Well, I think the point I was trying to advance is more of an
historiographical one. Some historians--mostly recently those of a
post-modern or deconstructionist turn--would argue that all history is
inherently political. Thus, the commentator on this list who argued that
academic historians are intrinsically ideological was, to my mind anyway,
advancing a rather radical notion. I have always associated intellectual
conservatives with the enlightenment claim that some facsimile of truth is
attainable and desirable.
I want to suggest that, to the extent that talk about history is inherently
ideological (and I will leave it to wiser heads than mine to give us the
definitive answer to that one) the connection between modern political
agendas and the truth claims that historians make about historical matters
is a tenuous one. I really do not believe that we can make reliable
judgements about people's contemporary political positions (on abortion,
for example, or on the death penalty, or on the desirability that Mr.
Earley be the next governor of Virginia) on the basis of what they have to
say about (for example) the readjusters.
Since, as a matter of practice, the vast majority of us live our day to day
lives as if truth claims *can* be made (that traffic light is now *red*),
and since the majority of academic historians are, on the whole, crusty
intellectual conservatives in the sense that they feel comfortable making
truth claims about history on the basis of their reading of primary
sources, I think we should conduct our conversation here under the
provisional assumption that some semblence of truth is possible, and that
doing history is somewhat different than writing fiction. If that is so,
then my contemporary politics, if not perhaps completely irrelevant,
certainly recede in relevance and importance.
All my best,
Kevin R. Hardwick
--On Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:42 PM -0500 Paul Finkelman
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> so does that mean we can't discuss the issue of reparations for slavery,
> or flying the confederate flag? Sound like history questions to me.
>
> paul finkelman
>
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> Right on, Laura!
>>
>> Maybe we ought to set a 20 year rule. If it's newer than 20 years, it
>> still counts as "politics". Older than that, it counts as "history"
>>
>> Having said which, I hope we can count on your support for John Dalton in
>> November!
>>
>> ;-D --Kathryn Coombs
>>
>> In a message dated 9/4/01 3:54:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> [log in to unmask] writes:
>>
>> > This seems to me to be going quite far afield from the discussion
>> > relative to the War Between the States. Personally, I object to these
>> > types of remarks about one of our gubernatorial candidates. There are
>> > many professors in this state who are Republicans, many who are
>> > Democrats, and many who are independents.
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> --
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor
> University of Tulsa College of Law
> 3120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
>
> 918-631-3706 (office)
> 918-631-2194 (fax)
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone: 540/568-6306
Email: [log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
