David Barton - The Poll

He is middle of the road, he paints much from his point of view as so many of our history writers seem to do. Take a point of time in history and get twenty or so history books and you will get anywhere from five to twenty or so different views of that time frame. Take lets say WW ll,and look up twenty or so newspapers on pre war or something in the war and read the difference from many of the papers. I had a history professor who said most history is taking someone else opinion on what happen and he was there either.

 

Salty, just to give you a little background about where I'm coming from, I have two grad degrees in history and taught history at both the high school and college levels for several years. I love history and take it very seriously.

Most of what Barton says is accurate, in the strict sense. But the problem is that he tends to pick and choose. He goes looks at history like MSNBC practices journalism: he states his ideology and then sets out to prove it.

It's not his facts I disagree with, but his scholarship and methodology.

I guess you could say that he is to historical scholarship what Thomas Kincade is to art.

I like the guy and I even have a couple of his books. As a commentator on the Christian role in the founding and shaping of America, I think he's great. As an historian, I give him a C.

 

>I guess you could say that he is to historical scholarship what Thomas Kincade is to art.

THAT BAD?

 

Don't know anything about him.

Couldn't care less.

 

Not bad, necessarily, just a little cheesy and shallow.

 

Wow, what helpful insight!

Barton is more off-base than an Andy Pettitte pickoff victim. He should be completely disregarded.