But have you called KL down for his sarcasm in regards to interpretations with which he disagrees? That was the point I raised. The sarcasm (which does serve a purpose at times) cuts both ways.

Here are two bloggers who should be having a stimulating and probably enlightening discussion on how to teach history without ramming a stereotypical approach down the throats of the students.

Instead of that, it has gone straight to the statge of posturing and flaming. How boring! The discussion is about the (lack of) discussion.

Let those who want to join in with their own gripes & grudges.

“Kevin Levin has one of the most articulate history blogs on the web”

That’s subjective Toby and your opinion. Kevin often raises interesting points and provokes thought and debate, there’s no question about that, but his arguments very much align with a liberal academic template and are rather predictable. That’s my opinion.

Moreover, your taking Chris to task for “sarcasm” (in the next post) would have a little more credibility if you ever did the same thing on Kevin’s blog in calling him and some of his followers for the same offense. Someone recently chastised me on my blog for an alleged offense while that same person has NEVER made any similar objections on Kevin’s blog for the same thing, though he comments there often. KL seems to get a pass on these things for some reason and then his followers show up on other sites to call down those bloggers. Sorry, no sale.

“I did not say a word, I let them discuss and in the end, some valued Zinn and some did not. I was the “guide on the side” and that was best. Sure I had an opinion, but I stayed out. I doubt most teachers do.”

You should invite your readers to read Kevin’s original post, follow what you preach here, and let them make up their own mind:

http://cwmemory.com/2009/09/18/teaching-history-without-the-negative-stuff/

C

Thank you.