I liked Margery Kempe too, but definitely remember the smack across the head feeling. I think I'm glad to be so removed from her. There's something pleasantly voyeuristic about reading first-person narratives from a time that's long gone. Which reminds me of the ongoing relationship I've had with Samuel Pepys, whose writing I always enjoy in little snippets, and who I'm sure would seem completely ridiculous if I met him in real life.

I'm sure if I actually met Margery Kempe I'd want to smack her across the back of the head. But she's loads of fun to read about. And I kind of admire her determination to have some fun no matter what obstacles are placed before her. Kind of like a weed coming up through the sidewalk.

*snort*

If visions would get her on Oprah you can better bet she'd have visions.

Margery Kempe was a blast to read. Whining her way through the Middle Ages with her visions, and her various committments. But you know, she had 14 children, and so does the OctoMom. You don't think she's going to Margery Kempe of our time do you. I'll bet she has visions!

As you say its kind of hard to accurately assess oneself or the events one takes part in because you're just too close to it to have much perspective. For a reasonably balanced assessment of a particular historical figure and their influence I do prefer biographies. But autobiographies can be great for conveying a sense of what it was like to be there in that time and place. I like first person accounts very much.

I have some letters and diaries by a several greats grandmother about her family experience traveling west in a covered wagon and homesteading, and I treasure those. I've really enjoyed reading other first person accounts too, accounts of women who were captured and adopted into Indian tribes or slave narratives, all sorts. The Book of Margery Kempe - which is a very early autobiography by an 15th century brewery owner is anything but measured or balanced, but oh I do love it.

I like Jean H. Baker's political biographies, like Mary Todd Lincoln A Biography. And Taylor Branch's Parting the Waters Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement 1954-63 -- the whole trilogy, really.

I was lucky enough to have both of them as professors.

Anything by Ellis and McCullough are worth reading, also Goodwin's Team of Rivals was terrific as was MacPhersons Tested By Fire (Abe Lincoln as a war president)

I enjoyed Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis and David McCullough's book on John Adams!

Nice Work there on the Paris Abraham, RA!!!

Do you prefer political biographies to autobiographies? I've certainly read more of them. I think the nature of an autobiography is in some ways self-serving. You can't help but put yourself in a good light, and as much as you try to see other perspectives, ultimately the one you write from is still your own. In some cases, that's a good thing.
A biography by someone else, on the other hand, generally has a little more perspective and context to offer. What it loses in "I was there" it makes up in other ways.

Wendy - I totally agree.

I am not saying all politicians write for the same reasons nor that some are not gifted writers or good historians. I am simply saying that many (not ALL) feel impelled to write for utilitarian reasons that have to do with their sense of their own reputation, of "setting the record straight". I think Churchill's words are telling and do not counter your contention about his abilities ...nor mine about common political motivations!

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
Winston Churchill

Wendy,

While I generally concur with this, I'd like to respectfully submit Winston Churchill as an exception to your rule. I think he was a very good writer and an able historian.

Alice,
Now that you have withdrawn your post, I will withdraw mine. I hope that you also did not think it was an accurate portrayal of Obama either.

Back to discussion of books written by politicians....Some are in fact distinctly unmemorable.
I think many a book is written by a politician to counter stingingly misleading or inaccurage books that are written about them...or as a "preemptive" statement to prevent their "legacy" or lives being misconstrued. Many are simple narratives of events they participated in and observed. Rather than display a particular gift for writing or philosophical insight ...they just get the job done of reporting. Therefore, they are utilitarian and of no particular literary value but arguably of historical value.

Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "Yes, my question to Alice is "What's your point?" So you can draw parallels between Obama and Hitler, okay, and...

Is this a discussion about propaganda? About Hitler? About what makes an effect..."

No idea what we are discussing! I just thought it was an interesting email.

Wendy wrote: "Maybe she can explain THAT.
"

Actually I can't! I got that from a friend and never thought it was Hitler. I actually know very little about him. I didn't mean to incite everyone.

Bruce wrote: "I'm not a fan of these books either. As to Jackie's Whyyyyyyyyyyy to the heavens, I might suggest the following. The voters in Illinois have elected governors that ended up going to prison consis..."

That is very interesting! I didn't realize that altho I always tend to think of Chicago as a crooked place but also LA too. However, they now have a super honest governor from what I recently heard.

Exactly.

Exactly. When a person sets out to prove how A and B are alike, they usually overlook evidence that would disprove their point.

I agree with Christy that studying history is useful so as to attempt to learn from our mistakes and not to repeat them. To do that we must actually study history, analyze the facts that we can determine and understand the context and relationship of them to outcomes. Then we must ACCURATELY compare our current situation to historical ones in order to assess the relevance of the "lessons" or "outcomes" in making decisions, adopting policies today, predicated upon some commonalities (like human nature) but also factoring in differences (technology, culture,social institutions etc).
Too often a facile comparison is made that is based on a myth about what happened in the past (homosexuality and licentious behavior caused the fall of the Roman empire) and not on a study of history. Or, as in this case, a contrived comparison based on correlation of random facts (and even those not accurate)!

Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "I've seen both those theories proved again and again. But NOT ALWAYS! There are exceptions, so don't give up. Hitler and poop are not inevitable."

Uh, Hitler may not be, but surely poop, at some fundamental level, is.

Ko, I am amazed that there is a Godwin's Law. That is just perfect. Thank you for sharing it. Christy, I don't mean to suggest that its never appropriate to make comparisons to oppressive regimes. But as noted by Godwin, (oh yea, a citation) it never helps the argument to make a comparison to Nazi's. It's just too overdone. The level of evil they embodied is such that you gotta be really careful to make that particular connection. Unless of course, you are talking specifically about things like genocide, or concentration camps. And yeah, most of the Patriot Act was insane.

Ko wrote: "RA, do you mean Godwin's Law?

...and Jackie, why is it's almost impossible to find dark chocolate coconut cream eggs anymore? "

I hear your pain. It's the marketplace, Ko. More people prefer milk chocolate, and because of economies of scale, that's what the producers produce. There is no other excuse for Hershey's.

You know, I don't MAKE the stuff (except for the eggs, of course) I just deliver it.

Yeah, that's it, Ko!:)

I've seen both those theories proved again and again. But NOT ALWAYS! There are exceptions, so don't give up. Hitler and poop are not inevitable.

I've maintained a personal theory that any conversation will eventually turn to either poop or cannibalism. Or in some disturbing instances, both.

Wasn't it Logan who provided a link about all internet arguments eventually leading to Hitler comparisons? That was kind of funny.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say making comparisons to oppressive regimes is necessarily “off the deep end,” but you’re right that most of the time those comparisons are unfounded. I for one have been known to make “alarmist” statements about the Patriot Act, for example, but I think my claims were legitimate. If studying history is useful for any purpose, it is so we may learn from our mistakes and be careful not to repeat them. To that end, I think it is reasonable to note comparisons and in the event that the similarities are alarming or uncanny use it as a prompt to pause and consider very carefully where we are headed. It would be foolish to claim that we could never have a repeat of Hitler in some form or another (which I worry some people truly believe), but it is irresponsible to describe anything one dislikes as Hitleresque. And it sounds like most of us agree that the post in question did not present a strong argument.

Just make sure you don't confuse your costume with, uh, different types of bunnies...

Jackie

Given that Easter is coming, I think I should point out that I REALLY REALLY love those malted milk easter eggs. Oh puhleeeeeezzzzzz

I AM the Easter Bunny, though. That part is true.

Wendy wrote: I think the message is that the unexamined hoax post is not worth repeating to others if you cant take responsibility for its content.

..."

AMEN TO THAT

This person was born in February, is over 5ft 7 tall, often wore black, and was well known in America, on the tongues of anyone in this person's time.

PARIS HILTON

Who were you thinking of?

Hitler was baptized Catholic, went to a monastary school and for a time wanted to become a priest. He obviously did not, as claimed, practiced another religion before converting to Christianity.

Also, Hitler's father did not abandon him, his mother did not die of cancer, etc etc. etc.
Fascinatingly inaccurate!

I think the message is that the unexamined hoax post is not worth repeating to others if you cant take responsibility for its content.

Jackie, it should probably just become the group motto.

I'm of the opinion that any time any one tries to say someone of the other political party is like (a Nazi, a storm trooper, Hitler) they've just leapt off the deep end and it never ever serves them. And Bun, I had the same response. I couldn't figure out anything rational to say in response to the first post because 1. It is just so brainless and 2. I couldn't figure out what the point was of putting it here. Does the poster agree, or is she saying its stupid, or what? And, I really hate name calling in political discourse, there is just too much of it going on.

So, your Angelina Jolies long lost twin huh? Who knew?

Didn't we talk about this already in another thread, that correlation is not causation?

Okay....
Abraham Lincoln and Paris Hilton, and... GO!

I think with a little time I could make connections between any two historical figures.

Like, say, Jackie and the Easter Bunny.

And she likes CHOCOLATE, too, and she's been known to hop, and yes, she might even give people the occasional PEEP.

WHO WERE YOU THINKING OF?

Oh the whole thing is stupid from start to finish. Its a misrepresentation of the facts of Hitler's life, its a misrepresentation of the facts of Obama's life its larded with emotional adjectives and assumptive judgements. Not to mention that the entire premise is nonsensical. Angelina Jolie and I both have divorced parents and were rebellious as teenagers and have dark hair and eat toast - and yet oddly no one is offering me millions of dollars to star in movies. I just can't work it out.

Edit: Also what Jackie said.

Yes, my question to Alice is "What's your point?" So you can draw parallels between Obama and Hitler, okay, and...

Is this a discussion about propaganda? About Hitler? About what makes an effective leader, regardless of what they do with their position?

Or is this a discussion about junk mail and getting people to stop sending it to you?

What are we discussing here, Alice?

EXACTLY.
However,I note that Obama's current approval rating is well over 75% and that most people surveyed do not blame his administration but rather the previous administration for the incredible problems our country has at present..
It might be amusing to analyze instead the inaccuracy of the portrait of Hitler's life so as to highlight how it too was misrepresented in that silly story.
Hitler was born in Austria...as were both of his parents..in contradiction to the story..as a starter!

And now this discussion seems to have produced an ad that says "do you regret having voting for Obama?" Ack~!

Maybe she can explain THAT.

Well and all Alice says is that she found it fascinating. That could mean she found it to be insightful, or ridiculous, or bizarre - who knows what fascinating means? I still don't see the point of posting it but there y'are.

I just modified it somewhat, realizing that the poster COULD have been fooled by a "hoax" fax and missed the obvious smear.

I admit that it infuriated me. I would have prefered to send the poster a message thru goodreads rather than posting but when I tried, the GoodReads response was that the person did not accept messages so I was left with posting or ignoring.

I think the first of the two is inflammatory, and the second responds by becoming inflamed. I agree that neither one is a stellar example of reasoned debate. I do have to say on Wendy's behalf that its hard not to get mad when confronted by something like that. I considered posting a response to the Hitler thing several times and was not yet able to manage anything more reasoned or judicious than, 'what a pile of crap'.

Its a perennial problem. How do you respond to something that looks more like an incitement than a real attempt to advance the discussion? If you don't respond you let it stand unchallenged, if you do respond you run the risk of being drawn into a pointless shouting match. Then there's always the possiblity that it isn't an intentional incitement but some sort of weird miscommunication.

Sometimes I'm having a low energy moment and can't do more than blink and go elsewhere.

You know guys, I'm sorry, but I found both of these posts to be offensive. The one that references Hitler is full of the kind of half truths that the far right tried use in the election. The other falls back on vituperative name calling which both sides are guilty of. Neither moves the thread, or intelligent political discussion forward in any way. I expect better from this group.

I think people underestimate the value of their own lived experiences - which is often the most interesting thing they have to say. I'm reading Things I've Been Silent About and its strongest for me when she talks about the plants that grew in her father's garden, or the stores where her mother bought coffee and chocolate.