Stephen Ambrose: To America

[alchemize]

Just curious if anyone has read this book? Probably not many in here from my experience with this forum (too busy reading the comic books and musings of Michael Moore) but who knows?

I thought the one weakness was how he really didn't analyze 9/11 at all, just basically left it at "we are Americans, we will prevail" (which we will). In it he mentions several books as what he considers "the best book on X history" that I'll have to check out also

Its too bad this great author has passed on...he really did an excellent job bringing history to a readable level. Too bad also he was writing this while sick, it really shows in its briefness and shortcomings, but overall I liked the book for its perspective on many of the people and events.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just curious if anyone has read this book? Probably not many in here from my experience with this forum (too busy reading the comic books and musings of Michael Moore) but who knows?

I thought the one weakness was how he really didn't analyze 9/11 at all, just basically left it at "we are Americans, we will prevail" (which we will). In it he mentions several books as what he considers "the best book on X history" that I'll have to check out also

Its too bad this great author has passed on...he really did an excellent job bringing history to a readable level. Too bad also he was writing this while sick, it really shows in its briefness and shortcomings, but overall I liked the book for its perspective on many of the people and events.

My only experience with Stephen Ambrose's work was the HBO Miniseries Band of Brothers. That series was incredible. Its a great DVD set to own too. I would defenitely like to read some of his work.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ambrose is dead . . . that sux . . . he was easily the most erudite "rah, rah America" writer in print. I haven't read any of his books . . . but I've seen several interviews on C-SPAN.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Ambrose is dead . . . that sux . . . he was easily the most erudite "rah, rah America" writer in print. I haven't read any of his books . . . but I've seen several interviews on C-SPAN.

Band of Brothers was amazing, but I agree with the "rah, rah America" in his interviews.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Ambrose is dead . . . that sux . . . he was easily the most erudite "rah, rah America" writer in print. I haven't read any of his books . . . but I've seen several interviews on C-SPAN.

Band of Brothers was amazing, but I agree with the "rah, rah America" in his interviews.

There's got to be some "rah rah America" writers out there. I hope that's not considered a fault.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There's got to be some "rah rah America" writers out there. I hope that's not considered a fault.

Ambrose managed it with more intellectual credibility than 99% of the "rah, rah America" writers that I have come across. During his last interview (I presume) on C-SPAN, Ambrose typically presented wonderfully salient commentary on a variety of issues. His only foible was that every criticism he made of US foreign policy was either quickly followed by a counterpoint or an aside implying (paraphrase) . . . "yes that was bad or wrong but others were worse."

My personal take on Ambrose is the message that the Middle East is a disaster and many American ideas for improvement have merit. That's not the same as saying the Middle East is a disaster and America can fix it.

Ambrose is a great loss it's a shame neo-cons' half-baked ideas have been leeching off of quality prose from Ambrose.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Show me somebody that doesn't leech off of anything that remotely agrees with them. LOL

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Stephen Ambrose

 

[alchemize]

If you'd *seen* band of brothers, then read it. Then read citizen soldier, then head down the line with the rest of his books. He really is amazing.

He might be "rah rah" America, but you'll understand by studying history and his writings that he is so for darn good reason.

Don't ever lump him as a right-winger either. He protested Vietnam, but supports to the core WW2, N. Korea, the cold war and Iraq. He hated Nixon (but eventually came to some grudging respect for him). In fact, Nixon even called him "just another left-wing historian".

As for this:

His only foible was that every criticism he made of US foreign policy was either quickly followed by a counterpoint or an aside implying (paraphrase) . . . "yes that was bad or wrong but others were worse."

That's what he does, he's a historian and he puts things in perspective!

And if he wasn't a chain smoking fiend he'd still be around today :|

P.S. I've read 'Stupid White Men' also. Or tried to...

 

[Jadow]

Its too bad this great author has passed on

when he wasn't plagorizing other people's work.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Its too bad this great author has passed on

when he wasn't plagorizing other people's work.

Oh please...the man has probably quoted 15,000 sources in his life. He wrote 25 books, and had a habit of not using quotation marks where he instead footnoted.

Read his very excellent defense

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

He might be "rah rah" America, but you'll understand by studying history and his writings that he is so for darn good reason.

Everyone is rah rah "blank" b/c of their ideological bias. I'm a great student of history . . . that's why I consider the American Revolution just as much an economical protest as a "freedom/liberty" one, that's why I consider Manifest Destiny an excuse to exterminate indigenous people and invade sovereign territory (Mexican territories), that's why the War of Northern Aggression was not about freeing the slaves . . . I can go on if you like . . .

Stephen Ambrose was a great historian but his adopted nation's goodness ALWAYS trumped profound evils. He was far more intellectually honest than many others . . . a trait sorely lacking in too many alleged "intellectual" environs on the political left AND right.

That's what he does, he's a historian and he puts things in perspective!

Yes and no. If you put events into context but only consider one POV . . . then you are still presenting a distorted view of history. For instance:

GWBush volunteered to serve in the TX Air National Guard after graduating from Yale. He trained/served as a F-102 pilot and then resumed his education at the Harvard School of Business in 1973. Although many other young men of prominence did not serve during the Vietnam error by pure subterfuge (Bill Clinton), specious academic deferrments (check the ChickenHawk Database), or ridiculous exemptions (Hastert, Limbaugh) . . . Bush demonstrated a commitment to his country and continued education.

Bush can scarcely remember ANY discussion he had during college about the Vietnam War. He was denied admission to the Texas School of Law. Subsequently, he received a coveted position in the TX Air National Guard despite a mediocre record of achievement. During his part-time commitment he worked in various locations including training as a fighter pilot. He was otherwise unemployed throughout much of his association with the Guard. Curiously, through a period of more than a year, Bush recorded NO verifiable activity with the guard and he states that he doesn't remember what he was doing.

Do you see my point? History should be just a collection of pertinent events and their context . . . but everyone has a selective memory. It is only through the use of multiple POV that you can approach the semblance of truth.

Ambrose did it better than most . . . that's why it is such a shame that weaker minds "typical neo-con" have adopted his work as justification for their plots.