Related articles and links |  1 of 2

On his Web site, Grant has responded to Jones's article. This response is worth noting for two reasons: first, for the way in which Grant frames his disagreement with Jones, and second, for the specifics of the debate over Roosevelt.

Interestingly, in framing their disagreement, Grant treats Jones as a representative of what he calls the "Evangelically-Correct approach to history." In this reading, Jones represents a party line enforced by the editors of Christianity Today. Indeed, much of Grant's labored sarcasm is directed at CT. As an editor at large for CT, I must admit that I find Grant's picture of the magazine unrecognizable. For example, according to Grant, "in Evangelically-Correct history individuals who hold to a Reformed Worldview can always be compared unfavorably with those who hold to an Arminian Worldview." Certainly this will come as news to many faithful readers of the magazine. And it seems particularly odd that Grant should raise such a charge in connection with an article in the April 2 issue, the cover story of which—Tim Stafford's fine essay, "Looking for God in History"—is largely given to the work of evangelical historians of the Reformed persuasion.

Grant is no more reliable when it comes to responding to specific points in Jones's article. "George Grant claims that Teddy Roosevelt 'led the world into a remarkable epoch of peace,' " Jones tells us. He finds this claim risible. Should we agree? Well, let's see. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in September 1901, after the assassination of President William McKinley, in time to preside over the conclusion of the brutal Philippine War. Roosevelt left office—several "police actions" later—in January 1909. Five years later "the world" plunged into the most terrible war in its history. This is "a remarkable epoch of peace"?

So how does Grant defend his hyperbole? "Oh yes, and then there is that little matter of Roosevelt winning the Nobel Peace Prize—not exactly the sort of inconvenient fact an able Evangelically-Correct historian like Mr. Jones is apt to introduce into a discussion designed for another purpose altogether: making me look silly." It's true. Like Linus Pauling and Yasser Arafat, among others, Roosevelt won the Peace Prize—in 1906, having drafted the Portsmouth Treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War the year before. And this proves what, exactly? Let us note, for example, that the treaty cemented Japan's claim to a special right to exercise influence over Korea—which, starting in 1910 and ending only with the Japanese defeat in 1945, meant that Korea would become a colony of Japan, more repressively ruled than America's Asian colony, the Philippines. The point is not to judge Roosevelt with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, but rather to hint at the absurdity of Grant's imaginary "epoch of peace." May I suggest that Grant doesn't need any help in making himself look silly, so long as he persists in such sophistries?

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

June (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45