"CRACKING GOOD READ" David Manley quote.
Links to volumes 1,2,3,4,5,6 e-books of William James The Naval History of Great Britain. Another well researched resource for all kinds of excellent information.
http://books.google.com/books?id=fkq...page&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=-4Y...page&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ods...page&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=fV0...page&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=K90...gbs_navlinks_s
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASN...page&q&f=false
Last edited by Cmmdre; 06-14-2013 at 23:02.
Here's a link to them in a form a bit easier to read and link to different information:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....ory/Index.html
Excellent find Bobby. Thanks for the link.
I see this reference work cited in most of the daily events I read on. Great to have access to it directly.
That's the one I use Bobby.Originally Posted by Coog
As I've said before, you can't take everything James states as gospel. His dates, ship involvement, locations, etc. are good but his analysis of facts can be biased.
Yeah, he didn't like Americans and wil exagerate the facts everytime in favor of the Brits. To get the real facts about encounters during the War of 1812 you have to read Teddy Roosevelt's book. He discusses James' "facts" at length and gives numerous sources to back up what he says, something James rarely does and never when making wild prejudicial statements about American ships and crews.
True. Theodore Roosevelt debunked a number of Williams facts in his writings on naval warfare. I am soon to wade into that book you reviewed and recommended on The War of 1812.
Roosevelt had a bit of his own bias, but nowhere near that of James. For the most part, James does a good job in the telling of the history of the British Navy. You have to read both sides their arguments and form your own opinion on the various disagreements between Roosevelt and James.
These two authors aren't the only ones to spin the facts. One book I really enjoyed was James Henderson's "The Frigates." It tells of frigate actions during the age of sail. I did a book review on it. However when Henderson gets to the War of 1812, he makes some ridiculous statements. He states that in 1794 it was decided that two 74-gun SOLs be constructed and they were laid down as such but due to political situations were finished as 44-gun frigates...the United States and Constitution. He further states that two more frigates were purposely built as 44-gun frigates...the President and Philadelphia and all carried long 24-pounders and 42-pounder carronades. The first three mentioned frigates were all purposely built as 44-gun frigates. Constitution carried 32-pounder carronades instead of 42-pounders. Although Philadelphia was initially called a 44-gun frigate, she was smaller than the three 44's and carried long 18-pounders and 32-pounder carronades. She was rerated as a 36, a rating consistent with her size and armament.
My point is that you cannot take everything you read from one source as fact (particularly Wikipedia.)
I agree. Especially Wikipedia!
Was Roosevelt's 1812 any less biased than James'? Not having read Teddy I can't comment but historians all write with some sort of bias and the trick is to figure out what it is and take it into account when reading them. This doesn't detract from their value, it simply means for hard information you have to look with a critical eye, it's one of the enjoyable things about reading history.
Oh and thanks Paul and Bobby for the great links
I completely and absolutely agree. A few months ago I read an article in the Wikipedia in English that said the opposite that the same article in Spanish (the battle of Empel)I agree. Especially Wikipedia!
Also thank you both for the links
I can't comment on Roosevelt directly either, but a key factor in determining bias in a historian is the number *and* quality of the primary sources cited by the author. Multiple posters here have commented on the plentiful citations that Roosevelt provides to substantiate his work. That's a telling (but not determinative!) fact which leads me to believe that Roosevelt's account is more accurate than James.
This is true of all research. Currently, I am engaged in research on trust between leaders and followers in organizational settings. One of the things I have to do is to delineate, as much as possible, my potential biases, and to record, as clearly as possible, my research methodology to enable readers to assess the validity and reliability of my findings. With history, this is compounded due to the inability to question directly the authors, and, often, to the lack of multiple sources that can be used for comparison.
One of the problems for hobbyists like us is that we don't have the resources to thoroughly research every item of interest, and so we are often left with slanted texts and minimal ability to critically assess them. I think, too, it is important to differentiate between exercising critical thinking and having a critical spirit. I have witnessed too much of the latter in which people make careers out of tearing down others' work without ever offering anything positive in way of contribution. I have been pleasantly surprised by the lack of such posturing here and on the 'Drome. It is one thing to discuss disagreements; it is another thing to belittle or attack folks who are trying to engage.
In my opinion, Roosevelt takes a favorable stance toward the Americans in issues but is respectful toward the British. James on the other hand tends to be critical of Americans in arguing his points.
You have to remember it was a publication of its time, written in no small part to refute the exaggerations that appeared in the American popular press. As with many things in life you have to look at it in context.
If I remember correctly Roosevelt does comment on James in his 1812 book. He more or less examines some of James' conclusions and refutes of comments on the point. I don't have the book handy at the moment.
Eric
He comments on him a lot throughout the book.
I think lots of things are used, then re-used in history. The number of times I have heard "It must be right I have seen 3 or 10 Primmary sources". Only to find they all come from one source which in itself is questionable. I too have fell into this trap many times in the past. I hope not to do so again! But I am just a poor little man, so may do again. I do not take information on unless I'm very happy about where it came from.
Be safe
Rory
This is a common fallacy, regardless of arena. Something like this happened to Toyota a couple of years back concerning acceleration problems. Every piece of substantial evidence demonstrated conclusively that the problem was primarily due to improper use of floor mats, yet the proliferation of news reports on electronic components and pedals so shaped people's opinions, that no amount of evidence would sway them otherwise. It was a case of quantity over quality. If enough people make a given claim, then the claim must be true. It's a bit disheartening to read about such foolishness.
In this "people" are in good company with "professionals" - Historians fall for this quite often quoting what they think is primary sources which are actually secondary.
Or finding biased primary sources - "History is written by the Winners" or for the winners or maybe just to please the crowds.
Your Toyota example reminded me of another - Why are we not allowed to talk on the mobile phones in petrol stations (at least in the UK and in Israel - is it the same in the US?)
Its a complete false piece of nonsense - after the Piper Alpha oil disaster there was a claim it was caused by static electricity.
Then by some unfathomable piece of warped logic someone decided that mobile phones are a fire hazard in Petrol stations and we are stuck with that since...
They say not to and have signs up re cellphones at gas stations, but I've yet to see anyone comply.
ON THE OTHER HAND... while a lot of people here do call out Bullcrap on things like that (Jeff Dunham lampooned it nicely in one of his Achmed the Dead Terrorist skits: "Can you hear me now? BOOM! Is okay, I took that Verizon ----- with me!" LOL), there are also a lot who fall prey to the axiom about "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even starts to put on its boots."
HOWEVER... OT, but tangentially related...
"The truth told with ill intent beats all the lies a man can invent."--attributed to Santayana or William Blake
In the UK the use of mobiles on forecourts is banned and I regularly see (and hear) customers being loudly reminded of this by filling station staff. Out of interest the Industry position on it is as follows:
Industry position
The use of mobile phones on UKPIA members’ forecourts is actively discouraged for several reasons:
Distraction - Using mobile phones can create a serious distraction for people dispensing fuel or crossing the forecourt due to the number of vehicles moving. Traffic movements will always present a risk for customers. However the distraction caused to pedestrians by mobile phones increases the risk of accidents.
Risk of incendive sparking - Mobile phones are not designed and certified for use in explosive atmospheres which exist temporarily around the pump and nozzle during refuelling as well as around the fill and vent pipes during petrol deliveries.Such use is expressly forbidden by law under the conditions of the petroleum licence and associated guidance. Whilst the risk of incendive sparking from mobile phones is low, they are not intrinsically safe devices and should not be used in those hazardous areas that exist on a forecourt. Generally,there is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones in other areas of the forecourt, such as in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas
FWIW I have seen lab and "field" demonstrations showing the potential for mobiles and other electronic devices to cause fires and explosions in vapour and gas environments, although the risk is low. I am also led to believe by our aviation safety teams that similar occurences have been responsible for the damage and, in a few cases, the loss of aircraft caused by fires and explosions in non-inerted fuel tanks and cables (some particularly old types, more modern types are less susceptible to interference). As well as interference with aircraft flight systems - there is a good reason why they tell you to turn your phone off when you fly - on one occasion I recall the "de de de, de de de, de de de" noise coming over an airliners PA system as the captain was doing his in flight "hello", which he quickly terminated in favour of "OK, which one of you WASN'T LISTENING to the flight safety brief??!!!"
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even starts to put on its boots."
That would be Wikipedia then :) Whilst generally reliable its fun / annoying to see jingoistic attitudes brought to bear in rewriting history through the pages of Wikipedia, and to see such garbage regurgitated by the masses because "hey, its on Wiki, so it must be true".
[/QUOTE]HOWEVER... OT, but tangentially related...
"The truth told with ill intent beats all the lies a man can invent."--attributed to Santayana or William Blake[/QUOTE]
neither of whom were politicians, else they'd have known better
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks