By: Michael Zeller
Now that my colleague has provided some praise for Mrs. Burleigh's lecture, I will provide some criticism.
The lecture was informative to a point (though redundant in several instances) and offered some positive additions to Scholars' knowledge of John Adams. For the greater portion of the lecture, Mrs. Burleigh presented sound, objective historical fact and analysis. And certainly, this portion was well-received and widely appreciated.
However, Mrs. Burleigh's sporadic deviations from purely historical commentary (specifically, John Adams) were a different matter. Nearly half way through her lecture, she mentioned Adams's advocacy for religious education, contending that it was necessary for a sustainable republic. While she mentioned that some of Adams's colleagues - namely, Washington and Jefferson - differed with him on this point, she undeniably favored Adams's view of the matter. She said something along the lines of: 'None of the other founders had thought through the sustainability of republics as much as Adams.' This small historical slight, easily dismissible otherwise, was followed by more of the same.
Rather than prolong the explanation, I will enumerate some such comments:
1) "We were founded as a republic, but have devolved into something else."
2) A string of commentary that bluntly implied that morality is solely derived and a product of religion
3) [and this one is a personal grievance] The moronic notion that Reagan and Thatcher, together, brought about the fall of the Soviet Union.
To her first point, the republican government of the founders still remains. It has grown; it has evolved; and it remains. I would challenge Mrs. Burleigh to indicate a government in all of history whose power and functions have decreased or even remained fairly static with the passing of time. I certainly cannot think of one and I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable student of history. Governments and bureaucracy goes. Surely the wise and almighty founders (Adams included), with their incredible foresight, would realize that this is part-in-parcel with the nature of government (and admittedly, perhaps the reason all governments eventually stagger and fall under their own weight).
Second: I will try to be sensitive here, since I know my views of religion are not necessarily shared by any great number of my peers. However, I think this is a fairly simple point to grasp (though I believe one scholar which I explained this to is still hopelessly attempting to "wrap his head around it"). That is, morality is not derived from religion. Instead, religion is a manifestation of morality. Morality predates religion. Rather, morality is a timeless concept. The reign of various religions is finite. When in history one religion or another faded away, morality remained. Thus, a people can be moral without being religious, or even spiritual. Indeed, rationality alone can produce morality! Is man a communal being? Yes. Is it his instinct to survive? Yes. Does the collective security of a safe community provide a greater probability of survival? Certainly. Is a freedom from unjust harm part of a safe community? Yes. Thus, would acceptable members of a community hold the belief of doing no harm unto others? Certainly. I may have skipped the inclusion of some caveats for the sake of expediency, but I take it that my meaning is understood.
Finally, I recognize that the study of history is an interpretive endeavor and thus always subject to reexamination. However, in the grand tapestry of human history, few assertions have been so handily rejoined as the notion that Reagan and/or Thatcher brought down (or even significantly contributed to) the fall of the Soviet Union. Decay was sewn into the fabric of the Soviet system. No one man can be credited with bringing about its demise. Even so, the closest answer to such a "one man" question would be the fumbling of Mikhail Gorbachev. The closest analogy I can offer is this: The fall of the Soviet Union and Reagan's contribution are much like a sporting event and its commentator. People will always remember the Bobby Thompson "shot heard round the world" World Series homer, "The Catch" by Clark and the San Francisco 49ers, and the countless number of dramatic NCAA basketball moments. They will remember these moments and the people who gave them the call, the words of the moment. They are inseparable in our memory, even though the words of the commentator ultimately had no effect on the execution of the athletic feat. Similarly, history will remember Reagan for his "Tear down this Wall" speech and his "Evil Empire" labeling of the USSR. But, this commentary is the extent of his part in the fall of the Soviet Union. For an extensive explanation, I refer readers to Stephen Kotkin's "Armageddon Averted."
Overall, Mrs. Burleigh's lecture was informative. The only unfortunate thing is that she allowed her solid history lecture to be undermined by her own unfounded commentary. Her presentation of biased opinions along with historical facts undoubtedly frustrated some, and misinformed others. I sincerely hope that her next lecture will be devoid of such unwarranted pontification.
Now that my colleague has provided some praise for Mrs. Burleigh's lecture, I will provide some criticism.
The lecture was informative to a point (though redundant in several instances) and offered some positive additions to Scholars' knowledge of John Adams. For the greater portion of the lecture, Mrs. Burleigh presented sound, objective historical fact and analysis. And certainly, this portion was well-received and widely appreciated.
However, Mrs. Burleigh's sporadic deviations from purely historical commentary (specifically, John Adams) were a different matter. Nearly half way through her lecture, she mentioned Adams's advocacy for religious education, contending that it was necessary for a sustainable republic. While she mentioned that some of Adams's colleagues - namely, Washington and Jefferson - differed with him on this point, she undeniably favored Adams's view of the matter. She said something along the lines of: 'None of the other founders had thought through the sustainability of republics as much as Adams.' This small historical slight, easily dismissible otherwise, was followed by more of the same.
Rather than prolong the explanation, I will enumerate some such comments:
1) "We were founded as a republic, but have devolved into something else."
2) A string of commentary that bluntly implied that morality is solely derived and a product of religion
3) [and this one is a personal grievance] The moronic notion that Reagan and Thatcher, together, brought about the fall of the Soviet Union.
To her first point, the republican government of the founders still remains. It has grown; it has evolved; and it remains. I would challenge Mrs. Burleigh to indicate a government in all of history whose power and functions have decreased or even remained fairly static with the passing of time. I certainly cannot think of one and I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable student of history. Governments and bureaucracy goes. Surely the wise and almighty founders (Adams included), with their incredible foresight, would realize that this is part-in-parcel with the nature of government (and admittedly, perhaps the reason all governments eventually stagger and fall under their own weight).
Second: I will try to be sensitive here, since I know my views of religion are not necessarily shared by any great number of my peers. However, I think this is a fairly simple point to grasp (though I believe one scholar which I explained this to is still hopelessly attempting to "wrap his head around it"). That is, morality is not derived from religion. Instead, religion is a manifestation of morality. Morality predates religion. Rather, morality is a timeless concept. The reign of various religions is finite. When in history one religion or another faded away, morality remained. Thus, a people can be moral without being religious, or even spiritual. Indeed, rationality alone can produce morality! Is man a communal being? Yes. Is it his instinct to survive? Yes. Does the collective security of a safe community provide a greater probability of survival? Certainly. Is a freedom from unjust harm part of a safe community? Yes. Thus, would acceptable members of a community hold the belief of doing no harm unto others? Certainly. I may have skipped the inclusion of some caveats for the sake of expediency, but I take it that my meaning is understood.
Finally, I recognize that the study of history is an interpretive endeavor and thus always subject to reexamination. However, in the grand tapestry of human history, few assertions have been so handily rejoined as the notion that Reagan and/or Thatcher brought down (or even significantly contributed to) the fall of the Soviet Union. Decay was sewn into the fabric of the Soviet system. No one man can be credited with bringing about its demise. Even so, the closest answer to such a "one man" question would be the fumbling of Mikhail Gorbachev. The closest analogy I can offer is this: The fall of the Soviet Union and Reagan's contribution are much like a sporting event and its commentator. People will always remember the Bobby Thompson "shot heard round the world" World Series homer, "The Catch" by Clark and the San Francisco 49ers, and the countless number of dramatic NCAA basketball moments. They will remember these moments and the people who gave them the call, the words of the moment. They are inseparable in our memory, even though the words of the commentator ultimately had no effect on the execution of the athletic feat. Similarly, history will remember Reagan for his "Tear down this Wall" speech and his "Evil Empire" labeling of the USSR. But, this commentary is the extent of his part in the fall of the Soviet Union. For an extensive explanation, I refer readers to Stephen Kotkin's "Armageddon Averted."
Overall, Mrs. Burleigh's lecture was informative. The only unfortunate thing is that she allowed her solid history lecture to be undermined by her own unfounded commentary. Her presentation of biased opinions along with historical facts undoubtedly frustrated some, and misinformed others. I sincerely hope that her next lecture will be devoid of such unwarranted pontification.