M. Porcius Cato Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Parenti is a Michael Moore-style hack with no background whatever in Roman history, which is why his viewpoint is so far outside the mainstream. Moderator note; this post was split from Recommendations Solicited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Parenti is a Michael Moore-style hack with no background whatever in Roman history, which is why his viewpoint is so far outside the mainstream. What!? LoL... and just what are his viewpoints? This I gotta hear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Parenti is a Michael Moore-style hack with no background whatever in Roman history, which is why his viewpoint is so far outside the mainstream. Since it's my suggestion and this isn't a discussion thread but a request for suggestions why don't you either suggest a read or keep your commentary about my suggestions to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Parenti is a Michael Moore-style hack with no background whatever in Roman history, which is why his viewpoint is so far outside the mainstream. What!? LoL... and just what are his viewpoints? This I gotta hear... It's just what you'd expect--"everyone who opposed Caesar was a mean, ruthless, greedy, friend of the evil rich; benevolent Caesar was a persecuted friend of the poor." What's really remarkable is Parenti's complete disregard of any scholarship whatever that competes with his pre-arranged viewpoint: poor=persecuted; not poor=persecutor; populares=savior; optimates=reactionary. It's so simple-minded that you want to hurl the book into the nearest dumpster. Plus, the Latinless author can't even manage to say Pompey's name correctly in interviews. Since it's my suggestion and this isn't a discussion thread but a request for suggestions why don't you either suggest a read or keep your commentary about my suggestions to yourself. You yourself mentioned that Parenti's book was controversial; since you did not indicate the nature of that controversy, I'm happy to fill in the blanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 ...Since it's my suggestion and this isn't a discussion thread but a request for suggestions why don't you either suggest a read or keep your commentary about my suggestions to yourself. You yourself mentioned that Parenti's book was controversial; since you did not indicate the nature of that controversy, I'm happy to fill in the blanks. You filled in no blanks on any controversy, you merely choose to attack the author. Not being a classical historian has never stopped praise or at least acknowledgement of the arguments of many writers of Roman history, including, but not limited to Gibbon and Dodge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 You filled in no blanks on any controversy, you merely choose to attack the author. Not being a classical historian has never stopped praise or at least acknowledgement of the arguments of many writers of Roman history, including, but not limited to Gibbon and Dodge. If anyone is still not clear on why Parenti's book is controversial after my comments, I'd be happy to elaborate. BTW, the book is not controversial among professional historians of ancient Rome; the book is hardly considered even worthy of attention. I'd also add that while being a university-employed classical historian may not be a necessary condition for writing a decent bio of Caesar, comparing Parenti to Gibbon on any other grounds is simply so absurd on so many levels that I'm simply dumb-founded by the comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) If anyone is still not clear on why Parenti's book is controversial after my comments, I'd be happy to elaborate. BTW, the book is not controversial among professional historians of ancient Rome; the book is hardly considered even worthy of attention. I'd also add that while being a university-employed classical historian may not be a necessary condition for writing a decent bio of Caesar, comparing Parenti to Gibbon on any other grounds is simply so absurd on so many levels that I'm simply dumb-founded by the comparison. A very quick google search shows the book to be on the syllabus of at least two courses on the classics at UCLA and Penn, a review by at least one journal on ancient Rome and an endorsement by a classical historian at Minnesota. Not conclusive perhaps, but at least the equal of many secondary sources we've used here on UNRV. Regarding 'comparing Parenti to Gibbon' what part of "including, but not limited to", an all-inclusive phrase, eluded you? Edit: Thank you for breaking this off Viggen. I'm not particularly interested in arguing Parenti's validity with anyone; read him or not, I could care less I'm satisfied with my own position. Edited January 15, 2006 by Virgil61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 btw. Germanicus read the book and he did a review on it The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti regards viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 If anyone is still not clear on why Parenti's book is controversial after my comments, I'd be happy to elaborate. BTW, the book is not controversial among professional historians of ancient Rome; the book is hardly considered even worthy of attention. A very quick google search shows the book to be on the syllabus of at least two courses on the classics at UCLA and Penn, a review by at least one journal on ancient Rome and an endorsement by a classical historian at Minnesota. Not conclusive perhaps, but at least the equal of many secondary sources we've used here on UNRV. I think your google search was too quick. The courses you list just don't support your point. The "UCLA" course is not a course taught by any faculty, and it isn't even UCLA--it's part of the Plato Society of the UCLA Extension program, which is an organization run by extension students. The course is on fictional treatments of Caesar, and it lists Parenti's book as supplementary text. After a fairly long google, I've yet to find a roman history journal to bother with Parenti. A review was written in "International Socialism Review", "People's World Weekly," and was mentioned in the Journal of Critical Education Studies. The name of the latter journal is worth clarifying: "critical studies" has been academic code for "neo-marxist" since about the time the Berlin Wall fell. According to its own website, the People's World Weekly is a direct descendent of the Daily Worker and "The PWW is known for its partisan coverage. ... We are partisan to the working class, racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women, youth, seniors, international solidarity, Marxism and socialism. We enjoy a special relationship with the Communist Party USA, founded in 1919, and publish its news and views." I'm still looking for that endorsement by a classical historian. Normally, I don't care if people like or don't like a book. But let's not unwittingly turn UNRV into an echo-chamber for the ravings of the Daily Worker. Controversy is fine--but Parenti's book is essentially a political pamphlet that merely uses Roman history as a backdrop for his modern political arguments. We normally keep a tight leash on that sort of thing from posters to the forum, and there's no reason we should do an end-run around that policy through our book reviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 (edited) I think your google search was too quick. The courses you list just don't support your point. The "UCLA" course is not a course taught by any faculty, and it isn't even UCLA--it's part of the Plato Society of the UCLA Extension program, which is an organization run by extension students. The course is on fictional treatments of Caesar, and it lists Parenti's book as supplementary text. No, take your own advice and read it again, the course is on History and Fictional treatment, unless you consider the other sources listed in addition to Shakespeare, such as Grant, Gelzer and Plutarch as fiction. Be that as it may, it's an extension program, big deal. Still leaves Penn. An undergrad course: http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/courses/world...nti(fall04).htm An introduction to classical history course: www.undergrad.nova.edu/coursewizard/getsyllabi.cfm?syllabusID=F87CF6E6-D27F-474E-91BC-FF6864D09872 I got halfway down the google column. The point is made that at least some history instructors if not just classicists, seem to feel there's some validation to exposure to his POV. After a fairly long google, I've yet to find a roman history journal to bother with Parenti... http://www.romansociety.org/webjrs05.htm I'm still looking for that endorsement by a classical historian. Gerald Erickson UMinn. It's on the book, of course that's probably not good enough. Normally, I don't care if people like or don't like a book. But let's not unwittingly turn UNRV into an echo-chamber for the ravings of the Daily Worker. Controversy is fine--but Parenti's book is essentially a political pamphlet that merely uses Roman history as a backdrop for his modern political arguments. We normally keep a tight leash on that sort of thing from posters to the forum, and there's no reason we should do an end-run around that policy through our book reviews. All I did was list the book as a recommendation, you piped up with an attack on the author. We? Leave those decisions to the moderators. You don't like the book because it disses Cato the Younger, disagrees violently with your POV and it gets under your skin. Don't feign some 'We normally keep a tight leash argument' on me. You're POV is part and parcel the polar opposite of Parenti's and We put up with it. I'll stand by my recommendation to read the book, if you have a problem with that contact the moderators. Edited January 15, 2006 by Virgil61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Anything I've read on this thread and a previous one regarding Parenti, seems to be based entirely on the point of view. And even if it isn't, people here are intelligent enough to make their own decisions on the issue. Let's just leave it at that and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 http://www.romansociety.org/webjrs05.htm Nice to discover this. My university library and JSTOR still don't have any of the issues since 2002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 A question arising from, but at a tangent to this thread: Why should academic views be regarded as the be all and end all of debate or rectitude? No one could hold academic excellence in higher esteem than do I, but it can (rather like views in a convent) run on certain tracks and get caught in a lcircumscribed conventional wisdom. In my experience, academics can be very bad at examining radical views because to do so may undermine their own credentials with colleagues, or their own published views. I think that any writer who argues his case well deserves a hearing (I include in that statement such outre studies as UFOlogy and alternative approaches to very ancient history - Velikovsky, Sitchin etc). Anyone with half a mind and a knowledge of the basic material can assess the quality of the work for themselves. I would also include in my list historical novels which can often move into speculation and imaginative areas where academics fear to tread. If Mr Parenti (an author I have not read) wishes to delve into new areas or express radical views, then that's fine by me. I think most of our views of the past need to be challenged because they are too beset with a Victorian ethos./ One of the things that I liked about HBO/BBC's "Rome" was that it challenged the Hollywood view of white marble and pristine togas. It gave us an alien society which would frighten most of us were we to find ourselves there. Any regular poster on this site or others similar, stand or fall by their mastery of the facts and the quality of their argument. That is even truer of published writers. We should surely not seek to "ban" certain books because they don't agree with our views. Such views are personal. As for: Controversy is fine--but Parenti's book is essentially a political pamphlet that merely uses Roman history as a backdrop for his modern political arguments. We normally keep a tight leash on that sort of thing from posters to the forum, and there's no reason we should do an end-run around that policy through our book reviews. I understand the site rules, and in part the reason for them, but I think it is the weakest aspect of this largely admirable board that I have found, and may yet limit the length of time I remain here. History should NOT (IMHO) be "safe". It should challenge, annoy, ittitate and perplex - and above all it should do that by being relevant. Unless one can draw analogies from the present, the past is a distant fiction. I applaud MP Cato's passion, his knowledge and commitment add lustre to this site, but I don't think we should dismiss views because they are radical. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 I applaud MP Cato's passion, his knowledge and commitment add lustre to this site, but I don't think we should dismiss views because they are radical. I agree whole-heartedly. I only ask for full-disclosure about the credentials of the author and, where there is an agenda, to make that agenda clear. I take these two sets of facts--the author's credentials and agenda--to be indispensable to a good book review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 I'll just live with ideas, at a push. That's what matters - the fuel for thought. Much of the rest is, IMHO, just snobbishness. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.