Comments on: Shining city on a hill

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:54:06 +0000

Children, children …. Genuinely enlightening discussion in this thread has clearly come to an end, and neither of you is going to respect my plea to take your bickering elsewhere, and I’m not going to get drawn in to a discussion of who started it. So I’m closing the thread to further comments.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:24:00 +0000

Goodness, swearing. Or almost swearing. What a very hard little boy.(Brief textual note to non-native-speakers of English: Dick is a man’s name-short for Richard- and also a slang word meaning ‘penis’, or more generally ‘dislikeable person’.It’s not especially rude, but seven-year-olds think it is shockingly so.) You defended these sentences by Carolus:’‘MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century. And much of what he didn’t plagiarize, he got ghost-written.’ You said this of Carolus’s statement: ‘’ in fact, it is true… a comment whose substance turned out, in fact, to be true…his comment is true… I just happened to know it was true on independent grounds(what independent grounds, fool?)….Carolus was right in that King had plagiarised a very large part of his dissertation.’ The book review Carolus linked to made specific claims about King’s thesis, the claim that Carolus made and that you defended did not and is untrue. Pappas’s book is not accepted at all within the scholarly community for its treatment of King’s speeches and overall career; as to the review’s rhetoric about no-one accepting King’s plagiarism, the official King archives were actually the first to detect that King’s thesis was largely plagiarised, and this is accepted by all serious scholars. If I say, for example, that person x wrote 18 books, and then link to an article in which it is established that person x wrote 1 book, I have not thereby provided evidence for my original claim. Just to remind you of what you would love to forget, you described as ‘true’ a claim that ‘MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century.’ Carolus linking to one book review neither proves that claim (since the consensus of scholarly opinion is that it is untrue) . Nor does linking to that review limit Carolus’s plagiarism claim to MLK’s thesis -since, as the review makes clear to anyone with basic literacy, a category excluding yourself, the Tom Pappas book reviewed deals with far more than just King’s thesis, and asserts plagiarism in the speeches by King, which assertion has generally not been accepted by scholars who have studied the question. Now can you understand that, or do I need to put caps lock on and type in lots of swearwords? (The ‘F’ word! And in capitals! Oooh, how hard. And how convincing an argument. You sound like a rough, tough sort of fellow, too frightening for me. You should become a paratrooper, you know.) I asked you to ‘disprove my claim that the Carolus statement you defend is a) untrue and b)contrary to your claims contains no reference to King’s thesis but instead is a general characterisation of King as ‘one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century’. And you can’t. You are indeed a clown and an ignoramus. I leave open the question of whether this is forgiveable in the light of the fact that you are clearly also a schoolboy eagerly awaiting his eighth birthday.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:45:34 +0000

Well, he started it. Anyway, it’s more fun to insult people in public.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:21:57 +0000

Dan, Jimmy, I love you both dearly…. how about pursuing this further by private emails to one another?

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:01:11 +0000

“Please point me to one (1) phrase or sentence where Carolus objects specifically to King’s plagiarism in his thesis, or limits his claim to King’s college studies. He doesn’t, does he, clown?” Well now, Dick (you don’t mind if I call you Dick? I know you’re name’s Dan, but… it just seems more appropriate, somehow), Carolus’s post doesn’t say anything at all about the nature of MLK’s plagiarism, but, you see, Dick, it does contain a link to a book review, which identifies the plagiarism, and notes that it includes much of his dissertation. Dick. You see. And the first thing I said on the subject, Dick, was in response to Dsquared: “Your fallacy wouldn’t really matter if what Carolus said was ignorable, in the way that characteristically racist sayings are ignorable. But it is not ignorable; in fact, it is true: Martin Luther King Jr’s Ph D dissertation was largely plagiarised.” When I said “it is true:…”, I meant “it’s true that…”; that is, I wasn’t claiming that everything Carolus had said was true. And it was pretty clear, Dick, which bit of what Carolus said I was characterising as true: the general claim (which I admit Carolus expressed hyperbolically) that MLK was a plagiarist, with particular reference to the fact, as stated in the review to which Carolus linked, that HE PLAGIARISED MUCH OF HIS FUCKING DISSERTATION. If you came away with the impression that I was endorsing anything more than this, Dick, then you’re a fool and an ignoramus, Dick. And you’re still denying, on no evidence, Dick, that I’ve read the relevant material on the Monticello webpage. Since you’re clearly proud of your credentials as a real, proper, historian, Dick, who “reads primary and secondary sources before shooting (your) mouth off on historical subjects,” this lack of evidence still makes you a fool and a hypocrite, Dick. You can send the $50 to your nearest retirement home for clapped-out historians.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:58:30 +0000

I’m busy now, but I’ll be back at a computer terminal around 8pm. If Jimmy Doyle can provide evidence that Carolus’s statement was, as he says, ‘true’ and/or a specific claim limited to King’s college thesis, £50 will be on its way to Bristol University’s Philosophy Department, thence to be sent to whichever charity Jimmmy favours. That statement is, for the umpteenth time: ‘MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century. And much of what he didn’t plagiarize, he got ghost-written.’ ‘True’? Specific references to MLK’s thesis? Hmmm… Lotsa luck, Jimmy.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:34:34 +0000

Okay, clown, put up or shut up. I’ll send £50 to a charity of your choice if you can prove that Carolus was right because ‘I meant that Carolus was right in that King had plagiarised a very large part of his dissertation. I thought that it was obvious that this is what I meant.’ Carolus said the following, and it was this statement that you were defending as ‘true’:’MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century. And much of what he didn’t plagiarize, he got ghost-written.’ That’s two sentences. I have copied and pasted this several times into my own posts, just to remind you. I have read and re-read those two sentences. Please point me to one (1) phrase or sentence where Carolus objects specifically to King’s plagiarism in his thesis, or limits his claim to King’s college studies. He doesn’t, does he, clown? He says- and this is now the fourth time at least that I’ve reproduced his statement- ‘MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century. And much of what he didn’t plagiarize, he got ghost-written. ’ Nothing about theses. No limited claim. Just lies and hyperbole. As to Monticello, you say ‘Monticello is not a “museum.” It is the house that Jefferson built and lived in, now open to the public, and run by very knowledgeable people.’ It is indeed those things; it is also a ‘museum’, or even a museum without the scare quotes; and it is also the leading centre for archival research into Jefferson’s life. Which is why I posted a link to Monticello’s webpage concerning the Sally Hemings controversy, which- if you will trouble yourself to read the relevant page- contains links to all the most relevant recent scholarship, wherein the overwhelming consensus is that Jefferson cannot be said to, and almost certainly did not, father a child with Sally Hemings.And you haven’t read those papers- collected by the Monticello people, based on research largely conducted at Monticello, because, er, Monticello (meaning your visit there) is more trustworthy than Monticello (meaning the scholarly papers that the Monticello trustees and scholars have published). You’re a proper fool, aren’t you? But as I say, disprove my claim that the Carolus statement you defend is a) untrue and b)contrary to your claims contains no reference to King’s thesis but instead is a general characterisation of King as ‘one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century’. King wasn’t, that statement isn’t true, Carolus said nothing in his original statement about King’s thesis- you’re a fool. And an ignoramus. But £50 to charity if you can prove otherwise.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:19:48 +0000

I meant that Carolus was right in that King had plagiarised a very large part of his dissertation. I thought that it was obvious that this is what I meant. As a ground for calling me a historical ignoramus, this is mere “verbiage,” as you would say. Plagiarism in speeches is obviously a far less serious matter; I wasn’t concerned about that. So your comments about Churchill are irrelevant. “I even helpfully appended a link to the Monticello museum’s webpage, which has further links to around two dozen scholarly papers supporting this view. Doyle has refused to read this, on the grounds that he visited the Monticello museum and the guides there told him something different. I’d like to say I was making this up, but I’m not. He really is that much of a fool.” There is nothing in what I have said to support your claim that I have refused to read the papers you linked to. It is therefore false that you are “someone who reads primary and secondary sources before shooting (your) mouth off on historical subjects.” You are a fool and a hypocrite. Monticello is not a “museum.” It is the house that Jefferson built and lived in, now open to the public, and run by very knowledgeable people. It was not irrational of me to regard what I learnt there as highly probable. Your comparison with going to Athens to find out about Plato is absurd. I await your next inadvertent self-embarrassment with interest.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:55:48 +0000

Right, one last time to stomp on this clown and then I really do have to grapple with the Fulton, Missouri speech. Carolus’s original statement:‘MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century.’ Jimmy Doyle’s characterisations of this statement: ’ in fact, it is true…a comment whose substance turned out, in fact, to be true…his comment is true…I just happened to know it was true on independent grounds. ’ (What, by the way, are these ‘independent grounds’? Certainly not the scholarship of anyone involved in research on King, since they have carefully pointed out both the existence of and the limits to King’s plagiarism. Does Doyle hear voices in the air? Or was this a kinda-sorta memory of part of a TV documentary? I suspect the latter.) Facts of the matter: anyone calling King ‘one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century’ is engaging in gross hyperbole. King’s term papers and college thesis show considerable evidence of plagiarism. King’s speeches, for which he is most famous, show evidence of occasional plagiarism, and frequent paraphrasing, quotation, rephrasing and reworking of phrases from sources as diverse as the Bible, hymns and spirituals, the speeches of Lincoln, poems, etc. As someone who is currently editing the speeches of Winston Churchill for DVD publication, allow me to inform Mr Doyle that Churchill was at least as much of a paraphraser, rephraser and quoter as King, and so indeed was Lincoln. If Doyle reads, say, Churchill’s ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat’ speech, then reads Clemenceau’s speech on becoming French Premier almost a quarter of a century earlier, he will find certain…similarities. Regardless, both speeches are magnificent. Allow me also to assure Doyle, as someone who reads primary and secondary sources before shooting my mouth off on historical subjects, that ‘MLK was one of the greatest plagiarists of the 20th century.’ is not a true statement, unless your definition of ‘true’ is ‘statement compounding hyperbole with lies’. Doyle further objects to my calling him a historical ignoramus.That’s odd, because the description is accurate. He makes false statements and shows no capacity, or even willingness, to read up on the history he pronounces on. He made two historical statements, both entirely unsupported by the historical scholarship: one on the ‘truth’ of a grossly untrue statement about MLK (see above); one on the ‘truth’ of Thomas Jefferson’s parentage of a mixed-race child with a slave mother. ‘Slithy Tove’ and I both noted that the preponderance of DNA specialists and historians who had recently studied this matter had concluded that a member of the Jefferson family had indeed got Sally Hemings pregnant, but that there were 24 candidates besides Jefferson and several of them were adjudged- by people who had done years of research into Jefferson and his milieu- much more likely to be the culprit. I even helpfully appended a link to the Monticello museum’s webpage, which has further links to around two dozen scholarly papers supporting this view. Doyle has refused to read this, on the grounds that he visited the Monticello museum and the guides there told him something different. I’d like to say I was making this up, but I’m not. He really is that much of a fool. And Doyle is a historian of philosophy. Ah well, it must be a pretty easy subject if all the research you have to do is visit a museum or two and then refuse to read the literature. That Plato bloke was no good, Jimmy- I know, I’ve been to Athens.

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:27:26 +0000

Dan Hardie: I believed what I was told at Monticello. So sue me. You say that “(my) attempted defence of the ad hominem accusation is verbiage.” What you mean is that you either weren’t able or weren’t willing to figure out the structure of my argument. Since I’m also an historian of philosophy, I do mind, as a matter of fact, being called an historical ignoramus, especially by someone like you. But I’ll take the fact that you think me “utterly incapable of reasoning” as a compliment. I wasn’t defending the Carolus statement you quote; just his claim that MLK plagiarised most of his dissertation, which no-one has plausibly denied. decnavda: Thanks for the logic lesson. “Prof. Doyle’s error was to assume that all ad hominem arguments are fallacies.” Once again, I am not a Professor (or only in the degraded US sense). Where did I assume this? All I meant was that Dsquared had responded to a claim by trying to discredit the claimant. I do realise that this is sometimes a legitimate tactic. The irony was that in this case it was not, because (to repeat) Carolus’s main claim turned out to be true. Jack: “Did Jimmy Doyle make any attempt to address the wonderfully lucid claims of Daniel’s post or did he make a half baked personal attack on Daniel?” Erm…I conceded, twice, that D2’s explicit argument, for the claim that Carolus was a racist, was perfectly fine. I took issue with the implicit argument, that we could therefore safely ignore what Carolus said. I made no personal attack on Daniel, half-baked or otherwise. “Is there a good reason why he chose Daniel’s comment as an example of ad hominem rather than Carolus or his own?” Yes. Daniel’s comment strongly implied an illegitimately ad hominem argument. I made no ad hominem argement. I wasn’t concerned with engaging with Carolus’s arguments, merely with pointing out the truth of his central claim about MLK. Mona: “I don’t see how even plagiarism and ghost-writing would, if true, invalidate a point about MLK as a moral figure.” I have already conceded this possibility, when I said in response to D2, “Perhaps (the plagiarism) shouldn’t require Chris to modify his judgement that MLK Jr is “one of the greatest moral exemplars of modern times.” I suspect I’ve attracted so much opprobrium over this because we’d all prefer it weren’t true that MLK plagiarised a lot of his Ph D dissertation. If you really want to shoot a messenger, shoot Carolus. He sounds like a racist jerk.

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:58:02 +0000

Nationalism is silly when it is not disturbing, but I do share rich’s irritation with the “We won the war for you” meme. To me, the statement is peculiarly trivial. What does this piece of patriotism actually mean? What else can you say on the basis of it? What follows from it? That we should be grateful? I prefer the parallel question: who suffered to create victory in WW2? That is meaningful because it tells us about a cultural experience which is still deeply embedded in the life of the various communities today, and certainly created the present we are now living through. Australians, who did declare war on Germany in 1939 from far, far away, may be a bit quicker to point out that the US stayed out until after Pearl Harbour. I wonder how the isolationist voting blocs which kept Roosevelt out of the War map onto the Red/Blue states now?

By: mona

mona — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:21:15 +0000

Mr Doyle, I haven’t heard any such claims about MLK before, so I don’t know if they’re true. Consider me biased, but I don’t generally take into account claims from racist and nazi-affiliated sources, and I’m even less inclined to do that when it’s about a leading black public figure in the civil rights movement. If you have more reliable and credible sources… no, on second thoughts, I really don’t care, I don’t see how even plagiarism and ghost-writing would, if true, invalidate a point about MLK as a moral figure. I might have gotten my American history wrong, but I wasn’t taught MLK was a novelist or scientific researcher. And so far I’d never heard anyone criticise a political or religious leader as immoral for not penning 100% of their own material for sermons and speeches. So it sounds like a very bizarre criticism to make to supposedly invalidate the morality of MLK. That’s it, explained in non-sarcastic terms. dsquared, sorry but I’ve got nothing to add to the topic and no apologies to make except for not being on topic.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:14:11 +0000

Chris H, What exactly is wrong with Daniel’s behaviour? I think your post is a far better example of what is wrong with ad hominem attacks because you blur personal inslut with your actual claim. I put it to you that your claim is weak because the debate following Daniel’s post has not been about either of Daniel’s claims. Rather it has been about whether it was ad hominem or not. Further you yourself obfuscate the weakness of your substantive claim with irrelevant ad hominem arguments. I do blame Daniel for not simply saying that the source of Martin Luther King’s doctorate is nothing to do with why he is admired and that indeed Carolus does hold some pretty unpleasant views in general. Once again the problem with ad hominem arguments is that they are weak and that they can be used to confuse. It seems to me that there is nothing confusing about Daniel’s post and tha claims made do not dissolve when the potentially ad hominem nature of the claims is suggested. It is certainly not the only reason that Damiel adressed the nature of Carolus activities. On the other hand Carolus’ original slur on MLK is a good example of a bad ad hominem argument and Jimmy Doyle was rudely and crudely ad hominem in his response to Damiel. My disappointement is that their ploy’s seem to have succeeded in diverting attention from any substantive claim. Do we admire MLK because he was a great scholar or because he beautifully and effectively espoused a noble vision at great risk to himself? I think the latter. Did Jimmy Doyle make any attempt to address the wonderfully lucid claims of Daniel’s post or did he make a half baked personal attack on Daniel? Is there a good reason why he chose Daniel’s comment as an example of ad hominem rather than Carolus or his own? I don’t think so unless he is an artist of unexpectedly high calibre making an ironic Magritte/Stallman style use of self reference. Finally Mr. Harding do you believe that neither Carolus or Professor Doyle bear any responsibility for the flame war? If not, surely you should apportion some blame to them as well.

By: Chris Harding

Chris Harding — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:20:35 +0000

Regarding DSquared vs. Doyle: I’m on Doyle’s side on this issue, and I do think it’s relevant. It’s absurd that Daniel thinks he can skirt away from the implications of his post; and it is mind-boggling, that after starting a flame-war (yet again) and not claiming responsibility (yet again), he seeks to play “daddy” and tell people to get back on topic. Daniel, your behavior is an embarassment to Crooked Timber. Respond with whatever sarcasm and frivolity you like; or better yet, surprise me and actually comment seriously on your behavior.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:07:59 +0000

This just in. Bush announces Ashcroft is fired while having a gay toga party (where he and his wife politely pretend no one is gay), wearing a beret, and drinking champagne. Now how’s that for reaching out and healing?