Talk:Samuel Eliot Morison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] AKA?

What's with the AKA (Jonathan Trumbull)? You gonna change it? WB2 23:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] links / criticism

Unless someone can find some good links to the criticism section, they need some change. If you are going to lay serious charges at Morison for being a bigot, you better back it up. Not a bunch of second trash cites from places that don't carry an article anymore. Dean acheson 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes under 68.108.94.116

Were made by me, PainMan. I forgot to log in before making changes logged under this IP address.

[edit] POV Editing, Original Research, Changing a Citation

While one viewpoint contends that this historian ought not be held responsible for his writing, another would point out that W.E.B. Du Bois preceded Morrison at Harvard, that Du Bois was an elder historian whose works Morrison ignored. When he received his Ph.D. more than a dozen years after Du Bois, Morrison became a contemporary of Du Bois who has a literary output at least as great as Morrison. Du Bois was a scholar who was painfully aware of what some --but not all- contemporary historians were writing about African Americans.

We both have been around long enough to grasp that Wikipedia policy is to cite sources for what is added. As you know, personal opinion and personal research is unacceptable. For that reason the material added will be reverted.

It is also being reverted because of the unsubtle change in context. Commager and Morrison were not quoting; they were stating.

Further, your viewpoint weighing Morrison's views on Reconstruction are directly at odds with Pulitzer Prize and National-Book-award winning historian Leon F. Litwack. While it is your personal opinion that Morrison wrote about Jim Crow fairly, Litwack says he realized in 11th grade in high school that Morrison and Commager's book was opinionated in an offensive manner and in a way that negatively impacted African Americans-- and that theirs was the textbook required at his high school.

"The textbook was my first confrontation with history. I asked my 11th grade teacher for the opportunity to respond to the textbook’s version of Reconstruction, to what I thought were distortions and racial biases. (I had already read Howard Fast’s Freedom Road.) The research led me to the library—and to W.E.B. Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction, with that intriguing subtitle: An Essay Toward a History of the Part which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880. Armed with that book, I presented what I thought to be a persuasive rebuttal of the textbook."

You know the drill. Find a book that zeroes in on Morrison's scholarship about African Americans, someone who answers Litwack directly.

skywriter 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this drill, find a good original quote form SEM for this claimed bigotry, not some second hand stuff from some UC Berkley prof. who taught about 'race-relations' and that professor's memory of what was in Morrison's general history text. THAT is kinda the drill in real history scholarship, at least what I was taught in the graduate program that I attended. Dean acheson 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"The freedmen were not really free in 1865, nor are most of their descendants really free in 1965. Slavery was but one aspect of a race and color problem that is still far from solution here, or anywhere. In America particularly, the grapes of wrath have not yet yielded all their bitter vintage. The Oxford History of the American People, cp. 33
—wwoods 07:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What edition? It mentions 1965, suggesting that is an example of a later revision among many revisions of that book into the 1980s. The content changed and was revised as mass protests against crude forms of racism could no longer be ignored. Chances are good that quote did not appear in the same edition as the one Litwack was reading as a high school student. As a result of the campaigns against lynching, some forms of speech, previously common in textbooks became less acceptable when people marched in the streets to protest terror and the various forms of segregation. Skywriter 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whichever one is quoted in the Fourteenth Ed. of Bartletts's. Probably printed in 1965, since the first quote from the book is "[1965]". This one sentence seems to get grossly disproportionate weight—two paragraphs of seven—for the current version of this article, but I presume the article will eventually be expanded.
—wwoods 09:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As to the comment "This one sentence seems to get grossly disproportionate weight" -- that is a matter of viewpoint i.e. whether your sympathies lie with the historians who made that comment in a textbook, or part of the group on the receiving end. Litwack is critical of the entire Morison/Commager explanation for Reconstruction era, not just this one comment, and he has written a number of award-winning books to prove his point about Reconstruction. Skywriter 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is astounding that there is an edit war ongoing on here, and on the Commager page over a serious criticism of a textbook that was widely used in schools all over the United States for so many years. Are these pages now candidates for POV and fact tags? Wwoods argues (above) that drawing attention to this entry is "grossly disproportionate". That is the subjective opinion of one who was not likely the object of the verbal assault contained for three decades in this required textbook. Why in the world would anyone insist on deleting specific criticism from a noted historian of a famous textbook wherein the textbook was criticized by others, yet it took 30 years for the authors to modify their repugnant viewpoint?

This is viewpoint suppression of the worst kind.

Are the people who have repeatedly removed Litwack's criticism (and earlier wanted to remove all comments concerning the authors' racial views) not aware of the hurtful nature of these lines in a required textbook? Is there a rule on Wikipedia that racism will not be discussed, or it is to be tamped down? Is this political correctness at play? Skywriter 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete the criticism. I simply moved the anecdote about Litwack's "first confrontation with history" to the article on Litwack, where it belongs. And I don't think there's anything wrong with including criticism of the book, but devoting two of the seven paragraphs on Morison—and two of the three on Commager—is indeed "grossly disproportionate". The easiest solution is to prune down the criticism section, but if you expand the articles to something like full size, that'd be even better. By the way, why'd you remove the {{historian-stub}} from Commager?
—wwoods 05:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted from this article where it most properly belongs--with the authors of the textbook that was so widely used for so many years. Deletion of pointed criticism by a leading subject historian in favor of anonymous critics is a non-neutral viewpoint decision. Claim of proportionality is also non-neutral viewpoint decision. Those affected feel the significance. Some of those unaffected would rather see it go away. Skywriter 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"I thought were distortions and racial biases. ... I presented what I thought to be a persuasive rebuttal of the textbook." That doesn't seem like a particularly pointed criticism to me; what did his teacher think of his rebuttal?
—wwoods 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Litwack's assertions are nothing but opinions (of Morison's writings) and opportunistically biased ones at that. One of the quickest ways to academic advancement is to kowtow to the Liberal orthodoxy that rules nearly every college and university in this country (a conspicious element in their noticeable decline in quality). Morison is, in fact, more more prejudiced against Republicans and those he calls "right-wingers" than African-Americans. He also--sadly--repeats the McCarthy Myth with no critical evaluation at all.

Morison simply lays out the facts. It is regrettable that he used some of the language he did, but that in no way proves him racist--unless we intended to make the over sensitivity of 11th graders the measure of scholarship. Unless disagreeing with Litwack makes one a racist.

After the GOP effectively abandoned the ex-slaves both physically (by the withdrawl of the highly unpopular military reconstruction) and politically, the ex-slaves, cast completely adrift by the government that had freed them, looked, not unnaturally, to be people that had been their leaders and former owners.

Before "Jim Crow" laws slammed the door shut on African-American civil rights (i.e. passed bySouth politicans--'Democrats all), "white" Southern Democrats actively sought the votes of African-Americans. Unintentionally, African-Americans contributed to the entrenchment of racist elite which would soon impose second class citizenship on them. "Jim Crow" as it is commonly known, wasn't imposed overnite. It was a process carried out over decades, beginning in the late 1880s (not so conicidentally when the first Democrat since before the war was elected President) and complete by the end of the 1890s. What law could not achieve, terrorist violence by the Klan(s) and other racist "whites" did.

Sadly, both the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive refused to do anything to defend African-Americans' civil rights. The last nail in the coffin of equality before the law, was nailed down by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

All of this is covered, in detail, by Adm. Morison in The Oxford History of the American People.

PainMan 14:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus

And here you go again: one(1) paragraph on Morison, and two(2) paragraphs on Zinn's criticism of Morison. Do you really not see why this is disproportionate?
—wwoods 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Funny to put Zinn on the same level with Morison. Zinn can always dream... Skywriter could take a practical lesson in NPOV by also adding material explaining how Morison's books became so popular, including quotes from the many enthusiastic reviews that they received along the way. It would be an asset to the article to have a discussion that is not detectably for or against. Stan 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it that Wwoods and Stan Shebs have not added material they believe is relevant? Why are they arguing only to delete valid viewpoints? Skywriter 14:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


This is not the place for "viewpoints", Skywriter. Viewpoints, according to the Wikipedia canon, but not Encyclopedia Britanncia (indisputably the template for all subsequent encylopedias), are not permissiable in wikipedia articles. The goal is to provide information that is as objective as possible. While complete objectivity is impossible, complete truth is not. Calling Hitler a bloodthirsty tyrant is not POV, it's the unvarnished truth.

Quibbling over certain phrases used by the late admiral sixty and seventy years ago--when exceptable language was quite different, it was not illegal, for instance, to mention God in high school commencement addresses--is ridiculous--quibbling, furthermore, by anonymous academics obviously trying to build reputations by attacking a man no longer capable of defending himself. Morison's books will be read long after these opportunistic wannabees and their works are forgotten dust. PainMan 13:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morison's treatment of the Japanese

In reading Morison's "History of the U.S. Navy in World War II," I notice that he uses what appears to be derogatory and pejorative phrases and names to refer to the Japanese adversaries of the U.S. Navy during that conflict. For example, words like "Nips," "Nipponese," "Samurai Sons of the Emperor," etc. (I'll add specific citations to back this up if necessary later). I would think that this should be mentioned in the article on him and the entry in Wikipedia about the book, but, I haven't found any sources or references that address this issue which is necessary since we're not supposed to put our own opinions into Wikipedia articles. If anyone knows of an article or essay that discusses the issue of how Morison refers to the Japanese in the "U.S. Navy" series, then perhaps it could be discussed in the article or here on the talk page first because I think it is a valid issue. Cla68 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


First: The Japanese refer to themselves as Nipponese--to this day! The official name of the country is Nippon, not Japan. Like many other names attached to far-away places by early modern European explorers, an erroneous one stuck to Japan.*

  • (Just as the error of a cartographer gave Amerigo Vespucci's name to the two continents of the New World when Columbus' primacy is irrefutable. It should be remembered that neither the Vikings, and others, who visited north-eastern N. America--possibly but not definitively proved, as far south as Massachusettes--did not realize they had stumbled onto a new continent, let alone a "new" world.
  • (There has also been some speculation that a Chinese expedition may have reached, and briefly explored, the California coast. However, this evidence is far from conclusive and is based entirely on certain disputed references in Chinese records--not on any achaeological or other scientific evidence.)

Second: the Samurai ethic was inculcated into Japanese servicemembers by intensive indoctinration and brutal discipline. Even Japanese ministers were assassinated by fanatical army officers (the so-called "double-patriots") for not kowtowing to the Army and its insane policy of aggression. Isoroku Yamamato, planner of the Pearl Harbor attack and apostle of carrier warfare, openly opposed a Japanese attack on the United States (having been educated at Harvard and spent some ten years in the US, he was acutely aware of the USA's overwhelming economic superiority over Japan--while none-the-less spinelessly participating in it and Japan's scheme of rapacious attacks and conquest which stretched from India to Oahu. The Naval high command so feared that he would be assassinated he was sent to sea to put him out reach of the Long Knives of the "double-patriots." (Even today, writers and others who dare to mention Japan's wartime atrocities face everything from harassment to having guns fired at their houses by Japan's tiny group of hyper-nationalist nutballs.)

Japanese officers also carried the katana (the long samurai sword) as part of their uniform. There are numerous verified accounts of some of the officers using their swords to murder captured enemy POWs (e.g. pilots of the Doolittle Raid) and civilians in occupied countries.

While the Samurai had been defeated during two short civil wars the the last half of the 19th century, the Samurai ethic was adopted by the Japanese middle class (from whom the majority of senior military officers would originate, including the most infamous of Japanese admirals, Yamamoto). Its perversion was not terribly dissimilar to the way Hitler perverted the traditional ethics of the Prusso-Germanic officer corps' ethics.

Therefore referring to the Japanese military as "Samurai Sons of the Emperor" is exactly how these men conceived themselves!! As Hitler placed the "superiority" of the Aryan "race"--and more laughably, his own "genius"--as the keystones of German feelings of superiority and nationalism, service to the Emperor was similarly used to focus and intensify Japanese imperialist and nationalist ardor from the beginning of the so-called Meiji Restoration (1868) until Japan's final surrender (on 11 Aug 1945) during WWII.

Thus, as should be clear to any reader not hungery to destroy the reputation of another DWM (Dead White Male--a favored terms of Liberals), RAdm Morison was, in fact, honoring the courage, tenacity and perspicacity of Japan's fighting men.

In his historical works he expressed admiration and praises the Japanese for their military efficacy and quick achievement of a great power navy in a very short period of time. At the same time, he correctly notes the murderous brutality of the military regime.

The period in which Morison wrote MUST also be stressed. Many terms for so-called "persons of color"--a racist term in and of itself--were common in the first half of the 20th century--especially terms for African-Americans. Some of these terms, it must be noted, are to this day still used by African-Americans themselves.

While it is deemed heretical for a "white" person to use the word "nigger" in any context, or for a drunken, conservative actor to use some anti-semitic phrases, the rapper Ice Cube can write a song fantasizing about raping a "white" woman with absolute impunity from the Drive-by Media.

As a term of abuse, the word "nigger" is bigoted and despicable--when used by persons of any color. Declaring that any use of the word by so-called "white" people (I myself am of European, Jewish, Cherokee and African-American descent) is Orwellian. Especially when many of the people who seek to impose this double-standard freely refer to "white" people as "crackers" and describe them as "fish bellies."

To judge books Admiral Morison wrote in the 30s, 40s and 50s by linguistic standards of 2006 is anachronistic and inauthentic.

Futhermore, the few strays phrases that we, today, consider inappropriate, do not represent to views of the Admiral. To quote a French author, "A man's vices are a product of his time; his virtues are his own."

Adm Morison served his country with distinction and is one the greatest of American historians. To attempt to trash him based on these few stray phrases and by taking other remarks taken out of context, or unbalanced by other remarks on the same subject, is despicable.

I notice that W.E.B Bois's rabid pro-communism is not mentioned to balance the late Admiral's alleged racism and "whitewashing" of slavery. Nor should it have been. Because neither this contrived controversy nor DuBois' support of the Soviet Union is germaine to a biography of Samuel Eliot Morison!

PainMan 13:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose for bringing this topic up here on the talk page is not to debate the matter with other Wikipedia editors, nor to try and ``trash`` Morison. It`s to open an inquiry into whether this is a matter that deserves mention in the article. If no credible, authoritative sources have discussed, criticized, or commented on the vocabulary Morison uses to refer to the U.S. Navy`s Japanese adversaries in World War II, then it isn`t an issue that needs to be addressed in the article. Cla68 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


While I feel that this "controversy" is nothing more than the afflatus of nameless academic gasbags trying to build their reputations by trashing a great American historian over a few phrases; my position is supported by the lack of any evidence worthy of the name. To repeat: are we to call Mark Twain a racist for using the parlance of the times in the dialogue of his novels? Forty years ago "negro" was a perfectly acceptable appellation for African-Americans, now it is regarded as tacky, at best, perjorative at worst (as well it should be).

If someone feels that strongly about this "tempest in a teapot", they should write a separate article. In my opinion, the topic doesn't deserve a separate article; but it definitely doesn't belong in his biography. Nothing in Morison's works demonstrates him as a racist and his reputation should not be libeled when he is unable to defend himself. PainMan 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV-tained material irrelevant to a biography

1.) Removed sections on alleged racial bias "whitewashing" of slavery because they are not germaine to Morison's biography. They clearly belong in a separate article; either one addressing his work in toto or just the controversy.

By giving so much space to the alleged racial bias and "whitewashing" of slavery without similar analysis of the totality of his oeuvre is clearly POV--an attempt to smear the man with the racist brush by using selectively displayed parts of his work. This selective attack was completely unbalanced and clearly an attempted to overshadow his irreplaceable contributions to the historiography of WWII.

The attack is clearly in the same vein as those people quite absurdly want to remove the greatest American novel, Huckleberry Finn, from school libraries because of the frequent use of the word "nigger" in the book's dialogue. This, of course, ignores the fact that in the 1850s, and for decades to come, "nigger" was, sadly, the word used to designated African-Americans both by "white" Americans and African-Americans themselves. Such anachronistic criticisms are at best ignorant, at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead those unfamiliar with the works in question.

2.) Christopher Columbus

Again, this is not relevant to a biography. It is also very riddled with POV and clear bias against the late RADM Morison.

3.) Reference & External links

Unnecessary with removal of irrevelant material.

4.) Quotes

Again this is a biography of his life, not an analysis of his works. These selective quotes are intended to further the agenda of painting the late RAdm Morison as a racist--a label completely unsupported by his published works.

It's interesting that Lyndon Johnson, who constantly referred to African-Americans as "niggers" (e.g. many examples of which have been found on his secret phone recordings), is not condemned as a racist for his use of the word. Yet the person who contributed the irrelevant material to the Morison bio, clearly feels that trashing his reputation is more important than providing individuals seeking knowledge about him with encyclopedic information. This cannot and will not be allowed to stand.

If someone feels that their skewed views deserve an airing, another article is the place to do it--and I will be watching for it and I will make sure it is sticks to the facts, not selective, and out of context, quotes and anachronistic criticisms.

PainMan 13:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suppressing viewpoints = un-encyclopedic violation of Wikipedia

You can not remove criticism from a biography. This encyclopedia stands for inclusion of viewpoints not suppression. That you don't think this historian's role in history is subject to evaluation does not mean his work has not been evaluated. I am returning the material that was removed.

The viewpoint that criticism of the subject of an article belongs in a separate article is without precedent. Please cite examples of where this concept has been applied to biographical articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.

By the way, if this material is again summarily removed, I plan to ask for mediation.

Skywriter 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"The viewpoint that criticism of the subject of an article belongs in a separate article is without precedent." General criticism yes, but as I said under the subsection titled "Bias," this huge serving of criticism in Morison's biography about peripheral features in his work is distorting, and items such as the huge discussion of two sentences in The Growth of the American Republic really belongs in a separate article devoted to that textbook. As comparisons, one might look at the separate articles on William L. Shirer and his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or Arnold J. Toynbee and A Study of History. 69.239.236.37 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morison as an historian

If the article is not an analysis of his works, then why does it contain this:

The celebrated British military historian Sir John Keegan has hailed Morison's official history as the best to come out of the Second World War.

Would this not give the casual reader the idea that Morison is an accurate and reliable historian?

I note in passing that the article on Keegan does discuss criticism of his work, and if he says things like this a lot it's no wonder. So why would a few words on the subject be out of place here?

In researching the campaigns in the South West Pacific, I came across instances where Morison deliberately suppressed uncomfortable facts. I knew he had done it because the two of us were reading the same reports. Other people have found similar deliberate errors in his account of the Guadalcanal campaign.

Hawkeye7 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions on Morison's works or legacy by credible sources should be okay to mention in the article if written neutrally. Cla68 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tag on Samuel Eliot Morison‎ page

{{refimprovesect|date=July 2007}} Please suggest what additional reference you'd like to add to Morison page. Because that section is referenced directly, specificity of what you question would be useful. Thank you. Skywriter 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote my response to you on my talk page:
That section has no proper citations. An ISBN tag and an author's last name and page number (for separate statements), with no further information, is no help to anyone trying to verify the information. I presume the sources exist, they just need to be cited properly. -- Donald Albury 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was copied from an archived page, and the complete prior reference was apparently hacked before being completely removed. Thanks for the heads up. Skywriter 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

As it stands, this article is extremely prejudiced against Morison. The man wrote two dozen books, but after a cursory survey of them, the article is swamped by eight paragraphs about two sentences of a thousand-page textbook he wrote with Henry Steele Commager, and a series of quotations that goes into overkill from Howard Zinn about what is perceived to be an improper emphasis present in an (abridged) version of one of his major works. Criticism is fine, but not when it's presented this disproportionately. In the case of Zinn, that's only worth a sentence noting that "The scholar Howard Zinn has criticized Morison for giving inadequate weight to the sufferings native Americans experienced under Columbus." Similarly, the fuss over the two sentences needs to be much condensed here; the place where all that material really belongs is in a separate article about the Growth of the American Republic textbook. 69.239.236.37 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Bias

I see no problem incorporating the breadth and scope of his work, positive and negative, in this short article. To move criticism of his work and separate it from his bio is inconsistent with biographical articles on others where there has been controversy. To belittle comments by the historians Zinn and Litwack and also by leaders of the black community when they pleaded for years with Comager to change his insulting wording --and he refused-- that tells us something about his character and the tenor of the times. It would be segregation.Skywriter 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say about criticism is untrue, as pointed out in a comment above regarding William L. Shirer and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Arnold J. Toynbee and A Study of History. It's also a strawman, since no one is suggesting that criticism of Morison doesn't belong here - just that the stuff currently there is disproportionate and results in distortion, and isn't NPOV. Eight paragraphs about two sentences. A string of quotes from one man complaining about emphasis in a single book Morison wrote, and which the guy isn't even known for (for Columbus, that would be Admiral of the Ocean Sea). The fairest way to handle this would be to distill both issues to a sentence or a paragraph, leaving more detailed discussion (if thought necessary) to articles on the specific books. 69.237.198.66 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, these comments deserve an award. For being silly. Adm. Morrison was a great historian, and his offical histories are very enjoyable to read, to this day. Certainly most of your sources, and yourself, have some PC axe to grind. I mean, Zinn is a polemic author, and Litwack goes around trying to be offended by oppressive crackers. The cited article doesn't even have any footnotes to the actual Morrison text. THAT might be a bit helpful. I expect that I have to get on Ebay and purchase an ancient copy of one of Morison's texts to check out this horrible blight on his scholarship? Is that where the history profession in the acadamy is at these days? God bless, no wonder kids hate these classes. The only opinions that one can have are like Skywriter here. Bad= United States; Good= anything that criticizes the United States, but that is what goes for patriotism today. Whatever.

The above is an unsigned comment

[edit] To those who view racism is unimportant

This page is strewn with comments arguing that Morison's racism should be ignored, that it is a minor blemish in an otherwise distinctive body of work.

For example, the last brave soul who did not bother to sign the comment had this to say: I mean, Zinn is a polemic author, and Litwack goes around trying to be offended by oppressive crackers.

Zinn is no more polemical than Morison. Each had a point of view. Zinn admits and writes elegantly of his subjects and of his point of view. (If you haven't read his books, you wouldn't know that.) He defends those who are rarely written about in other history books. He writes of working people, white and black and of every ethnic group who struggled for justice and fair play.

Litwack is a winner of both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. He is a giant in the field of history and has made significant contributions. To argue against using his observations on this subject because you personally do not think racism is worthy of writing about is just that -- a personal viewpoint.

Leaders of the African American community went to Morison and asked him over an extended period of time --for a number of years-- to drop the gratuitous insults against African American people from many editions of his textbook, which was widely used in schools in the United States. He refused. This was during the many decades when the United States was a legally segregated country. Morison was stubborn about maintaining vile attacks on African Americans in his textbooks that were prescribed for school children. This was Morison's polemical point of view. You think his viewpoint, his legacy should be white-washed? I don't know that he would thank you. He was firm in his viewpoint.

Some people argue on this page that Morison's viewpoint about African Americans should be suppressed. That argument is unpersuasive.

To argue in the 21st century that historians should not be held to account-- by their peers-- for their viewpoints and the way they represented history is not a position that is easily defended. Each scholar, each historian leaves a legacy. To argue that legacy is not a part of a person's bio is also not easily defended. No one who has written comments on this page has written persuasively of the need for a separate article on Morison's legacy. If you want one, write one. That will not mean that the thrust of critical comments about Morison will not be retained here. These pages are read by people of every ethnic group. Morison had a lot of good qualities. He was human. He also had negative qualities. His racist treatment of black people is a matter of record, and any fair accounting of his legacy will include that.

And for anyone to argue that critical comments about someone's legacy should not be included on their bio page has not read many biographical articles on Wikipedia. Skywriter 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And for anyone to argue that critical comments about someone's legacy should not be included on their bio page has not read many biographical articles on Wikipedia. You're wrestling straw-men. No one's suggesting that critical comments don't belong. There is a problem, however, with POV in the article as it currently stands. Things which would warrant a sentence or paragraph in a normal Wikipedia biography are bloated to sections five times that. The Zinn quotations are completely unencyclopedic; elegant writer he may be, I think it's frowned upon here to wallow an article in a morass of quotes, and it's pretty ironic that in a complaint about emphasis in a biography there is more of Zinn's thoughts on history here than Morison's. 69.237.198.66 01:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've chopped this back to a single para as it was mostly Zinn's thoughts about how historians have treated the impact of Columbus and Spanish colonialism and very little of the material was specific to Morison. I'd suggest that this entire section be removed as it seems a pretty minor criticism of Morison - it's basically Zinn's POV that Morison's work wasn't sufficiently different from that of the historians of his time and including it seems to violate WP:Undue weight. --Nick Dowling —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Service years

Morrison's biography on a Navy website (here) states that he went inactive in September 1946. So, what is customary for these things? Does "Service years" in the Infobox mean "active duty years", or does it include time in "inactive" or retired status? -- Donald Albury 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)