Reply #28: common perceptions of history [View All]

[imenja]

I agree entirely. The why is every bit as important as who.


It's worth noting that common perceptions of history, in terms of public awareness, bares little resemblance to what professional historians practice. I'm always struck by oft repeated claims that the history of the poor and peoples of color are neglected. Since the 1970s, social history has been overwhelmingly dominant in the history profession. A keyword search under slavery or workers at any major university library will turn up thousands of books. Despite the impression Howard Zinn gives, people's history is common place in academia and is in fact considered old-fashioned today. Works on culture, identity, or discourse are far more likely to find willing academic publishers. Despite this, most Americans maintain a Rankean view of history--the great men, names, and dates, as you say. There are a number of reasons for this: high school and the ridiculous textbook committees that limit the kind of knowledge to which children are exposed. Television presents history in largely traditional ways, with some notable exceptions on PBS. While commercial publishing houses seem interested only in books in three general categories: Nazis, the Civil War, and presidents, in that order of popularity. (People do love their Nazis.) It's unfortunate, because history, like other academic disciplines, encourages analytical thought. As the conception of what constitutes history has expanded, we look at the world in increasingly complex and nuanced ways. That kind of examination is also useful for understanding current political and cultural developments. When only traditional interpretations of history are transmitted beyond universities, that kind of questioning and exploration is denied the public at large. So even some on the political left, who one would think would be the last to cling to positivist ideas, express hostility, as the poster above does, to the very suggestion of considering a wider view.

How's that for getting off topic of whether the pope is evil?