Contemporary historian Ron Radosh has an interesting piece about the influential Howard Zinn and his People's History over at the Law and Liberty site. I liked an early point very much, that while Zinn is identified as one doing History From Below, that is mostly an affectation. As the essay wore on I think Radosh hit some repetitive and trite material, but the essay in general remains solid.
Zinn was not an innovator in historical commentary, he was very much a user
of the current emerging fashion in writing history. He was like a young man
with an unerring eye for the clothing that would most attract the female gaze
and end in seduction. Such do not care
about shirts or ties, but about getting women into bed. If another shirt or tie
works better next year, the old will be discarded. Zinn only cared about a percentage of the
human beings “from below” – those who suited his political purpose. One does
not study industrial workers by focusing solely on unions, though that is a
part; one does not study immigrants by noting only their initial housing
conditions in cities, though that is a part; one does not study distributed
power and authority by seeing only the abuses of power, though those can be a
window of understanding. In all cases, a narrowing of focus allows one to
choose only the examples that support one’s Point of view. Most historians
attempt to rise above this and consider possible leaks in the buckets they are
carrying. Yet all narrowings increase
vulnerability to manipulation.
I am very much a fan of “history from below.” So were a
great many of Howard Zinn’s critics. The
link provides good references to this, for those who want to see the critiques
in more detail
.
This is a topic of the moment because of the controversy
around the 1619 Project of the NYTimes.
I have not read it, nor do I intend to.
I have some interest in what people I respect have to say about it, good
and bad. At present most of what is said
is from two sources: other historians and the conservative press. Neither are
complimentary. However, I assume there
are some things worth knowing in even very bad histories, and there may even be
sections or approaches that will prove valuable over time. For now, some pieces have leaked out, likely
the worst bits, and I can apply what moderate amount of history I know to
those. I know more colonial history than
other American periods, though I have been trying to gradually rectify that. Most recently I am listening to historian Lindsay Graham’s* podcasts about each presidential election, “Wicked Game” and feel
confident in a simple declaration. If the American Revolution were actually,
truly, wink-wink about preserving
slavery because the founders and elites knew that the British were on the road
to outlawing it, then no presidential
election from Washington to Polk makes the least bit of coherent sense. (I
doubt that clarity is going to suddenly emerge from that hypothesis in the next
few weeks about Pierce and Buchanan, either.)
Slavery was the dominant issue in most elections, though
tariffs and federal power were also common rallying points. To suggest that the
elites (or the middle class and poor) had substantial agreement underneath it
all, merely jockeying for the spoils of it is simply absurd. If that were the
case then there were acres of compromise where they could have sat and
picnicked together.
* No, a different Lindsay Graham
3 comments:
pedantic point - the Senator is Lindsey Graham.
Thank you. I should have specified that to help avoid confusion.
I'll have to give some of those a listen. I don't know a lot about the campaigns and arguments--just the big topics (central bank, inflation is good or bad, Mexico, etc).
Post a Comment