Is History History?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  s  •  one month ago  •  11 comments

Is History History?
If history is only those stories from the past that confirm current political positions, all manner of political hacks can claim historical expertise.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



T wenty years ago, in these pages, Lynn Hunt argued “ against presentism .” She lamented historians’ declining interest in topics prior to the 20th century, as well as our increasing tendency to interpret the past through the lens of the present. Hunt warned that this rising presentism threatened to “put us out of business as historians.” If history was little more than “short-term . . . identity politics defined by present concerns,” wouldn’t students be better served by taking degrees in sociology, political science, or ethnic studies instead?

The discipline did not heed Hunt’s warning.   From 2003 to 2013, the number of PhDs awarded to students working on topics post-1800, across all fields, rose 18 percent. Meanwhile, those working on pre-1800 topics declined by 4 percent.   During this time, the Wall Street meltdown was followed by plummeting undergraduate enrollments in history courses and increased professional interest in the history of contemporary socioeconomic topics. Then came Obama, and Twitter, and Trump. As the discipline has become more focused on the 20th and 21st centuries, historical analyses are contained within an increasingly constrained temporality. Our interpretations of the recent past collapse into the familiar terms of contemporary debates, leaving little room for the innovative, counterintuitive interpretations.

This trend toward presentism is not confined to historians of the recent past; the entire discipline is lurching in this direction, including a shrinking minority working in premodern fields. If we don’t read the past through the prism of contemporary social justice issues—race, gender, sexuality, nationalism, capitalism—are we doing history that matters? This new history often ignores the values and mores of people in their own times, as well as change over time, neutralizing the expertise that separates historians from those in other disciplines. The allure of political relevance, facilitated by social and other media, encourages a predictable sameness of the present in the past. This sameness is ahistorical, a proposition that might be acceptable if it produced positive political results. But it doesn’t.

In many places, history suffuses everyday life as presentism; America is no exception. We suffer from an overabundance of history, not as method or analysis, but as anachronistic data points for the articulation of competing politics. The consequences of this new history are everywhere. I traveled to Ghana for two months this summer to research and write, and my first assignment was a critical response to   The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story   for a forthcoming forum in the   American Historical Review . Whether or not historians believe that there is anything new in the   New York Times   project created by Nikole Hannah-Jones,   The 1619 Project   is a best-selling book that sits at the center of current controversies over how to teach American history. As journalism, the project is powerful and effective, but is it history?

When I first read the newspaper series that preceded the book, I thought of it as a synthesis of a tradition of Black nationalist historiography dating to the 19th century with Ta-Nehisi Coates’s recent call for reparations. The project spoke to the political moment, but I never thought of it primarily as a work of history. Ironically, it was professional historians’ engagement with the work that seemed to lend it historical legitimacy. Then the Pulitzer Center, in partnership with the   Times , developed a secondary school curriculum around the project. Local school boards protested characterizations of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison as unpatriotic owners of “forced labor camps.” Conservative lawmakers decided that if this was the history of slavery being taught in schools, the topic shouldn’t be taught at all. For them, challenging the Founders’ position as timeless tribunes of liberty was “racially divisive.” At each of these junctures, history was a zero-sum game of heroes and villains viewed through the prism of contemporary racial identity. It was not an analysis of people’s ideas in their own time, nor a process of change over time.

In Ghana, I traveled to Elmina for a wedding. A small seaside fishing village, Elmina was home to one of the largest Atlantic slave-trading depots in West Africa. The morning after the wedding, a small group of us met for breakfast at the hotel. As we waited for several members of our party to show up, a group of African Americans began trickling into the breakfast bar. By the time they all gathered, more than a dozen members of the same family—three generations deep—pulled together the restaurant’s tables to dine. Sitting on the table in front of one of the elders was a dog-eared copy of   The 1619 Project .

Later that afternoon, my family and I toured Elmina Castle alongside several Ghanaians, a Dane, and a Jamaican family. Our guide gave a well-rehearsed tour geared toward African Americans. American influence was everywhere, from memorial plaques to wreaths and flowers left on the floors of the castle’s dungeons. Arguably, Elmina Castle is now as much an African American shrine as a Ghanaian archaeological or historical site. As I reflected on breakfast earlier that morning, I could only imagine the affirmation and bonding experienced by the large African American family—through the memorialization of ancestors lost to slavery at Elmina Castle, but also through the story of African American resilience, redemption, and the demand for reparations in   The 1619 Project .

Yet as a historian of Africa and the African diaspora, I am troubled by the historical erasures and narrow politics that these narratives convey. Less than one percent of the Africans passing through Elmina arrived in North America. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean. Should the guide’s story differ for a tour with no African Americans? Likewise, would   The 1619 Project   tell a different history if it took into consideration that the shipboard kin of Jamestown’s “20. and odd” Africans also went to Mexico, Jamaica, and Bermuda? These are questions of historical interpretation, but present-day political ones follow: Do efforts to claim a usable African American past reify elements of American hegemony and exceptionalism such narratives aim to dismantle?

The Elmina tour guide claimed that “Ghanaians” sent their “servants” into chattel slavery unknowingly. The guide made no reference to warfare or Indigenous slavery, histories that interrupt assumptions of ancestral connection between modern-day Ghanaians and visitors from the diaspora. Similarly, the forthcoming film   The Woman King   seems to suggest that Dahomey’s female warriors and King Ghezo fought the European slave trade. In fact, they promoted it. Historically accurate rendering of Asante or Dahomean greed and enslavement apparently contradict modern-day political imperatives.

Hollywood need not adhere to historians’ methods any more than journalists or tour guides, but bad history yields bad politics. The erasure of slave-trading African empires in the name of political unity is uncomfortably like right-wing conservative attempts to erase slavery from school curricula in the United States, also in the name of unity. These interpretations are two sides of the same coin. If history is only those stories from the past that confirm current political positions, all manner of political hacks can claim historical expertise.

Hollywood need not adhere to historians’ methods any more than journalists or tour guides, but bad history yields bad politics. The erasure of slave-trading African empires in the name of political unity is uncomfortably like right-wing conservative attempts to erase slavery from school curricula in the United States, also in the name of unity. These interpretations are two sides of the same coin. If history is only those stories from the past that confirm current political positions, all manner of political hacks can claim historical expertise...

Professional historians would do well to pay attention to Breyer’s admonition. The present has been creeping up on our discipline for a long time.  Doing history with integrity  requires us to interpret elements of the past not through the optics of the present but within the worlds of our historical actors. Historical questions often emanate out of present concerns, but the past interrupts, challenges, and contradicts the present in unpredictable ways. History is not a heuristic tool for the articulation of an ideal imagined future. Rather, it is a way to study the messy, uneven process of change over time. When we foreshorten or shape history to justify rather than inform contemporary political positions, we not only undermine the discipline but threaten its very integrity.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Sean Treacy    one month ago

This is a pretty benign criticism of the politicization of history coming from a left wing historian who suffuses the essay with approving virtue signaling to  leftist dogma.  While the essay itself simply points out the obvious, it's the response to this mild critique of identity politics that is really illuminating.  This mild dissent from orthodoxy ignited a firestorm in historical academia, leading to the predictable groveling apology within a day of publication.

Academia is broken.  

  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    one month ago

Grovelling indeed!

The academic left doesn't report historical factual history, as much invent it according their distorted present day worldview.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    one month ago

eeek! crt is being taught here! the trumpster version...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago
crt is being taught here! the trumpster version...

Tell me you didn't understand the article without saying you didn't understand it. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

You think that James Sweet is a trumpster, LoL.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  seeder  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Reality and perspective is  heresy, that the academic inquisition will not stand for: 

As a historian of Africa and the African diaspora, I am troubled by the historical erasures and narrow politics that these narratives convey. Less than one percent of the Africans passing through Elmina arrived in North America. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean. Should the guide’s story differ for a tour with no African Americans? Likewise, would      The 1619 Project       tell a different history if it took into consideration that the shipboard kin of Jamestown’s “20. and odd” Africans also went to Mexico, Jamaica, and Bermuda? These are questions of historical interpretation, but present-day political ones follow: Do efforts to claim a usable African American past reify elements of American hegemony and exceptionalism such narratives aim to dismantle? The Elmina tour guide claimed that “Ghanaians” sent their “servants” into chattel slavery unknowingly. The guide made no reference to warfare or Indigenous slavery, histories that interrupt assumptions of ancestral connection between modern-day Ghanaians and visitors from the diaspora. Similarly, the forthcoming film      The Woman King       seems to suggest that Dahomey’s female warriors and King Ghezo fought the European slave trade. In fact, they promoted it. Historically accurate rendering of Asante or Dahomean greed and enslavement apparently contradict modern-day political imperatives.

Here's a decent summary of the attempt to cancel him for being a white male engaged in wrongthink:

Incensed at even the mildest suggestion that politicization is undermining the integrity of historical scholarship, the activist wing of the history profession showed up on the AHA’s thread and began demanding Sweet’s cancellation. Cate Denial, a professor of history at Knox College, led the charge with a widely-retweeted thread calling on colleagues to bombard the AHA’s Executive Board with emails protesting Sweet’s column. “We cannot let this fizzle,” she declared before posting a list of about 20 email addresses.

Other activist historians joined in, flooding the thread with profanity-laced attacks on Sweet’s race and gender as well as calls for his resignation over a disliked opinion column. The responses were almost universally devoid of any substance. None challenged Sweet’s argument in any meaningful way. It was sufficient enough for him to have harbored the “wrong” thoughts – to have questioned the scholarly rigor of activism-infused historical writing, and to have criticized the 1619 Project in even the mildest terms.

New York Times columnist and 1619 Project contributor Jamie Bouie jumped in , casually dismissing Sweet’s concerns over the politicization of scholarship with contemporary “social justice” issues. 1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones retweeted the attacks on Sweet, even though she has previously invoked the “journalistic” and editorial nature of her project to shield it from scholarly criticism by historians...

The frenzy further exposed the very same problems in the profession that Sweet’s essay cautioned against. David Austin Walsh , a historian at the University of Virginia, took issue with historians offering any public criticism of the 1619 Project’s flaws – no matter their validity – because those criticisms are “going to be weaponized by the right.” In Walsh’s hyperpoliticized worldview , historical accuracy is wholly subordinate to the political objectives of the project. Sweet’s sin in telling the truth about the 1619 Project’s defects was being “willfully blind to the predictable political consequences of [his] public interventions.” Any argument that does not advance a narrow band of far-left political activism is not only unfit for sharing – it must be suppressed.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago
When we foreshorten or shape history to justify rather than inform contemporary political positions, we not only undermine the discipline but threaten its very integrity.

I was taken with this excellent summary sentence.  This warning became all the more important given that the AHA is actively undermining the discipline and its integrity,

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    one month ago

One of the ongoing themes of conservative attempts at American history is a version of whataboutism. Rather than accept that the Atlantic slave trade one way or another is responsible for hundreds of years of mistreatment of blacks and other racial minorities in America, we get "what about the Africans selling their own people into slavery?"  and "what about all the slaves that went to the carribean or South America?" as if the answer to these questions mitigates the horror that happened in America. The importance of slavery as history is that it led almost directly to a culture of white superiority that enabled literally hundreds of years of mistreatment of African Americans and also American Indians and hispanics and Asians. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago
as if the answer to these questions mitigates the horror that happened in America

What makes you think some think that knowledge of those historical truths mitigates the horror of slavery in America?

The importance of slavery as history is that it led almost directly to a culture of white superiority that enabled literally hundreds of years of mistreatment of African Americans and also American Indians and hispanics and Asians. 

The question of which came first, slavery or racism is a good one for historical analysis. Or did they arise essentially together and reinforce each other? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one month ago

Why is the teaching of a false narrative about racism so important to the white liberals of today?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    one month ago

What is the false narrative you say exists ? 

 
 

Who is online









24 visitors