Paul Johnson and I have a history. Well actually we have two histories. And they don't always match. Early on in the school year, I was assigned to read A History of the American People for AmCon, and it has been a trying experience ever since. I have sarcastically referred to him as "fellow scholar Paul Johnson" and even several times completely skipped reading the assigned sections of his books. Was it noticeable? Hardly. When it comes to hypothesizing what the esteemed Mr. Johnson has to say on a subject, the process is usually as follows:
Q. Does it have to do with a founding father or major Christian religious figure?
A. You'll usually find a glowing review of the character of the individual, with little about the events that actually took place. (See Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Winthrop)
Q. Does it have to do with anything in contrast with the modern conservative ideology?
A. Look in Zinn. You'll probably find very little or else Johnson has conveniently erased it from history.
Q. Will what I'm looking for be discussed (if it is discussed; see second question) in an objective, fair, and rational manner?
A. Probably not. Johnson's religious schooling (Note: not necessarily a bad thing; one of the few things Pauly and I have in common.) seems to have blinded him and left him unable to remain even somewhat objective in his sweeping prose.
Of course there are exceptions to these broad generalizations, which is why I continue to read on in Mr. Johnson's history. Hopefully, it will allow me to better refine mine.
On a more positive note, I did enjoy his linking of the Second Great Awakening and the birth of the modern cereal industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment