WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[huckelberry]

I sampled portions of the Cooper interview and got a few distinct impressions of it. I decided to read a bit about him, some sort of conservative Christian living in north Idaho, personal background more military than silver mining.

He may say a few things that remind people of Holocaust denial but he is vague there, his interest is elsewhere. In the interview he is clear, Carlson approves, he wants to rethink the images we have because they form myths shaping our assumptions. Late in the interview, he is clear about what he sees as needing reconsideration. We have been taught that cultural diversity is good and valuing cultural unity is a bad thing. A comparison is made and enjoyed by both Cooper and Carlson of Japan's cultural unity allowing a strong recovery after the war despite having lost and England's shaky current condition despite having won.

I do not think the reality of the comparison is simple but Japan has cultural strengths. This observation might incline folks to wonder if immigration is best limited.

[Markk]

Reputable is a hard word to corral given our biases

No, it's not. A reputable contractor would have demonstrated expertise and experience in contracting. He or she would be known by other contractors to be reliable. The same would be true for an electrician, musician, physician, or chemist.

Why you think a historian would be any different is a mystery to me.

Is Fox news reputable?

[Morley]

Reputable is a hard word to corral given our biases

No, it's not. A reputable contractor would have demonstrated expertise and experience in contracting. He or she would be known by other contractors to be reliable. The same would be true for an electrician, musician, physician, or chemist.

Why you think a historian would be any different is a mystery to me.

Is Fox news reputable?

Fox News is not a profession. Journalism is a profession.

To answer the question you're going to follow-up with: Yes, Fox News has some reputable journalists.

Now it's your turn to answer:

A reputable contractor would have demonstrated expertise and experience in contracting. He or she would be known by other contractors to be reliable. The same would be true for an electrician, musician, physician, chemist, or journalist.

Why would you think a historian should be measured by some other metric?

edit: typo

[canpakes]

Markk, you invoked my name in at least 5 previous posts within this thread, so I figure that you just missed my questions:

In 1939 the Germans were clearly persecuting the Jews, but it was not until 1941 and 1942, did the Germans start mass exterminations. Until the camps were built, again over 1000, the Nazis kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them.

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

[Markk]

Is Fox news reputable?

Fox News is not a profession. Journalism is a profession.

To answer the question you're going to follow-up with: Yes, Fox News has some reputable journalists.

Now it's your turn to answer:

A reputable contractor would have demonstrated expertise and experience in contracting. He or she would be known by other contractors to be reliable. The same would be true for an electrician, musician, physician, chemist, or journalist.

Why would you think a historian should be measured by some other metric?

edit: typo

Fox News is a media outlet and organization, you wrote, as a question, which we are discussing, not journalism:

"2. This is not just the reading of everyone else on this thread, it’s the interpretation of news media and organizations all over the world."

Is Fox News Reputable?

Has Fox News demonstrated expertise? Do they have experience in both the news and as editorial opinion, and even their hit pieces? I'll add are they competitive with their competition...e.g. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS...? Do they hold a substantial percentage of the overall market viewing and listening (radio) share with both the networks and the cable news competitors?

Every one of those is a yes.

Is Fox News "recognized by other outlets to be reliable?" Right leaning yes, left leaning no...which point to my original assertion it is hard to corral what is reputable because of our biases.

A reputable contractor would have demonstrated expertise and experience in contracting. He or she would be known by other contractors to be reliable. The same would be true for an electrician, musician, physician, chemist, or journalist.

Why would you think a historian should be measured by some other metric?

For me a reputable contractor is one that has a proven track record, and been around a while to prove that record. They have and keep up with all the insurances and bonds, and, which is one of the most overlooked things, have a high tiered credit rating with a solid line of credit, so when they have to pay for money, which will happen, they can, because of the cash flow realities in contracting in keeping the doors open and meeting payroll, vendor invoicing, and keeping up with all the insurances and bonds.

I think a historian should be rated on their work as a whole. I think effort should be paramount. In my opinion, lazy history is bad history....which is why I have so much respect for Dan Vogel. Few Mormon historians work harder and are more informed than he is. Also in my opinion, objectivity is key, nothing is worse than a history being written without objectivity, a-la Kerry Muhlestein.

You don't have to always agree with their reconstructions and conclusions, but in my view even when you disagree with a well-written piece of history you can understand where and why they came to the conclusions they did.

In Cooper's case, from the two podcasts I have listened to on the subject at hand, while I don't agree with all his conclusions, I understand how and why he came up with them.

[Markk]

I sampled portions of the Cooper interview and got a few distinct impressions of it. I decided to read a bit about him, some sort of conservative Christian living in north Idaho, personal background more military than silver mining.

He may say a few things that remind people of Holocaust denial but he is vague there, his interest is elsewhere. In the interview he is clear, Carlson approves, he wants to rethink the images we have because they form myths shaping our assumptions. Late in the interview, he is clear about what he sees as needing reconsideration. We have been taught that cultural diversity is good and valuing cultural unity is a bad thing. A comparison is made and enjoyed by both Cooper and Carlson of Japan's cultural unity allowing a strong recovery after the war despite having lost and England's shaky current condition despite having won.

I do not think the reality of the comparison is simple but Japan has cultural strengths. This observation might incline folks to wonder if immigration is best limited.

Listen to his podcast with Rogan....it is good to get a better feel, whether you agree with the history or not, of who he is and where he is coming from, and how his upbringing impacted his "story telling."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9oFxGoMvE&t=581s

[Marcus]

...I think a historian should be rated on their work as a whole. I think effort should be paramount. In my opinion, lazy history is bad history....which is why I have so much respect for Dan Vogel. Few Mormon historians work harder and are more informed than he is. Also in my opinion, objectivity is key, nothing is worse that a history being written without objectivity, a-la Kerry Muhlestein.

You don't have to always agree with their reconstructions and conclusions, but in my view even when you disagree with a well-written piece of history, you can understand where and why they came to the conclusions they did.

In Cooper's case, from the two podcasts I have listened to on the subject at hand, while I don't agree with all his conclusions, I understand how and why he came up with them.

I can't believe this needs to be said, but no, Markk, 'effort' isn't paramount when rating the work of a historian, or any other academic, for that matter. Trying really, really hard doesn't guarantee in any way that there will be value in a given body of work.

Do actual historians consider Darryl Cooper to be a legitimate historian? Are his comments about history considered to be objective assessments?

[Kishkumen]

Do actual historians consider Darryl Cooper to be a legitimate historian? Are his comments about history considered to be objective assessments?

Well, conservative historian Niall Ferguson of the Hoover Institution at Stanford thinks he's a joke, so . . . .

[Markk]

...I think a historian should be rated on their work as a whole. I think effort should be paramount. In my opinion, lazy history is bad history....which is why I have so much respect for Dan Vogel. Few Mormon historians work harder and are more informed than he is. Also in my opinion, objectivity is key, nothing is worse that a history being written without objectivity, a-la Kerry Muhlestein.

You don't have to always agree with their reconstructions and conclusions, but in my view even when you disagree with a well-written piece of history, you can understand where and why they came to the conclusions they did.

In Cooper's case, from the two podcasts I have listened to on the subject at hand, while I don't agree with all his conclusions, I understand how and why he came up with them.

I can't believe this needs to be said, but no, Markk, 'effort' isn't paramount when rating the work of a historian, or any other academic, for that matter. Trying really, really hard doesn't guarantee in any way that there will be value in a given body of work.

Do actual historians consider Darryl Cooper to be a legitimate historian? Are his comments about history considered to be objective assessments?

In my opinion it is, effort is key to most every discipline in life with successful people. I am not really sure why you would reject that notion. If a historian is not willing to take the extra steps, and work hard; doing the best they can to know as much about the subject/s they are addressing, then their reconstruction and conclusions will not be the best they can be. It's that simple.

From what I have read some don't. It might be a good exercise for you to post some of the specific reasons why a few of these historians disagree with what he said. We can certainly test that.

Is he a legit historian? According to him no, if you watched the podcast he said he is a "story teller," who reads as much as he can, and listens to or watches as much as he can about the subject/s, and then relates the story. I personally see him as a historian, as does others such as Rogan, maybe not as a orthodox one, but as a new form of historian in the podcast age.

His Churchill take is what I see being the one where he missed the most, but even in that he raised some interesting points. In the hindsight of wars, there are a lot of what ifs, and he seems to have bitten off more that he can chew on Churchill, and has walked it back....but from what I have heard, which is not a lot on other subjects, he is not over the top at all. As I listen to him more, which I plan to, if I think it is BS I have no issue saying so. I have no horse in the race in regard to Darryl Cooper, but I also want to be as objective as I can and actually listen to his work. I think his stating that Germany was not ready for the influx of "prisoners" and millions of Jews is a very fair and interesting view.

Does one have to have a degree in history to be looked at as a historian in your opinion?

[Kishkumen]

Does one have to have a degree in history to be looked at as a historian in your opinion?

I don't think Niall Ferguson's complaint is that Cooper does not have a degree. I think it is his abhorrent methodology that is the problem.