Historians and Politics
Yesterday I wrote about the present in this blog about my work with the past. What possible justification could I have for doing that? (I mean besides the obvious point that this is my blog.)
I wrote about outsourcing military functions in Iraq not because I possess special knowledge of the subject, but because my expertise in history makes me frame the issue in ways that are different from what I find in the media. I do not possess any special insight into what we should do about the Iraq War now, but I know that there are some issues from past wars that I am not seeing raised today. Historians are on solid epistemological ground when they raise such issues.
On the other hand, I find the American Historical Association’s official condemnation of the war last year problematic. An organization of historians has no business claiming expertise in making war and peace. Instead I wish it would devote more attention to the study of war and society in the past. Then its individual members could participate in the framing of debates about war and peace in our own times, if they so desire.
Stoneman’s Corner
- Book Review: GDR and Consumption January 13, 2013
- Teaching Notes: Synthesis and Process September 29, 2012
- Hist 499-005: Gender and Class in Modern Europe August 18, 2012
- Reflections after Class July 3, 2012
- Requiring Students to Use Chicago Style (or Turabian or Whatever) June 14, 2012
- Military History Conference May 13, 2012
- Syllabus for Hist 606: Themes in European History II May 3, 2012
- Command Culture by Jörg Muth April 28, 2012
- Who Should Groener’s Schlieffen Plan Matter To? March 18, 2012
- Hist 499-003: Gender and Class in Modern Europe (Required Books) March 7, 2012
Does this all go to the issue of ‘instant history?’ In 1989, when the Wall came down, there were historians on the ground, observing and writing. A storm of protest erupted, arguing that they had no right to call that history; it was observation and political science, but not history.
I think historians do have perspectives that can help us interpret the happenings of today long before scholarly distance sets in. FWIW.
(I too wrote on the Blackwater problem, although in a different light. You keep right on asking important questions!)
I’d imagine historians could pull out what they’re currently seeing and comparing it to failures/successes of previous conflicts. But then, so could a lot of people.
Sometimes time can be better used for a more complete perspective of history. “Instant history” could miss things.