This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 27, 2018. |
Should this be discussed? Is it relevant? It's likely the reason he had so much time to write after 1917 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.118.67 ( talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
71.163.117.143 ( talk) 10:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious if you should be using the term "isolationism" to describe Beard's outlook on foreign affairs. Is he a true isolationist (he doesn't want to trade with other countries, in addition to being a non-interventionist)- or does he just believe in non-interventionism? I don't believe their one-in-the-same. Being non-interventionist just means you don't want to get involved in other people's wars, it doesn't mean you don't want to be friendly and diplomatic toward another nations.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.162.207 ( talk) 03:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This bit about only a few modern historians "clinging" to Beard is absurd. From Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, to conservatives like Andrew Bacevich, to Pulitzer Prize-winner James M. McPherson---all regularly cite the work of Beard.
I propose that this "clinging to the his models of class warfare in American history" bit be deleted.
Police Teeth ( talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I added more details and readings RJensen Rjensen 18:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The first paragraph, second sentence, doesn't read well. Someone whould fix it.
Added a bit at the bottom about the revival of Beard's foreign policy ideas among paleocons and Prof. Bacevich. Interesting how his reputation, at low ebb for almost 60 years, has risen(a little)since the end of the Cold War. DubeauxBeau Martin Dubeaux
I am not certain that the 1917 NYT article, "Columbia's Deliverance," was sarcastic. Beard was heavily criticized by some American nationalists for emphasizing economic motives in his revisionist history of the formation of the Constitution. Also, his resignation from Columbia followed in the wake of his unsuccessful and controversial attempts to defend three Columbia faculty who had been fired for opposition to the war effort. He had also raised the ire of the Columbia Trustees for his defense of community centres thought by some to be hotbeds of anti-patriotic sentiment. See Carol S. Gruber's 1975 monograph, Mars and Minerva, especially p. 160, 210; and Larence J. Denis, George S. Counts and Charles A. Beard, collaborators for change, p. 149-150. Yvonneh21 ( talk) 20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The Devil Theory of War: An Inquiry into the Nature of History and the Possibility of Keeping Out of War
The Ruskin names can be confusing. I changed the reference from Ruskin House (which is London and which Beard was not formally involved) to Ruskin College which is in Oxford. I also changed the collaborator from John Ruskin to Walter Vrooman. Ruskin was never involved with the institutions that bore his name. I hope to post an article on Vrooman this weekend (among his accomplishments were getting the first playgrounds in NYC!). Americasroof 18:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Beard did indeed publish "President Roosevelt and the Coming of War" but the correct title is President Roosevelt and the Coming of War 1941." File:Http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,779847,00.html-- Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know if he was ever labeled as a revisionist, or revisionist historian? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"He published hundreds of monographs, textbooks and interpretive studies in both history and political science. He was so young. His works included radical re-evaluation of the founding fathers of the United States, who he believed were more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles." Doesn't really make sense, I doubt it should be there? Mathmo Talk 11:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The article tracks the acceptance and dismissal of Beard's economic theory regarding the voting of the delegates fairly well, but it's lacking in mentions of attempts since the 60s to revisit this theory. Much of McDonald's own work has been questioned, and even repurposed to give support for Beard's theory. See: McGuire and Ohsfeldt, Economic Interests and the American Constitution: A Quantitative Rehabilitation of Charles A. Beard, for instance. I don't know exactly how well-received this effort has been or if anyone still actively pursues it; is it substantive enough to merit mention? 76.109.241.82 ( talk) 06:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Still, it seems as though, if nobody ever rejected McGuire and his contemporaries works, that their redemption of Beard's ideas would deserve mention. As the article here stands, it makes it sound like his work was discredited and ignored from the 1950s onward, when in reality statistical analysis has proven him at least partly right. Beard himself may not be read much nowadays (and with good reason - his book on the subject is profoundly confusing), but more modern papers summarizing and supporting his theory ARE. It seems like the article should mention this. The line at the end about how we still look at economic rational choice when examining the motivations of historical figures doesn't really give it the weight it deserves, and it implies that we're only using Beard's ideas about other historical figures, when really we're still using it to analyze the specific situation he was. It's not absent from modern discussions of the matter at all. 129.171.233.76 ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Under the Economic Interpretation, the line reads "Academics and politicians denounced the book, but it was well respected by scholars until the 1950s." Aren't academics the same thing as scholars, and thus they either denounced the book or respected it? If different groups of academics/scholars respected or denounced it, the article should talk about those differing groups. Or if academics once respected it, but have since denounced it, the shift in historiography should be mentioned. Koothrappali ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I added a section about his death and legacy, but don't have time to research it very much. IMHO, Beard's more than a polemicist, and more than an intellectual historian, which seems the gist of the substantial end of the article as it previously stood. It seems his intellectual heirs weren't disciples, per se, which is OK in my book. Have any awards been named to honor him, or the Beards jointly? I'm sure the AHA has one, but googling the name produces lots of results. FYI, I noticed a Beard School in Chicago, but that's apparently to honor a very different midwest-born guy, founder of the Boy Scouts. BTW, were they related, cousins or something? The current article says Beard came from a wealthy family, but not how/from where they got their $$, which IMHO might've led to his economic history viewpoint. But all this shows why this article about one of the U.S.'s most influential historians is still start class. Hint. Hint. Jweaver28 ( talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW Beard exposed forgery of statements of Benjamin Franklin against the Jews. https://archive.org/details/dudeman5685_yahoo_BF1 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 10:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the redirect and former article Charles and Mary Beard, which currently points to this article, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Charles and Mary Beard. You are invited to contribute there. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)