I’ve been listening to books on CD as I drive the entire 5 minutes to work and back each day. Lately, I’ve very much enjoyed Don’t Know Much About History by Kenneth Davis.

Besides a wealth of interesting trivia (which I’ll likely list later), Kenneth explores American history in a way that would make mad, (in the extreme) traditionalists and revisionists alike. (You should know, however, Kenneth leans closer towards the revisionists). Perhaps a bit of summary is in order:

The very traditionalists would have us believe that the Founding Fathers were infallible, perfect giants-of-men who lived with courage, honor and class in the halcyon days of yore. Benjamin Franklin, to them, was a kindly old gentleman who spent his strength tinkering with inventions in his cellar and dishing out words of wisdom in his Almanac. Washington was a heroic figure who couldn’t lie, who, while standing up, crossed the Delaware in a boat and who prayed by his horse in forests before battles.

In the other camp, staunch revisionism, we have those who paint these same men as hedonistic, degenerate knaves, hell-bent on exploitation, improprieties and power. To them, scant and inconclusive DNA evidence unequivocally proves an illicit sexual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings. They’d have you believe that ‘ol Ben Franklin was but a clever cad and that bumbling General Washington never won a battle. They view the early Americans as a widely self concerned, corrupt group of rich white men, who accidentally stumbled on a few good ideas.

To be sure, that the Founding Fathers were as brilliant and as talented a group as the world has ever seen is not under review. That such Herculean results came from their efforts, no one can deny. The controversy is this — what kind of men were they, privately? (and how should they be depicted?)

And so we must look at motives. The old school might argue that glossing over of the infrequent improper acts only serves to better inspire humankind to greatness. They likely question, “Why focus on the negative?”

Recent, modern thought takes a different perspective. Some would claim that, as they magnify the defects of great men, to “show their humanity,” they demonstrate that good men can do bad things and thereby encourage all of us equally imperfect beings on to great deeds.

“So who is right and who is dead?” (Vizzini)

You have the topic, now “talk amongst yourselves”. I’ll chime in when I get a spare moment.