In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal Wilfred McClay tries to draw a distinction between “genuine history” on the one hand and “weaponized history” on the other.
Genuine
A genuinely historical approach would acknowledge, even insist on recognizing, that Washington owned slaves. It would go on to consider that fact from the larger perspective of a long, important and consequential life. It would weigh Washington’s beliefs and actions carefully in the context of their time, and would take into account his decision to free his slaves at the time of his death.
Weaponized
A more disturbing example is the pell-mell rush to pass judgment against heroes of the past and tear down or rename the monuments to them—including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson. Are we really so faint of heart that we can no longer bear to allow the honoring of great men of the past who fail in some respects to meet our current specifications?
If there were an ounce of sincerity in the present campaign to bowdlerize our history, the very people proclaiming the mortal necessity of the bowdlerization would be deserting the Democratic Party. For most of a century the party’s main annual fund-raising event has been called the “Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner” for good reason. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson laid the foundations of the Democratic Party. If the United States has not transcended its original sin, slavery, it is manifestly impossible for the Democratic Party to have done so.
But people and history are more complicated than that. We must learn to embrace history’s contradictions rather than trying to bury them. We cannot do so through perseverating on our sins. Don’t confront me with my failings. I have not forgotten them.
James Mellaart, a sort of real-life Indiana Jones and quite a rascal, once said of archaeology that it wasn’t a science, it was a vendetta. That isn’t just true of ancient history. It’s equally true of more modern history if not more so..
History is the study of a different time and place. Using it to judge people from the past based on contemporaneous terms is the sin of anachronism, its own moral and intellectual failing. It also is frequently used to commit the ad hominem fallacy, in that we are asked to judge the principle by the sin’s of the proponent.
Another aspect of this is that academia has largely withdrawn from many areas of U.S. history, leaving the field to amateurs, some of who are fine, but a lot of them are Bill O’Reilly’s. Colleges tend to prefer the obscure and unimportant to show intellectual heft. But there are also areas that will end your career. A retired professor on Civil War, recently explained that throughout his career he advised his grad students not to do military history. It wasn’t that military history wasn’t important to the war, he felt the opposite, but academia is full of professors still fighting the Vietnam War and they won’t hire you. He advised that they do political or social history, which must be informed by military events. More recently, he’d advised his grad students not to do history of any Confederates; you won’t get hired. I’m personally not that interested in pure military history or Confederate biographies, but I sure think its important that someone is doing it because without it, there are going to be a lot of erroneous assumptions perpetrated.
C. S. Lewis called it “chronological snobbery”.
Talked today with guy who was professor of military history at an Ivy League school. Really nice guy, very bright. So those professors still exist. I would agree completely about not judging people from the past by current standards. I suspect that some of us might not look so good compared with whatever the world is like 200 years from now.
Steve
“would be deserting the Democratic Party.”
To go where, to the GOP? Not really fond of tiki torch parades shouting Nazi slogans.
Steve
To the Greens, the Socialist Party, start a new party.
But you’re changing the subject. If the sins of slavery and racism are unforgiveable, the Democratic Party cannot be redeemed. If they are forgiveable, under what circumstances? The Civil Rights Act of 1965, for example, could not have passed without support from Republicans. What is the great achievement of the Democratic Party (other than not being Republicans) that led to the party’s redemption?
My point is not that the Republicans are good while the Democrats are bad. My point is that both parties need to be measured using equal yardsticks and, frankly, neither party looks very good.
@steve, does he do the Civil War? Gary Gallagher was professor at University of Virginia, possibly the most prestigious Civil War program, and he wrote military history, albeit indirectly as political and social history, but wanted to protect his students so that they could get jobs. He didn’t let his students write about military history, and said so a few months ago on CSPAN3. Maybe your friend can go on CSPAN and talk about the opportunities in writing civil war military history at colleges.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1965, for example, could not have been passed without support from Republicans. ”
Well sure, except that those Northeast Republicans would now be called Democrats. My point is not that the Dems are always good, but rather that, since we really have two choices in our elections, the GOP is so bad the Dems come out better. Also, I am not really sure that the party has even been redeemed, however, to those whose opinion would seem to matter the most, the formerly enslaved, they seem to have made a clear choice.
Steve
@steve, so you think Republicans are NAZIs?
Please support that claim with facts. I think they’d be called “independents”. The percentage of Democrats hasn’t ballooned over the the last 30 years. The percentage of independents has.
And once again you’re changing the subject.
Steve wrote “Also, I am not really sure that the party has even been redeemed, however, to those whose opinion would seem to matter the most, the formerly enslaved, they seem to have made a clear choice.”
Steve, you have a very valid point. And they (I assume you mean African Americans) seem to have made that clear choice. That is clearly illustrated by this map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population
Kinda seems to me that they have chosen the Republicans. Surprise!!!
The formerly enslaved were reliable Republican voters. Name one person living today who was freed by the 13th Amendment.
@Dave Schuler
Name one person living today who was freed by the 13th Amendment.
Every black person in the US is a defacto slave, and every white person in the US is a defacto owner of these slaves. People today are related the slave owning forefathers through privilege, and white people are full of privilege. There are no appeals and no reprieves.
Of course, having privilege means you never have to admit your privilege.
Thank you, Big Brother. Also, freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom.
It should be noted that by that logic there are no former slaves.
@Dave Schuler
It should be noted that by that logic there are no former slaves.
Woke logic is what the woke say it is, and yes, there are only dead slaves. Killed by? Wait for it, white people.
Being woke means never having to adhere to unwoke logic.
“Every black person in the US is a defacto slave, and every white person in the US is a defacto owner of these slaves”
And THAT is deliberately divisive.
But what I really think is relevant is George Washington’s position on Transgender and or Fluidly Transgendering troops?
@Dave,
“the formerly enslaved”
Twarn’t me. That’s what Steve wrote. I was quoting him.
Years ago, a black guy I knew explained how pool was racist, but I am not sure if he actually believed it or not.
In 8 ball, you eliminate all the colored balls (balls of color?), and to win, the white ball has to knock out the black ball. As he would say, “just another case of the white man putting down the black man.”
He was actually really smart, and we would argue over social issues regarding race. In order to refute his arguments, I read up on Malcolm X, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, and the Nation of Islam.
The racism they experienced was quite different than today’s snowflake version.
@Grey Shambler
And THAT is deliberately divisive.
Only because you refuse to get woke.
Since your wife is a POC, you have culturally appropriated her, and since you refuse to accept your white guilt, you are oppressing her.
You have neighbors who are POCs. Do you wave and tell them hello when you see them.
If no, you are racist for refusing to treat them as equals. Since black people have been oppressed for so long, you need to ensure that they know you believe they are equal.
If yes, you are racist for exhibiting your white privilege. Since black people have been oppressed for so long, you need to ensure that they know you accept your privilege.
If you are woke, you would understand this, and therefore, you would not be a racist. Admit your white privilege, accept your guilt, and be set free.
(My wife has caught on, and she is now able to spot the racism all around us.)
A. Shh! Don’t give her ideas.
B. The Black man next door is a temp. The White lady who owns the house keeps him for fun, and I do avoid him because he borrow tools and forgets to bring them back.
C. In the last year, two houses directly across have been razed for condos, big ones. The neighborhood is being torn down and rebuilt at a surprising rate. We are right between East and West U.N.L. campi, about two miles apart. That’s enough, stalkers might find me.
“The formerly enslaved were reliable Republican voters. ”
And you accuse me of being pedantic. So lets say formerly enslaved and their offspring for many generations. Also, I am sure that you are aware of the Southern strategy pursued by Nixon and that the South changed from Democrats to Republicans and we saw the opposite in the Northeast.
“The percentage of independents has.”
The context was the vote for the Civil Rights Act. Independents are rare in Congress.
Roy- Nice try. Look at those numbers for 1860.
Steve
“Every black person in the US is a defacto slave, and every white person in the US is a defacto owner of these slaves.”
Be glad to concede if you can show where I ever wrote that. Sure, the internet is just for fun sometimes and if you want to be an Ahole because it entertains you go ahead.
Steve
@steve
You really need to write yourself a prescription for medical marijuana and fire up the bong. I do not want to trigger you, but you were not included explicitly or implicitly in any of my comments.
If you were woke enough, you would embrace what I wrote. Admit your privilege, accept your white guilt, and set yourself free. Once you are willing to identify all white people as racists, you will be cleansed of your racism.
I see this was a productive thread. Me, I was taking my daughter back to school. Afterwards I had to drive through NC, SC and GA. A very scary trip. I saw white supremicists everywhere I went. Armed to the teeth. I couldn’t even stop to have biscuits and gravy plus grits. Or sweetened iced tea. And avoiding the pick up truck guys with confederate flags in their back windows……
I’m damned lucky to be home. Lizzy, Bernie and Joe told me.