A reader writes:
Many of my Catholic friends want “Good” alternative Books on U.S. History vs. the books being promoted by Glenn Beck? After sharing your blog But I Learn So Much from Glenn Beck! many people want good books about U.S. History.
Can you make any recommendations of good U.S. History books?
First, a caveat. I would be as cautious about rejecting books just because they were mentioned by Beck as I would about uncritically embracing books promoted by Beck. Beck may very well recommend books that are quite good, just as, for instance, many fundamentalists will constantly recommend the greatest book in the world, the Bible. The problem is not with the book, but with who is doing the interpreting.
I’m no expert and am, in fact, an amateur (that is, a passionate lover) of history. I’m more of a fan of pre-modern history, though certain periods in American history are fascinating to me (especially, the Civil War). In approaching matters of history, I think getting a sense of the Big Picture is important. So I would suggest (again, as a total non-expert) something that gives you a Big Picture. I think Alistair Cooke’s America is good (he also did a great series back in the 70s that is impossible to find on DVD but which, I am happy to report, some kind soul has made available on Youtube (pieced out in 10 minute increments starting here). Be aware that Cooke’s British hostility to Spanish Catholicism sometimes bleeds through, but there is still much of value here. Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton are both good on the Civil War. David McCullough’s work is very good. Stephen Ambrose too. I have a good set of volumes that are now 45 years out of date from Time Life, but which still do a good job of giving you an overview of the themes and personalities of the American story. Dunno if it’s still in print in some updated edition. History always gets dicier the closer you come to your own time. Hard to get perspective. I’d also recommend A History of the American People by Paul Johnson (an English Catholic, by the way).
But again I would emphasize this: I’m no expert. What you really want to do is talk to a good teacher of history and get some recommendations. Getting an overview of American history is a good place to start, then you can focus on particular areas of interest. Avoid conspiracy theories (aptly described by Kathy Shaidle as “history for stupid people”). Also, though every historian will naturally attempt to frame his work in some narrative structure that makes sense of cause and effect in the turbulent weather system that is history, beware of people with ideological All Explaining Theories of Everything (“History is nothing but…” followed by the attempt to make history fit into some system of The Triumph of Capitalism, or Communism, or Marxism or Evolution or whatever). History is very resistant to simplistic reductionism. That’s because History is the story of the actions of people with free will acting according to the folly of original sin *and* the miracles of grace, as well as a whole lot of merely human whim, odd coincidences, and stunning acts of valor and cruelty. Similarly, beware of facile “connecting the dots” sort of history (Beck’s specialty) which does things like “A fasces was a symbol of fascism. Here’s a fasces on the back of a Mercury Dime. Mercury Dimes were minted by Wilson! Wilson was a fascist!” That’s not history. It’s pseudo-history.
Finally, a word about historiography. In a time of extreme tribalism like ours, people who are trying to explore history are excessively afraid of contamination by contact with books written by people with the Wrong Associations. I once had a rather dim-witted woman of Leftist sympathy hand me a catalog of books filled with works like the Federalist Papers and biographies of Jefferson and Madison by first rate historians. All she wanted to know was whether the catalog publisher was “liberal” or (and you could hear the tone of her voice tint with disgust) “conservative”. She could give no consideration to the quality of the books as books. Everything was to be judged by the tribal affiliation of the catalog publisher. And, of course, the same thing happens on the Right. “David McCullough wrote a book about Theodore Roosevelt? But didn’t Glenn Beck say Roosevelt was a Progressive? Well then, we can’t trust a word McCullough says. He’s one of Them!” Such people deprive themselves of contact with a first rate historian in their zeal to protect themselves from ritual impurity via contact with the Unclean Outsider. The problem is: to study history in anything but the most superficial way means to make contact with minds and ideas hailing from cultures and civilization that think and act in ways radically foreign to you. The past, as the saying goes, is another country.
Bottom line: History is written by historians who all have particular points of view and outlooks framed by their time and culture. They can be nonetheless be invaluable historians writing about invaluable historic knowledge. And indeed, there is no historian who is not affected by his time and culture. A friend who is a historian will sometimes show the 1938 and 1990 versions of Robin Hood, featuring the scene where Robin meets Maid Marian. First version, Marian is uber feminine. Second version, uber feminista. Just as the times influence what goes into our art, so the times influence what a historian thinks is important and how he will read the same historical data that another historian might see in a completely different way. That’s just how history is done and there’s no hope—no hope whatsoever—in trying to find a perfectly impartial and unbiased historian. No such animal. So instead what we should do is learn to read reliable sources widely, not only from different modern sources but from different pre-modern sources. Part of Beck’s problem is that he has read one author (a Mormon crank) and imbibed his picture of history as The Picture of History. Even great historians, let alone cranks, should not be anointed as The Magisterial Interpreter of History. Truth—especially historical truth—is symphonic and is built up as a mosaic of information from the great chorus of human witnesses. That doesn’t mean that everybody is writing nothing but rank agitprop and it’s impossible to really know what happened in the past. Rather, it means that even writers who try hard to be fair will still be affected by the assumptions of their age. This doesn’t just create differences by the way. It also creates commonalities—and blind spots—which can be unexpected. That is why C.S. Lewis recommended the reading of old books along with modern ones:
Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction.
That’s why, in addition to studying US history, I would recommend some looks at world history. The US is young and its history is fairly brief. When Rome was as old as the US it was still in diapers and its greatest year lay far in the future. Reading about how it was the world was able to give birth to the US involves us in world history. But that’s for another time. Hope this helps for now.
Comments
Post a Comment
It appears Beck makes you very uncomfortable. Perhaps that is a signal that you are in the grip of bias.
There are many books he recommends that are first rate. Many that rely upon original documents, which is as it should be.
Perhaps the problem is not Beck per se but rather the progressive spin that previously obscured history.
When Beck comes along with historians who actually footnote their work, progressives suffer cognitive dissonance.
Beck must be an idiot, must be wrong, must be slanted, or else…
We have been lied to. And that thought is horrible. How can we have been so clueless for so long? How can we have been that gullible? How can we have missed the signs that warned of the events that are now playing out? It hurts to realize one has been less than observant and intelligent.
So when Beck points out the criminal activities of an administration run by the international criminal George Soros, it is very difficult for us to wrap our minds around the situation. We just cannot imagine we have let ourselves get into this situation. We cannot believe people would be so corrupt and so deceitful. Tough to take in…
@Greg—In my experience, people are never more overjoyed than to discover that everyone has been wrong and that now they have been granted the REAL view of “previously obscured history.”
I mean that’s the major allure of all conspiracy. Gnosis. Hidden knowledge. Seeing through, rather than seeing.
C. S. Lewis had a lot to say about that one, too.
We have been lied to. And that thought is horrible. How can we have been so clueless for so long? How can we have been that gullible? How can we have missed the signs that warned of the events that are now playing out? It hurts to realize one has been less than observant and intelligent.
Yes. All trained historians are liars and conspirators bent on hiding The Terrible Truth from us and <s>Dan Brown</s>, er, Glenn Beck alone holds the key to the Hidden History of our Time!
Someone should be sounding the warning alarm regarding the insidious elements of Beck’s message. Unfortunately, at this point, only Shea has come forward.
Even Catholic historians such as the convert from Lutheranism, Tom Woods, clamor to get on his show: http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/glenn-beck-and-the-road-to-serfdom/ After they leave, this apostate continues to spout the same tired cliches about Church history we picked up in public school.
While not the “whole story” of American history, “Puritan’s Empire” provides a necessary balance for those with Americanist tendencies, members of the SSPV, and Beck groupies who’d like to canonize the Founders and view the Constitution as Holy Writ.
http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2010/01/book-review-puritan´s-empire-by-charles-a-coulombe/
I recommend it and endorse Mark’s suggestion of not being excessively fearful of the author’s Wrong Associations (although he probably wouldn’t follow his own advise regarding this book)
Eeep, you’ve stepped in it now, boyo.
Other than Foote, the others are third-rate whig historians. Johnson is complicated, but ought not be recommended as a starting point.
Your fundamental error is supposing that America is a starting point for American history; a Catholic cannot begin to understand America without understanding the French, Spanish and Indians in the Americas.
Your comments on historiography are helpful to the novice, perhaps, but conflict with your overall message: if there is “no hope-no hope whatsoever” in finding impartial “historical truth” then surely the novice ought _always_ start with the tribal history before branching into your poetic but unhelpful “mosaic” of truth theory.
Otherwise, why not start with Beck’s odd version and work backwards? On what grounds do you critique him anyway?
In short, you overstep your historiographical theory and make poor recommendations that would confound a Catholic rather than educate him.
So.. the author of A Patriot’s History of the United States was on Relevant Radio a few months ago, I figured this was validation enough and I bought the book on my way home from work. It was heartily endorsed by Mr. Beck.
I’ve been though the first few pages, reading it aloud with my wife. Anyone know anything about that book. I find it to be pretty readable and fair, although neither Catholic nor in any way particularly anti-catholic or mentioning the role of our religion in American History.
@greg:
It appears Beck makes you very uncomfortable. Perhaps that is a signal that you are in the grip of bias.
So, the only reason one could disagree with Beck is bias? I find that rather biased.
There are many books he recommends that are first rate. Many that rely upon original documents, which is as it should be.
I think Mark said this: “I would be as cautious about rejecting books just because they were mentioned by Beck as I would about uncritically embracing books promoted by Beck.” But we should ignore that, right? Because Mark is biased.
I’m pretty sick and tired of supposed clear-thinking Catholics who have turned their minds into the equivalent of the shape sorting toddler toy. “Let’s see, square goes into square, triangle into triangle, circle into circle. Hooray! I did it!” Using this form of thinking, anyone who rejects buffoons like Beck must fit into the liberal sorting hole, because there isn’t any other way to parse it. Anyone who criticizes Israel has to fit into the anti-Semite sorting hole.
I had a recent conversation with a fellow Catholic who, after finding out that I supported the U.S. Bishop’s Conference position on immigration, accused me of hating America and being a “secret Obama supporter”. The fact that I quite like America and really don’t like Obama’s politics DOES NOT COMPUTE with the sort of person who has developed Toddler Sorting Brain Syndrome.
All, even Beck has stated on his radio program and continues to state even this very day that we should always do our own research and not to accept his ‘take’ on matters of history just because he said it was thus and therefore it is. He encourages all to do the leg work necessary to uncover American history and to learn the truth from direct sources. Please, let us move on from all this mistrust of someone who simply sees America in bad straits and would like for her to return to her traditional values, i.e. limited government, low taxes, God-fearing, etc…
I have read all the above posts and again remember my business law teacher in ninth grade saying “don’t believe anything you read and half of what you see”
Also I believe recently there was something in the newspaper about Ambrose and plagiarism. (true? who knows) So, in the end, a person really has to do a lot of research and then come to some conclusions on what to believe.
1. We are all children of the Enlightenment.
2. A colleague once said, “In America, Catholics are Protestants who go to Mass.”
I think the Glenn Beck controversy among Catholics is evidence of both points. Let’s try thinking with a Catholic mind first, and if that doesn’t work, then try the American one.
Raulito,
Beck’s injunction to his audience to research is a pretty safe one. I have met *very* few Beck adherents who actually do any further research .. except from like sources. Very few people seem inclined to seek out information on their own, or even will when told they should. So a pundit runs very little risk of having their inaccuracies exposed by encouraging their audience to do their own research.
If anyone out there is interested in a Catholic, natural law analysis of our U.S. Constitution, I would heartily recommend “First Grace” by Russel Hittinger of the University of Tulsa. He admires the practical wisdom of our Founding Fathers, but does not idealize them or the Constitution. Also, he shows how their aproach was flawed from the beginning due to the influence of the Enlightenment, and how the Supreme Court’s more recent decisions on religious liberty, contraception, abortion,and homosexuality have really undermined the natural law basis of our constitutional Republic. The book is available at Amazon.com where I have posted a longer review of this profound and readable book.
If anyone is interested in the Catholic theory of Natural Law and how it is partially reflected in our Constitution, I would heartly recommend “First Grace” by Russel Hittinger of the University of Tulsa. He shows the Enlightenment thinkers who influenced our founding Fathers had already lost a sense of Divine Providence in their understanding of the natural law, and, of course, they had rejected the Church as the infallible interpreter of the natural law. However, Hittinger also shows the practical wisdom that once informed our federal system of self regulating states, and how this balance between the states and the federal government has been undone by an overweening Supreme Court. He also shows how much damage has been done through unjust decision by the Supreme Court on freedom of religion, contraception, abortion etc. Here is a Catholic analysis of our Constitution, based on Thomistic ethics and the Church’s Magisterium. Much better than Glenn Beck!
wineinthewater,
Painting with a rather broad brush, are we not? As one of his listeners, I can honestly write that I break your awful stereotype. Please refrain from such generalizations.
Are we knit-picking here folks? America is in really serious trouble! When a man puts his head on the chopping block do we criticize him for his shirttails sticking out. It seems like semantics folks!
In what sense is being paid fabulous sums of money to give quack historical analyses “putting your head on the chopping block”? Like the bizarre claim that “Obama is the Antichrist and American Catholics live in mortal danger from him” the silly claim that Glenn Beck is somehow suffering violent persecution is an insult to all the real people who have suffered violent persecution down through the years.
God help people who indulge in these absurd persecution fantasies should some *real* suffering come their way. Please stop insulting real patriots and martyrs who shed real blood for God or country by suggesting that criticizing the ignorant promouncements of a well-paid and plump talking hairdo is identical with the execution of Thomas More or Nathan Hale.
Wow, Mark! Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
Your fundamental error is supposing that America is a starting point for American history
No doubt that why I wrote, “That’s why, in addition to studying US history, I would recommend some looks at world history. The US is young and its history is fairly brief. When Rome was as old as the US it was still in diapers and its greatest year lay far in the future. Reading about how it was the world was able to give birth to the US involves us in world history.” Because I clearly believe that “America is a starting point for American history.”
Or, it could just be that I was trying to recommend a couple of broad overviews for the layman who wants to get the basic shape of the American story.
Wow, Mark! Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
What does that even mean?
To Mark: It means that you seem to have some visceral hatred for Glenn Beck, and that something inside you prevents you from giving him credit for anything he says or believes. I really, really like your columns because they are reasoned, measured, and grounded in the Truth of our faith. But you seem to have a dislike for Mr. Beck that goes way beyond reason almost to a personal level that’s deeper than what’s on the surface. Maybe I have misread your comments. If I did, I apologize. Plesase forgive me.
You did misread me. I don’t have particularly strong feelings about Glenn Beck. He seems to me to be a man who has suffered a fair amount of personal trauma (maternal suicide, probably some of the dreadful catechesis that the Archdiocese of Seattle afforded the citizens of Mount Vernon when he was growing up in the 70s, alcoholism, etc.) He seems to me to be a guy who would *like* to have a mastery of history and he certainly seems to me to be somebody who loves this country. So I suspect that, on the whole, he is probably as well-intentioned a schlub as I am.
But he is also somebody who is making claims to a mastery of history that he does not, in fact, possess. And he has garnered a following from folks who are eager to credit whatever he says, which is not infrequently embarrassingly wrong. And now, layered on top of that, we hear claims about his supposed “persecution” even as the guy is *rolling* in dough and fame. When a group of followers begins to hermetically seal themselves off from reality with such language, they are not doing themselves any favors. So I point out the obvious fact that Beck’s head is not “on the chopping block” at all and that it insult people (like Franz Jaegaerstaetter, for instance, who quite literally had their heads cut off) to pretend that somebody like Glenn Beck, who is getting rich peddling dubious historical analyses that teach his followers to liken their ideological opponents to Adolf Hitler, is in any sense, facing actual persecution. It was rubbish when Lefty cranks continually compated Bush to Hitler and it remains rubbish now as Beck perpetually compares the Dems to Hitler.
Likewise, it is rubbish to repair to the ancient Lefty tactic of declaring that anybody who seriously criticizes your ideas or tactics is filled with “hate”. I sick of it with gay activists and I’m equally sick of it with defenders of Glenn Beck’s historical quackery.
Mark;
Point well taken. I don’t watch Glenn Beck often enough to know about his perceived persecutions, but i do know he lvoes this country and wants to alert the general citizenry to what’s going on in Washington. I admit he got the Dead Sea Scrolls completely and unequivocally wrong. I have to tell you that just because he is ‘rolling in dough and fame’ doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t being persecuted. I’m not familiar with his claim of persecution, but I know from first hand experience that people who come to realize the Truth can be subjected to terrible persecution and vitriol and calumnity. My wife, an OB/GYN and cradle Catholic, was subjected to the worst, most vile treatment from her colleagues when she came to an epiphany about God’s teachings on fertiltiy and chastity. I can’t recite all of the hatred here, but her (and my) embracing of our faith resulted in the eventual loss of everything we owned and new. We had to move from our home and seel a likfe elsewhere. We certainly weren’t as successful as Gelnn Beck, but we gave up everything we had worked our lives for.
It was a worthwhile trade in every sense of the word, but it was a terrible ordeal. My point is that anyone who stands up for the truth—and I believe that most of what Glenn Beck delivers is the truth—can be subjected to persecution. It doesn’t matter how much money you make. God bless you for the work that you do and your faithfulness to God’s truth. We are a much better planet with you in it!
I’m not familiar with his claim of persecution, but I know from first hand experience that people who come to realize the Truth can be subjected to terrible persecution and vitriol and calumnity.
As far as I know, Beck doesn’t claim to be persecuted. What I was taking exception to was the rhetoric of persecution turning up in these comboxes, whether it be the claim that Beck’s “head is on the chopping block” or the preposterous assertion that Obama is *Antichrist* (ie. the summation of every tyrant from Nero to Stalin to Hitler to the current Dear Leader in North Korea). Such fevered narcissistic chatter—from *Catholics* no less—is a *huge* slap in the face to all the millions of *real* martyrs who have suffered *real* persecution from *real* tyrants. Culture warriors who indulge in such rubbish are like the boy who cried wolf. When a real tyrant shows up, people will not listen because these guys have been screaming “HITLER!” for years every time some politician wore a tie they didn’t like.
Very simply: Obama is not Hitler. He’s just not. People who entertain the notion that he is are, like the people who said Bush was Hitler, not engaged with reality.
Thanks for your kind words, Todd. I think you are vastly over-crediting Beck skills (and it is a skill) to do historical analysis. But I also think you are (like most commenters here) a good and honest man. God bless you.
One issue you all are missing is that the LDS church teaches a different view of history. It is sometimes suttle so if a person doesn’t know any other version, their’s sounds fine. Beck is constantly teaching LDS views on his show. It is his show and he has a right to do that. However, I suggest you read widely from other sources so you won’t be like the boild frog who wasn’t able to tell when the temperature was changed.
Let me clarify some things. Obama is a very serious menace. Unlike any president we have had he is with breakneck speed undermining and destroying our country like no other president we have had. He is a open Communist and Muslim. He is a devoted, avid disciple of Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a zealous Communist. He wrote “Rules for Radicals” dedicated to the devil. Alinsky stated in a public interview that when he died, he “unreservedly chooses to go to hell.” Need I say more. Only time will tell if Obama is another Hitler.
He is a open Communist and Muslim.
No. He’s not. And the fact that Beck’s disciples so easily credit absurd claims like this on the flimsiest evidence is precisely why I complain about anointing this quack as a Sure Guide to Understanding the Secret History of our Time. There are lots of reasons to oppose Obama. But passing along silly claims like “Obama is an open communist *and* a Muslim” (hint: Communism is an atheistic philosophy; Islam: not so much) just makes his disciples look like panic-mongering suckers.
Similarly, ridiculous statements like “Only time will tell if Obama is another Hitler” are as profoundly unserious as the silliness of Lefties who routinely asserted that Bush was another Hitler. Hitler maneuvered Germany into the Enabling Act within two months of his election, voting himself sweeping dictatorial powers. Do you seriously think Obama or the Democrats are just about to do this? Do you seriously envision the outlawing of the GOP by Obama, or the creation of concentration camps? Genocide? Kidnapping the Pope? A Greater American Reich stretching from Canada to El Salvador with Living Space for the Black Master Race?
Reeeeeeally?
As I say, this fevered nonsense is a hard slap in the face of *real* martyrs who have suffered *real* persecution from *real* tyrants. American Catholics should be ashamed of this dimestore narcissistic rhetoric, not least because when real persecution comes, nobody’s gonna believe the boy who cried wolf over a tepid, amateur President like Obama.
P.S. I am not a Glenn Beck disciple. Be careful how you label people. I hardly follow Glenn Beck. I don’t have time to follow Glenn Beck. Your assumptions about me show how erroneous you are. I just read ferociously and have watched some very popular videos on the president where he has said he is a Muslim. Besides everything he has done up to now has moved us closer to Socialism. By the way I do have good Catholic friends that are in academia in fields of history and political science that love Glenn Beck. They are not run of the mill Catholics. They feel that he has not said anything new that they have not know for some time. Glenn Beck just simply has a way of presenting it to the average person which they can identify with. He just connected the dots.
Your fundamental error remains, for despite your ubiquitous caveats, all the books you recommend suffer from that error.
Besides, the more significant critique is your broken historiography, which you address not at all.
On a brighter note, I agree with you vis-a-vis Beck.
I stated above that my 9th grade teacher said “don’t believe anything you read and half of what you see”—-sorry, I forgot, that was before every household had T.V. ;o) I guess I should add “or anything you hear”
As to the remark above that ‘Obama is Muslim’—-Mark emphatically states “he is not”. I shall go along with that, but I know Catholics, who have become members of Protestant churches and invariably, they always go to the defense of their Catholic faith—especially about Blessed Mary. I believe that there is a reason why “doubting Thomas” is in the Bible—maybe it teaches us that we should check out everything we hear and read and probably Jesus knew we’d hear false statements about Him. I was always told the best teacher in the world is the BIBLE. (with proper interpretation). I do know that Jesus had a reason for everything He taught—which applied to the days He was on earth; to this very day in 2010; and to the future. I also believe that heritage has a great deal to do with how we ‘think’ and feel.
I agree that Beck goes overboard on things and it is his interpretation, but I also agree that Obama is not to be trusted.
I enjoy reading these comments—it is a great help
I am not a Glenn Beck disciple. Be careful how you label people. I hardly follow Glenn Beck. I don’t have time to follow Glenn Beck. Your assumptions about me show how erroneous you are.
Well, no. My assumptions show that when you log on to a thread about Glenn Beck and then regurgitate half-baked nonsense that Beck and his disciples constantly spout, you are likely to be confused with a disciple of Beck.
I just read ferociously and have watched some very popular videos on the president where he has said he is a Muslim.
That’s like saying, “That video where Hillary Clinton put on a NY Yankee cap and said she had Jewish blood shows that she’s really a Jew.” Pols notoriously take whatever thread of commonality they can find with an audience and try to play it up. Obama naturally plays up the Muslim connections for the benefit of Muslims. It’s what pols do. You may as well say that Mitt Romney is a born again Christian because he would talk Christianese for the benefit of Evangelicals and try to diminish his Mormon credentials. Obama is no more a Muslim than Nelson Rockefeller was an Anglican theologian.
Glenn Beck just simply has a way of presenting it to the average person which they can identify with. He just connected the dots.
Almost everything that is wrong with Glenn Beck and the people who take their cues from him and those influenced by him is his absurd “connect the dots” historical analysis. As I say, “Fasces were symbols used by fascists. Fasces are on Mercury dimes. Mercury dimes were minted by Wilson. Wilson was a fascist!” is not historical analysis. It is quackery. Beck indulges in this sort of logic all the time. It results in people unable to engage their critical intellect to ask “Might there be a logical problem with the dogmatic declaration that somebody devoted to atheistic dialectical materialis is also a Muslim?”
Instead of engaging in what I would consider conversation lacking charity such as this, I would recommend that we might give Beck a listen on his radio program or a viewing on his television show. I consider the man a kind of American John the Baptist, however, I understand that there are others who do not. Should I demonize those who disagree? Certainly not. I would expect that the same charity be extended back to myself and those others who do kinda like the guy. Has he, Beck, said some pretty odd things, no doubt. OTOH, has he mentioned other things which were correct and have come to pass? Definitely. He is a mixed bag, but aren’t we all? I can say the pretty much the same of Mr. Shea and myself. How much money Beck has made is none of my business and should not necessarily color my view of him for the positive or the negative. We should instead deal as objectively as possible on the things that he has spoken of, imho. My two Mecury dimes…
Obama panders. I don’t believe he is a muslim any more than I believe he paid attention to Rev Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. With both groups, he was trying to gain street credibility because he is not rooted in anything cultural.
Going to Wright’s church was the expedient thing to do but it makes as much sense as a white lawyer living in Scarsdale driving down to Harlem for Sunday services.
I may be cynical, but I think Barry is a functional atheist. The real anti-Christ wouldn’t need a teleprompter
Wellll, seems like a lot of people listen to Beck. See, don’t believe everything you hear. This morning Michael Hastings said that he asked the troops what they thought of McChrystal leaving and said the troops reported that they did not like McChrystal’s strategy. Hastings, a reporter has to know that the strategy in Afghanistan belongs to Obama and his advisers at the Pentagon. Obama is the commander! Everybody on T.V. and in the newspapers,etc., twists things to their liking, to further their ‘party’, to make things interesting. Beck thinks his shenanigans on his program is something most people like, even though he sometimes acts like a clown. Personally, I like a good steady news show and not those idiotic-so-called debates. Another annoyance. Watch Fox News at 6:00p.m. They appeal to your intelligence more. I do know that Obama caters to the Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks and anyone else who will give him a vote. That is politics. Atheist? could be—he has two young girls and he and Michelle could have joined a church by now—-wonder what is keeping him from doing it—he certainly finds time to play golf. Lets face it, he is a POLITICIAN.
I have read a couple of David McCullough’s books and enjoyed them also—The Path Between the Seas and 1776. I have been recommended The Federal Union and The American Nation by John D. Hicks as good American history texts, though they may be hard to find now. A few other books I’ve enjoyed:
Vigilante Days and Ways, Nathaniel P. Langford
The Robber Barons, Matthew Josephson
Troopers with Custer, E.A. Brininstool
I’ve also enjoyed reading biographies of the saints. If you want a different perspective on history from a given time, read the life of a saint from that time. And not all saints biographies are equivalent—I often find myself searching for older biographies, ones written decades ago. A few that I’ve enjoyed are:
The Life of Blessed Margaret of Castello, by Father William R. Bonniwell, O.P
St. Rose of Lima, by Sister Mary Alphonsus, O.SS.R.
The Life and Death of St. Malachy the Irishman, by Bernard of Clairvaux
On my wish list: Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, Bishop and First Archbishop of Baltimore by John Gilmary Shea
Turn off the TV. Better yet, throw out the TV. Read anything you can get your hands on. If Glenn Beck tells you to read one book and not read another, read them both. If you only go to the ordinary form, the extraordinary form, or some other licit rite of the Church, go to the exact opposite type of liturgy with all the “things you hate” one Sunday. Don’t forget to thank the priest on the way out even if his sermon ticked you off.
Mark Shea is right. The “tribalism” and confirmation bias of today’s society is awe-inspiring. It’s important to remember that there’s no one “Catholic way” of reading or thinking. Never stop acquiring the knowledge to question all viewpoints, and especially your own belief and faith. Be your own agenda.
I am not a Beck-ian. I’ve heard his show of late due to local programming changes. [I’d rather have Laura I and Ray Arroyo—although I think they sound too chummy at times.] He is fanatical and as if he’s trying to be prophetic to lead some sort of movement, which is unlike most of his cohorts in talk radio. He’s like a new convert who’s trying to save the rest of the world. He’s not wrong about everything, as Mark concedes. I would not rely on him for history, but I’ve read enough of the early 20C progressivism and communist movements to be concerned with what is going on now in our federal government. I know where Beck goes too far in his interpretations and assumptions. People should research for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I suggested some history books at Mark’s blog.
To document the progressive movement in America, I’d suggest for starters the “Venona Secrets” from which one will study the early 20C communist movement, the players, as well as the use of Catholic immigrants as dupes. The gist of the book is that Joe McCarthy was precisely right. I happen to be reading some David Horowitz, a bona fide “red diaper baby” who is now of the Right. His personal experiences help understand the insidiousness and evil of the Leftist movement in the US (and globally). And the terms are rather interchangeable: communist, socialist, marxist, “revolution”, “social justice,” statist etc. For the State can never in reality fall away as Marx’s ideal suggests—participation is compulsory and no dissent can be brooked. DH boils it down often to an attack on private property rights which by necessity will also eliminate civil liberties.
I think O is strongly sympathetic to Muslims, owing to his family background. I think he has animus toward Western Civilization, frankly. He may be atheist, as he’s largely communist/marxist (whatever word you prefer). His auto-bio’s bear out these sympathies. I do not rely on Beck to reach these conclusions. O may be an rrogant & amateur administrator with a tin political ear, but he’s driven completely by his Leftist ideology from which I’ve seen no compromise in the past 18 mos. He does exude black liberation theology that Wright preached, which encompasses marxism. He strikes me as a very emotionally detached person—perhaps as a consequence of being abandoned by his parents.
Raulito:
I’m not interested in how much money he makes. He’s welcome to his prosperity. What I object to is people talking as though this rich superstar is somehow in mortal danger of persecution. It’s an insult to people who are suffering real persecution.
I just want to suggest a great historian that has a lot of credibility and is very entertaining, but does not distort history to entertain is Jacques Barzun. Just look up his WIKI and find a copy of his book, “From Dawn to Decadence- Western History from 1500 to the Present”, and get some great insight and appreciation for Western history.
Shmikey: I recommended that very book on Mark’s blog. You are quite right. It’s chock full of insight.
Avoid conspiracy theories (aptly described by Kathy Shaidle as “history for stupid people”). [Mark Shea]
“Facts without theories have no more value than theories without facts.” [Milton Friedman, paraprased.]
My observation is that conspiracy is the glue of politics.
I believe the avoidance of historical presentations that coherently assemble evidence of political conspiracies limits the reader to a sterile and pointless exercise. If a disturbing theory is well supported by verifiable evidence, we need seriously consider its implications rather than our personal prejudices regarding the source.
Ms. Shaidle’s name calling is representative of the smear against those who have the courage to consider the possibility that many governments are under the influence of alliances of mass-murdering thieves.
Mark, he has spoken about being insulted and assaulted with his children present in public. He has told us about the body guards he must use now because he has received threats to his life and his children have been harrassed. He has shown us the insidious “I’m watching you” letters and gifts he’s received from the labor unions that he has exposed. Is this not a form of persecution? Do you think he is a liar? If so, what’s your proof? I take him at his word until proven otherwise. Trust and charity go hand in hand as they should at first. You can deny your uncharity towards Beck all you want, but after reading all your replies, your unreasonableness with regards to Beck is solidified in my mind. The message I have received from watching Beck is to return to my Catholic faith with fervor, and to work to grow in virtue. And by doing that and only that will our country be saved from the train wreck it has become. I think that is a good message and the right one. My filter worked correctly when taking in what Beck had to say as you can see by what I took from it. But some people’s filters will not work right. And since filtering others message must be done no matter who the messenger is, you included, you can see if people have a bad filter the skewed message lay squarely with them and them alone. So, the problem you should have is with that, not the messenger. I realize that what I have said will most likely not persuade you to be a little more charitable towards Beck (and will most likely elicit a response), but I do hope that you will reflect on the “do unto others” verse. It is always best to respond with charity first. By the way, should we be using the same approach to studying the bible that you have prescribed for studying history? Just wondering.
Did Beck say the thing about fasces and Mercury Dimes, or was that an example of yours? I listen to Beck frequently, but I am certainly no ‘disciple’ of his. I think he gives an honest view of the direction the country is headed. He has also exposed some radical communists in the administration. (Remember Van Jones?) While I wouldn’t go to him for an accurate account of Catholic history, I think his general message is what the country needs right now: we must keep faith in God and restore America by restoring our lives first.
Shea is simply not honest in this debate on Beck, on this thread or the other recent ones. He has no knowledge of, nor pays attention to, that for which Beck is popular, ie his revelations of the people who surround this administration and what they have said and written, the interconnecting web of those who despise our nation as we have known it.
Beck won’t respond to this 95% of Beck’s output, and harps on the same few points ad nauseum. Like his recent show of ignorance about threats against Beck and his family. No one is comparing him to the First Martyrs of the Church (today’s feastday), but in typical Shea fashion, he dismisses something he knows nothing about regarding Beck. Jennifer O. mentions some of what Beck has said on air. Is Shea’s family threatened? Would he be concerned, no matter what his income?
Shea resorts to hyperbolic, capitalized insults about “hairdos” and other Maureen Dowdisms. He’s a bore.
“He may be atheist, as he’s largely communist/marxist (whatever word you prefer). His auto-bio’s bear out these sympathies.”
[sigh]
Here’s the guy’s own autobiographical words—doesn’t sound very atheistic to me:
“I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”
http://www.ucc.org/news/significant-speeches/a-politics-of-conscience.html
“He has also exposed some radical communists in the administration.”
heh.
“I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
Thanks for the list and the continued warning against Beck, who is definitely a bigger threat than George Soros. Of course, I probably wouldn’t have Stephen Ambrose on my list of recommended books due to his controversial inaccuracies and the confirmed plagiarism.
George Soros is an atheist and socialist who funds anti-religion, anti-life, anti-US Constututional organizations and like Candidates. He funds organizations that are intended to deceive and confuse the average American so they will vote for his candidates - this includes the pro-abortion groups - see documented “Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics” on the internet - which I have forwarded to both the Vatican and USCCB.
The liberal/progressives are afraid of Glen Beck due to his documentation. His quotes from the Constitutuion and Federalist Papers have been accurate. The liberals try to mix his “political” along with his “personal religious beliefs” - for “political” gain.
And yes, if any “Catholic” tries to take the Church’s teaching on Social Justice without including the Church’s teaching on “SUBSIDIARITY” - they are twisting / lying about the Church’s teaching to further their own political views. (CCC 1883, 1885, 1894, 2209)
Further, both by Jesus’s teaching in the Bible, and by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholics are bound to obey the US Constitution/law.
Good grief! Beck supporters can be a virulent lot as evidenced in these comments:) But no worries faithful patriots - many of us know how to sift through the reems of useless information that drips from the TV to find the gems that occasionally escape the lips of even the most ‘clownful’ pundit - I love reading Mark’s articles and the ensuing comments in the wee hours of the morning as I listen the Divine Mercy chaplet on EWTN radio and await my ride to dialysis at 4:45AM….Many thanks, Mark, for engendering these lively debates - you are much appreciated in my little corner of the world.
Thanks, Melinda, for the encouraging words! I’m somewhere over the eastern seaboard and have been on the road this week (which is why this comes so late). But I wanted to let you know I appreciated your kindness! Blessings!
Mark ...your obesession with Glen Beck tells me alot about you..as a writer and where you are coming from. I am going to think twice about
bothering with your blogs…I can find the same attitudes in almost any
liberal newspaper…and they are all headed for the tank! Adios..and God
bless you in your search for truth..until you find it I think you should write for something other than Catholic media.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.