History, herstory, or hstry...

(Tim) Kamilla just pointed me to a spiffy review Al Mohler's done of John Vincent's An Intelligent Person's Guide to History in which Vincent is quoted, saying, "History is incorrigibly male."

VIncent's statement reminds me of the distinction between dishonest and honest religious feminists. The dishonest ones call themselves "evangelicals" and claim the whole brouhaha is a matter of interpretation and hermeneutics.

The honest ones say "The Bible is hopelessly patriarchal."

Don't miss the quote at the end of Mohler's review. Sadly, it's true.

Comments

[jim Hogue]

So, what Rev. Mohler is saying is that history is a recording of "what happened and why" heavily influenced [read: biased] by those who are seeking glory after they are dead. Not that I argue because, as a student of "hystory", I have noticed that only the "latest" textbooks are used, viz., nothing written prior to the year previous. Does this suggest a similarity to the Athenians (Acts 17:21 - "Now the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.")? Of course not.
Clearly, as is suggested by the John Vincent quote given by Rev. Mohler, history books written before [my] lifetime are not to be trusted because they are "biased" by the male-dominant culture. By that same logic, why should I trust the Bible?

[Note: the last sentence is spoken very much tongue-in-cheek]

[Keith Knowlden]

>Sadly, its true.

Explain please. What is the happier alternative?

Mr. Vincent is saying history rests on revelation - and we get revelations from the articulate and powerful. That is true whether the articulate and powerful are corrupt or virtuous.

[Kamilla]

Just what I needed - another book to read! My local bookstore has a "bargain" copy (I don't know if that means officially remaindered hardback or not) and now I have to call them and see if they have the Kierkegaard book, too.

Kamilla