With you, Dan. 1776 Project was obviously rubbish, but this historian (I'm going to say it) is no fan of the 1619 Project: The best that can be said of it is that the NYT got people talking about history, and African-American history in particular. Brits have always been able to compartmentalize Churchill (great war leader, not fit for purpose in peace) Britain's role in the slave trade was not a subject well understood when I took classes in the 70s... An American colleague has found evidence that the elite suppressed discussion of their role in the *17th century*, and I don't doubt it.
But my UK history education did give me the curiosity, literacy, and enthusiasm for nuance and contradiction that allowed me to discover for myself. In contrast, I had a professor in *grad school* here in the States who took umbrage when I gently suggested that the Constitution is flawed. Today, I'm certain, she's as woke as all get out. White Americans in particular, and those of class privilege especially, really have a tough time with honesty, especially honesty that's currently unfashionable.
Much of history is like sports, my team good, other teams bad, when the reality lies somewhere in between. To Brits Montgomery was the greatest General in WW II, but to the Americans he was a bumbling fool who slowed Allied progress. In Canada, we were taught that we won the War of 1812 while the Americans are positive they won. It all depends on what side of the fence you are on geographically, politically, socially, fiscally or whatever fence exists between one’s ‘reality’ and other ‘realities’.
Excellent analogy. And good history is history which examines competing perspectives, merging them into a synthesis that sees reality more clearly than any one perspective could.
My favorite quote along these lines is from Howard Gardner:
"Most five-year-olds have developed a *Star Wars* script. Life consists of a struggle between Good and Bad forces, with the Good generally triumphant. Many movies and television programs, and a few events in real life, can adequately be described in terms of such a script. Most historical events or works of literature, however, prove far more complex; to understand the causes of World War I or the U.S. Civil War, or to grasp the thrust of a novel by Hawthorne or Austen, one must weigh and integrate multiple factors and nuances. Students learn in class to give more complex explanations for such historical or literary events. Yet, when they are confronted with new and unfamiliar materials--say, a story from another culture, or a war in an unfamiliar part of the world-- even capable students lapse to an elemental way of thinking. The *Star Wars* 'good guy-bad guy' script is often invoked in such situations, even when it is manifestly inappropriate."
“Large numbers of people really do think old, simplistic, cherry-picked fairy tales about the past must be swept aside … and replaced with new, simplistic, cherry-picked horror stories about the past.”
Woof... I literally just posted my take on this last night. Sometimes I think we take a bit of an egocentric approach to looking at the past and revise it to make ourselves feel more comfortable, smart, safe or virtuous. The second you have to look at the brilliant things Thomas Jefferson did AND reconcile that with the less flattering aspects of his personal life makes a lot of people want to shut down.
It’s easier to just have 2-dimensional villains and heroes rather than to acknowledge how messy we all are.
I don’t think an “objective” view of the past is possible (there is no Nagel-style View From Nowhen). Heroes or Villians narratives are endemic but I think the split between Macro- and MicroNarratives is as serious: https://tempo.substack.com/p/oh-god-save-history-no-future-part
I'll let philosophers go on (and on and on) about objectivity. I once heard a lecture by an esteemed historian who shrugged when asked about it. Arguments are better and worse, closer or further away from the truth, he said, and we can, with effort, figure that much out; but we'll never get to perfection. That's enough for a humble primate like me.
With you, Dan. 1776 Project was obviously rubbish, but this historian (I'm going to say it) is no fan of the 1619 Project: The best that can be said of it is that the NYT got people talking about history, and African-American history in particular. Brits have always been able to compartmentalize Churchill (great war leader, not fit for purpose in peace) Britain's role in the slave trade was not a subject well understood when I took classes in the 70s... An American colleague has found evidence that the elite suppressed discussion of their role in the *17th century*, and I don't doubt it.
But my UK history education did give me the curiosity, literacy, and enthusiasm for nuance and contradiction that allowed me to discover for myself. In contrast, I had a professor in *grad school* here in the States who took umbrage when I gently suggested that the Constitution is flawed. Today, I'm certain, she's as woke as all get out. White Americans in particular, and those of class privilege especially, really have a tough time with honesty, especially honesty that's currently unfashionable.
Much of history is like sports, my team good, other teams bad, when the reality lies somewhere in between. To Brits Montgomery was the greatest General in WW II, but to the Americans he was a bumbling fool who slowed Allied progress. In Canada, we were taught that we won the War of 1812 while the Americans are positive they won. It all depends on what side of the fence you are on geographically, politically, socially, fiscally or whatever fence exists between one’s ‘reality’ and other ‘realities’.
Excellent analogy. And good history is history which examines competing perspectives, merging them into a synthesis that sees reality more clearly than any one perspective could.
My favorite quote along these lines is from Howard Gardner:
"Most five-year-olds have developed a *Star Wars* script. Life consists of a struggle between Good and Bad forces, with the Good generally triumphant. Many movies and television programs, and a few events in real life, can adequately be described in terms of such a script. Most historical events or works of literature, however, prove far more complex; to understand the causes of World War I or the U.S. Civil War, or to grasp the thrust of a novel by Hawthorne or Austen, one must weigh and integrate multiple factors and nuances. Students learn in class to give more complex explanations for such historical or literary events. Yet, when they are confronted with new and unfamiliar materials--say, a story from another culture, or a war in an unfamiliar part of the world-- even capable students lapse to an elemental way of thinking. The *Star Wars* 'good guy-bad guy' script is often invoked in such situations, even when it is manifestly inappropriate."
Oh, that's perfect. I'll make use of this in future. Thanks!
“Large numbers of people really do think old, simplistic, cherry-picked fairy tales about the past must be swept aside … and replaced with new, simplistic, cherry-picked horror stories about the past.”
Woof... I literally just posted my take on this last night. Sometimes I think we take a bit of an egocentric approach to looking at the past and revise it to make ourselves feel more comfortable, smart, safe or virtuous. The second you have to look at the brilliant things Thomas Jefferson did AND reconcile that with the less flattering aspects of his personal life makes a lot of people want to shut down.
It’s easier to just have 2-dimensional villains and heroes rather than to acknowledge how messy we all are.
I don’t think an “objective” view of the past is possible (there is no Nagel-style View From Nowhen). Heroes or Villians narratives are endemic but I think the split between Macro- and MicroNarratives is as serious: https://tempo.substack.com/p/oh-god-save-history-no-future-part
I'll let philosophers go on (and on and on) about objectivity. I once heard a lecture by an esteemed historian who shrugged when asked about it. Arguments are better and worse, closer or further away from the truth, he said, and we can, with effort, figure that much out; but we'll never get to perfection. That's enough for a humble primate like me.
Loved this article...a real eye opener!
Love it. Very insightful and enlightening piece