stolfi - A controversial argument about Barbarossa and its failure. Compelling arguments that Hitler's meddling allowed the Russians to survive into the winter of 1941.

Steel Inferno, Reynolds - Very good account of 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. I used this as a guide during my trip to France this summer.

NON-WWII SPECIFIC

Blackhawk Down, Bowden - Somalia. A journalistic work but does a very good job of imparting understanding of war at its most visceral.

This Kind of War, Fehrenbach - Korean War. A classic account of the war from someone who was there. A book that makes you think.