Old Historians
If you are into politics, this post is not for you. It is for those interested in History.
History has always been a fascination of mine. Ever since I was eight. However, being a conservative, means I could never get into a history graduate program, much less a job teaching the subject. So instead I get interested in political stuff. However, most of what I read in my free time involved history.
A lot of it is so-called "popular histories." These are books that are written for a broad audience, not specialty audiences. Despite having taken a lot of history courses, my training was still deficient, so there is a lot to learn in many, many aspects of historical knowledge.
Popular historians, or those that write for more than just specialists, have a little problem. While they may get greater and greater expertise as they age, they seem to lose the ability to lose the big picture. So as they get closer and closer to time, they become chronologists, rather than analysts. Which ruins their books.
Here is how they do it. When they look at the past, before they became specialists, they provide a summary, often a good summary, of what happened, and they often take all factors into account, and try to present all the dominant sides (unless you are Howard Zinn). However, when they start writing about the past when they were living, they provide ever, single, boring, detail, one which is inappropriate for the scope of the book. They have an inability to see the forest from the trees.
There is a place for providing a chronological history. But only if you are writing about a specific period of time, and the book is consistent. For example, if you were writing about contemporary Washington State, a historian could start in 1960, up to today, and say something like "Washington State History as I remember it." That would be an appropriate book, and probably, a good source.
Likewise, if you were going to analyze the past, you could go up to an end of an era, say, 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Expecially if you are, say, 40. After that, everything else is mundane, and best be left to future historian to analyze (although you could write a book called "contemporary Russia" and go into all those boring details).
But to present a book like "20th Century Russia" and do the former up to 1945, and the latter beyond 1945, makes for a lousy book. It is essentially bait-and-switch marketing, for you setting a reader's expectations as to what you will present (superior analysis), but only doing that up to a certain point, then going into boring, mundane details, without the analysis.
I really do not think that historians honestly expect to mislead. I think that they simply do not have the ability to analyze their era. That is because they are far too much a part of it. And doing a truly honest analysis leads one to criticize their generation - hence themselves - which most people really do not want to do.
I break these types of historians into two categories. One is the expert. This is a person who often was a professor, and when young, were noticed to have a superior understanding of their field. Hence, they wrote a good history when they were young. However, they were often consulted, and they could sometimes change minor events. So they try to get themselves part of the history. As a result, they keep slapping on chapters to later editions, leading to a decline in the quality of the book
The other type is the observer. This is someone who may not have been an expert early in life, but have observed things, and wrote about them.
Most are the former. A few are of the latter. For many historians, as they come closer to contemporary times, they are not writing about their subject, they are writing about themselves. That is faulty, as almost no historians really get to make history. They are trying to lead the fantasy lead by Hugh Seton-Watson, a slavic specialist at Oxford about 100 years ago, who truly was instrumental in setting up either Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia - don't ask me for details, I kinda forget, so if you want to know, look them up yourselves!
Here is a list of books.
1) Edward Reichshauer, "Modern Japan" (or something like that).
He was a white guy born in Japan, So he really knew the place. In 1945, he wrote an excellent history up to the end of the war. He also was Kennedy's ambassador to the country. Also a leading specialist on it.
This was our textbook for Japanese History class. We had to read a bit each week. Howerver, as the last week was over the previous 40 years, we had to read the last 40 years in the book. Which was 1/2 of the book.
This is important in that the first 1/2 of the book was from 1850-1950. The time in Japanese history when real history took place. After MacArthur left, there really has been no history to write about. This could have been in one-two chapters.
Hence, his book is disjointed, and he tries to insert himself in there, I think at least twice.
2) Donald Treadgold, "Twentieth Century Russia."
Donald Treadgold was a UW professor who was one of the top Russian Scholars in the world. So famous, even my Russian History professor at my school in Russia (Gornyi Institute) knew much about him. Since he was old, and I was fascinated by Russian History 15 years ago, I had to meet him before I died - so I knocked on his door and shook his hand! His book really outlined Russian history well throughout the Revolutionary period, which ended about 1953.
However, after 1953, he does not know the underlying factors of what was happening in Russia. His book drones on and on. And when we get to the collapse of the Soviet Union, he does not even give a preface as to why it collapsed, but merely jumps into the cold water. Thus, it is not that good a book.
My professor of contemporary (i.e., Revolutionary and Soviet - I had her class in 1995) Russia would not use him, probably for this reason. And she taught at the UW. She used a right leaning author, Martin Malia, as her textbook - despite the fact she was a leftist. Malia did provide an analysis as to why everything happened, and since it collapsed at the very end of 1991, thus ending an era, it fit perfectly into our class (what happened three, two years ago is almost never truly "history" as everyone pretty much knows the dominent events of those two years). Her way of getting her point across was to dispute what he said.
3) Paul Johnson's books
Paul Johnson, being an Oxford scholar, likes to put lots and lots of facts into his books. Any one of his books is a mouthful - but so is any book written by a person who came from there (at least until recently). However, he did have an ability to provide relevant analysis in the time period before he came to maturity.
However, he sometimes misses the boat. For example, what was the most important social trent in America after World War II? Not hippiedom. It was the rise of the pop culture - as your average American is saturated in it. He did not notice it - as he should have, as the average Englishman is soaked in it, too. And who are the first real icons of this? Marilyn Monroe and Elvis. Despite their superficiality, they honestly do deserve a place in American history, since they play such an important role in it. However, he ignores it. And, despite the fact that his American history book is excellent before 1945, he kinda gets lost in the forest after that year.
4) Jules Whitcover, "The Party of the People."
Some publisher, I forget which, asked two people to write a history of our two major parties - one for the Democrats, one for the Republicans. The other author (Lewis Gould) wrote a book entitled "GOP". They are about the same length. Which presents a bit of a problem, since the Democrats are anywhere from 30-60 years older than the Republican party, depending on how you intrepet the birth of the Democrat party (there is no definite date one can point to where a bunch of guys got together to form the Democrat Party, as a bunch of guys got together in 1854 in Wisconsin to create the Republican party; and indeed, there is an argument as to who can claim the mantle of Jefferson's party - I will go into this later).
So, Mr. Whitcover, a partisan journalist, has less to work with. Does he find approprate use of the limited space? No. Instead, he rushes thru the book to get to his era, so he can put himself into the book whenever possible His book is about the mundane power struggles for the presidential nomination of the party. Nothing is mentioned about the changes in ideological trends driving the party, barely anything mentioned about the policies of the Presidents, how they governed. etc. For example, the reader walks away having almost no knowledge of what constituted the New Deal, the holy grail of that party. And it's almost like William Jennings Bryant merely walked onto a stage, gave a speech, and - voila! - the Democrats were magically transformed from the party of Wall Street to a populist party. Almost half of the book is beyond 1958, when the author makes his first appearance.
On the other hand, the companion book, GOP, really does a good job of analyzing how overall party history He tells of the shifting ideological trends, gives some of the details of the presidential policies, and talks about more than presidents - a Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, had a big impact on the history of the Republican party. If there was a Democrat Gingrich, for example, he would barely be more than a footnote in Mr. Whitcover's book.
Why the difference? Mr. Whitcover was a partisan Democrat, and Mr. Gould was an admirer of the GOP, but not a partisan. So Mr. Whitcover took too much a part in Democrat history, while Mr. Gould could be a much more impartial observer. Again, that old disease. While some scholars like the Democrat book better than the Republican book, they claim that is because it is "more scholarly". Actually, all these details are outside the scope of the book, for a person who knows as much of the Democrat party as Mr. Gould writes about the Republican party would be a specialist, and does not need a global history of the Democrat party. To be this "scholarly" one needs a book that would constitue The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party" (by Michael Holt.) when he had limited space to do so.
5) "The Conservative Revolution" by Lee Edwards
As "The Conservative Revolution" occurred over most of his lifetime, it makes for a terrible book. He has this same "old historian" disease, and he is an observer.
Lee Edwards did have an influence in the conservative movement since the 1960's. However, he wrote his book in 1998. And his book begins with Robert Taft.
While this is a good attempt to try to outline the conservative movement, he really does the opposite - he analyzes the early days, but spends most of the time in the contemporary era. Hence, it makes for a terrible book, as it reads like my high school newspaper, the Lexington. And almost all high school students really can't write that well (as it takes years and writing hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces to truly develop your own style).
As liberal historians regarded conservatives as mere reactionaries, and part of the past, (so no need to write about them) there has been no honest attempt to seriously analyze how the movement arose, (since, according to them, it would fade soon). However, since it has had a presense as a movement for 50 years, and now completely controls the lawmaking branch of goverment, historians are now beginning to try to address what happened. And a consensus appears to be starting to develop that the American right began not with Robert, but with William, Taft (great-grandfather of current Ohio Governor Bob Taft) - the president Taft,
Mr. Edwards should really have written an autobiography, and waited for other conservative historials to publish a history of the movement. He has a lot to say about his participation, and that could have been used for future uses. However, since he was too much a part of the movement, he really lacks the analytical ability to write a truly representative history of the movement.
One more book is a not a history, but a collection of documents. "Great Issues in American History - 1864 - 1981". The author is Richard Hofstadter. But he died in 1970, so his wife Beatrice threw more stuff in up to 1981, to make it "current."
However, there was a lot chosen since World War II that was not really important, and some important documents were left out. This happens when you are 75. For example, Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" television speech of 1964 is left out. And what is the most important court case of the 20th century. Some may say "Brown v Board" (which is included) but some may saw Roe v. Wade. This very important case is left out. While the "Malaise" speech is left in, Reagan's Inaguaral Address (one of the most memorable and important since Kennedy's) was left out. And although the Carter-Reagan debate is left in, only part of it is - the only important part of that debate, the phrase "There you go again" is left out.
I had first presented this problem in a paper on the history of science (specifically, on the history of Darwininean Evolution). I suggested that the reason why Louis Agassiz did not "get with it" on evolution was he was old and Darwin was not. Now, granted, I was under the influence of Butthead at the time, and my teacher disagreed (they were only a few ages apart), but sometimes, folklore presents where the fool has the wisdom. And as I read these macro- (or global) histories, I can see more and more that my Butthead theory of historical writing does have some merit.
One author appears to have become hooked to slapping more and more parts to his history, but then realized what he had done, so did a hatchet job on those later parts. I have only read the most recent edition of "The Conservative Mind", a series of biographies of conservatives before essentially the birth of the American Right. By Russell Kirk. Pretty much a superb history. However, in his latest edition, he mentions that he had added some contemporary figures in prior editions, but then realized that he needed to take them out. He apparently understood that due to the fact that he was part of the contemporary history, he really did not have the tools to analyze his era, and is letting later historians do the job (although he failed to include Albert J Nock, whom I consider to be the bridge between the "conservative movement" of today and the old style, "traditionalist" conservatives that Mr. Kirk writes about).
While I have not had any course of historiography, I do not know if historians have realized this problem, but I think that they should address. For it will better help out in our understanding of the past, how it is taught, and be able to pass this on to those not so historically inclined.
History has always been a fascination of mine. Ever since I was eight. However, being a conservative, means I could never get into a history graduate program, much less a job teaching the subject. So instead I get interested in political stuff. However, most of what I read in my free time involved history.
A lot of it is so-called "popular histories." These are books that are written for a broad audience, not specialty audiences. Despite having taken a lot of history courses, my training was still deficient, so there is a lot to learn in many, many aspects of historical knowledge.
Popular historians, or those that write for more than just specialists, have a little problem. While they may get greater and greater expertise as they age, they seem to lose the ability to lose the big picture. So as they get closer and closer to time, they become chronologists, rather than analysts. Which ruins their books.
Here is how they do it. When they look at the past, before they became specialists, they provide a summary, often a good summary, of what happened, and they often take all factors into account, and try to present all the dominant sides (unless you are Howard Zinn). However, when they start writing about the past when they were living, they provide ever, single, boring, detail, one which is inappropriate for the scope of the book. They have an inability to see the forest from the trees.
There is a place for providing a chronological history. But only if you are writing about a specific period of time, and the book is consistent. For example, if you were writing about contemporary Washington State, a historian could start in 1960, up to today, and say something like "Washington State History as I remember it." That would be an appropriate book, and probably, a good source.
Likewise, if you were going to analyze the past, you could go up to an end of an era, say, 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Expecially if you are, say, 40. After that, everything else is mundane, and best be left to future historian to analyze (although you could write a book called "contemporary Russia" and go into all those boring details).
But to present a book like "20th Century Russia" and do the former up to 1945, and the latter beyond 1945, makes for a lousy book. It is essentially bait-and-switch marketing, for you setting a reader's expectations as to what you will present (superior analysis), but only doing that up to a certain point, then going into boring, mundane details, without the analysis.
I really do not think that historians honestly expect to mislead. I think that they simply do not have the ability to analyze their era. That is because they are far too much a part of it. And doing a truly honest analysis leads one to criticize their generation - hence themselves - which most people really do not want to do.
I break these types of historians into two categories. One is the expert. This is a person who often was a professor, and when young, were noticed to have a superior understanding of their field. Hence, they wrote a good history when they were young. However, they were often consulted, and they could sometimes change minor events. So they try to get themselves part of the history. As a result, they keep slapping on chapters to later editions, leading to a decline in the quality of the book
The other type is the observer. This is someone who may not have been an expert early in life, but have observed things, and wrote about them.
Most are the former. A few are of the latter. For many historians, as they come closer to contemporary times, they are not writing about their subject, they are writing about themselves. That is faulty, as almost no historians really get to make history. They are trying to lead the fantasy lead by Hugh Seton-Watson, a slavic specialist at Oxford about 100 years ago, who truly was instrumental in setting up either Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia - don't ask me for details, I kinda forget, so if you want to know, look them up yourselves!
Here is a list of books.
1) Edward Reichshauer, "Modern Japan" (or something like that).
He was a white guy born in Japan, So he really knew the place. In 1945, he wrote an excellent history up to the end of the war. He also was Kennedy's ambassador to the country. Also a leading specialist on it.
This was our textbook for Japanese History class. We had to read a bit each week. Howerver, as the last week was over the previous 40 years, we had to read the last 40 years in the book. Which was 1/2 of the book.
This is important in that the first 1/2 of the book was from 1850-1950. The time in Japanese history when real history took place. After MacArthur left, there really has been no history to write about. This could have been in one-two chapters.
Hence, his book is disjointed, and he tries to insert himself in there, I think at least twice.
2) Donald Treadgold, "Twentieth Century Russia."
Donald Treadgold was a UW professor who was one of the top Russian Scholars in the world. So famous, even my Russian History professor at my school in Russia (Gornyi Institute) knew much about him. Since he was old, and I was fascinated by Russian History 15 years ago, I had to meet him before I died - so I knocked on his door and shook his hand! His book really outlined Russian history well throughout the Revolutionary period, which ended about 1953.
However, after 1953, he does not know the underlying factors of what was happening in Russia. His book drones on and on. And when we get to the collapse of the Soviet Union, he does not even give a preface as to why it collapsed, but merely jumps into the cold water. Thus, it is not that good a book.
My professor of contemporary (i.e., Revolutionary and Soviet - I had her class in 1995) Russia would not use him, probably for this reason. And she taught at the UW. She used a right leaning author, Martin Malia, as her textbook - despite the fact she was a leftist. Malia did provide an analysis as to why everything happened, and since it collapsed at the very end of 1991, thus ending an era, it fit perfectly into our class (what happened three, two years ago is almost never truly "history" as everyone pretty much knows the dominent events of those two years). Her way of getting her point across was to dispute what he said.
3) Paul Johnson's books
Paul Johnson, being an Oxford scholar, likes to put lots and lots of facts into his books. Any one of his books is a mouthful - but so is any book written by a person who came from there (at least until recently). However, he did have an ability to provide relevant analysis in the time period before he came to maturity.
However, he sometimes misses the boat. For example, what was the most important social trent in America after World War II? Not hippiedom. It was the rise of the pop culture - as your average American is saturated in it. He did not notice it - as he should have, as the average Englishman is soaked in it, too. And who are the first real icons of this? Marilyn Monroe and Elvis. Despite their superficiality, they honestly do deserve a place in American history, since they play such an important role in it. However, he ignores it. And, despite the fact that his American history book is excellent before 1945, he kinda gets lost in the forest after that year.
4) Jules Whitcover, "The Party of the People."
Some publisher, I forget which, asked two people to write a history of our two major parties - one for the Democrats, one for the Republicans. The other author (Lewis Gould) wrote a book entitled "GOP". They are about the same length. Which presents a bit of a problem, since the Democrats are anywhere from 30-60 years older than the Republican party, depending on how you intrepet the birth of the Democrat party (there is no definite date one can point to where a bunch of guys got together to form the Democrat Party, as a bunch of guys got together in 1854 in Wisconsin to create the Republican party; and indeed, there is an argument as to who can claim the mantle of Jefferson's party - I will go into this later).
So, Mr. Whitcover, a partisan journalist, has less to work with. Does he find approprate use of the limited space? No. Instead, he rushes thru the book to get to his era, so he can put himself into the book whenever possible His book is about the mundane power struggles for the presidential nomination of the party. Nothing is mentioned about the changes in ideological trends driving the party, barely anything mentioned about the policies of the Presidents, how they governed. etc. For example, the reader walks away having almost no knowledge of what constituted the New Deal, the holy grail of that party. And it's almost like William Jennings Bryant merely walked onto a stage, gave a speech, and - voila! - the Democrats were magically transformed from the party of Wall Street to a populist party. Almost half of the book is beyond 1958, when the author makes his first appearance.
On the other hand, the companion book, GOP, really does a good job of analyzing how overall party history He tells of the shifting ideological trends, gives some of the details of the presidential policies, and talks about more than presidents - a Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, had a big impact on the history of the Republican party. If there was a Democrat Gingrich, for example, he would barely be more than a footnote in Mr. Whitcover's book.
Why the difference? Mr. Whitcover was a partisan Democrat, and Mr. Gould was an admirer of the GOP, but not a partisan. So Mr. Whitcover took too much a part in Democrat history, while Mr. Gould could be a much more impartial observer. Again, that old disease. While some scholars like the Democrat book better than the Republican book, they claim that is because it is "more scholarly". Actually, all these details are outside the scope of the book, for a person who knows as much of the Democrat party as Mr. Gould writes about the Republican party would be a specialist, and does not need a global history of the Democrat party. To be this "scholarly" one needs a book that would constitue The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party" (by Michael Holt.) when he had limited space to do so.
5) "The Conservative Revolution" by Lee Edwards
As "The Conservative Revolution" occurred over most of his lifetime, it makes for a terrible book. He has this same "old historian" disease, and he is an observer.
Lee Edwards did have an influence in the conservative movement since the 1960's. However, he wrote his book in 1998. And his book begins with Robert Taft.
While this is a good attempt to try to outline the conservative movement, he really does the opposite - he analyzes the early days, but spends most of the time in the contemporary era. Hence, it makes for a terrible book, as it reads like my high school newspaper, the Lexington. And almost all high school students really can't write that well (as it takes years and writing hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces to truly develop your own style).
As liberal historians regarded conservatives as mere reactionaries, and part of the past, (so no need to write about them) there has been no honest attempt to seriously analyze how the movement arose, (since, according to them, it would fade soon). However, since it has had a presense as a movement for 50 years, and now completely controls the lawmaking branch of goverment, historians are now beginning to try to address what happened. And a consensus appears to be starting to develop that the American right began not with Robert, but with William, Taft (great-grandfather of current Ohio Governor Bob Taft) - the president Taft,
Mr. Edwards should really have written an autobiography, and waited for other conservative historials to publish a history of the movement. He has a lot to say about his participation, and that could have been used for future uses. However, since he was too much a part of the movement, he really lacks the analytical ability to write a truly representative history of the movement.
One more book is a not a history, but a collection of documents. "Great Issues in American History - 1864 - 1981". The author is Richard Hofstadter. But he died in 1970, so his wife Beatrice threw more stuff in up to 1981, to make it "current."
However, there was a lot chosen since World War II that was not really important, and some important documents were left out. This happens when you are 75. For example, Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" television speech of 1964 is left out. And what is the most important court case of the 20th century. Some may say "Brown v Board" (which is included) but some may saw Roe v. Wade. This very important case is left out. While the "Malaise" speech is left in, Reagan's Inaguaral Address (one of the most memorable and important since Kennedy's) was left out. And although the Carter-Reagan debate is left in, only part of it is - the only important part of that debate, the phrase "There you go again" is left out.
I had first presented this problem in a paper on the history of science (specifically, on the history of Darwininean Evolution). I suggested that the reason why Louis Agassiz did not "get with it" on evolution was he was old and Darwin was not. Now, granted, I was under the influence of Butthead at the time, and my teacher disagreed (they were only a few ages apart), but sometimes, folklore presents where the fool has the wisdom. And as I read these macro- (or global) histories, I can see more and more that my Butthead theory of historical writing does have some merit.
One author appears to have become hooked to slapping more and more parts to his history, but then realized what he had done, so did a hatchet job on those later parts. I have only read the most recent edition of "The Conservative Mind", a series of biographies of conservatives before essentially the birth of the American Right. By Russell Kirk. Pretty much a superb history. However, in his latest edition, he mentions that he had added some contemporary figures in prior editions, but then realized that he needed to take them out. He apparently understood that due to the fact that he was part of the contemporary history, he really did not have the tools to analyze his era, and is letting later historians do the job (although he failed to include Albert J Nock, whom I consider to be the bridge between the "conservative movement" of today and the old style, "traditionalist" conservatives that Mr. Kirk writes about).
While I have not had any course of historiography, I do not know if historians have realized this problem, but I think that they should address. For it will better help out in our understanding of the past, how it is taught, and be able to pass this on to those not so historically inclined.
posted by EricMatthew at 8:40 PM
<< Home