The uses and abuses of history in politics is unfortunate. It is especially so when true historians - the academics who create new historical knowledge - engage in it. I am on my way to the American Historical Association annual meeting in San Francisco. The Saturday night plenary session features Rachel Maddow, talking about "Rethinking the Far Right in American History." Perhaps I shall write it up. Maybe I can smuggle in a flask.
There are a great many reasons not to weaponize history. Among those is that using history to shape politics undermines history's greatest value. In my most humble opinion, in the fewest possible words, history's greatest value is that it teaches epistemic humility. The term has a hardcore philosophical meaning, but I mean it in a more popular sense: That history teaches that even the greatest and most consequential humans – not to mention perfectly ordinary people – were capable of astonishing errors, lapses of judgment, and moral failing, and therefore so are we all. History teaches that we should be humble rather than certain in our beliefs, for they probably won’t stand the test of time.
The problem, of course, is that partisan politics, especially as practiced today, requires precisely the opposite: Absolute confidence in one’s beliefs, however unwarranted that confidence may be. Call it epistemic arrogance. Our media, as you point out, promotes exactly that. The political use of history, therefore, corrupts history absolutely — the purpose of history is to teach epistemic humility, but partisans use history to bolster epistemic arrogance, the antithesis of its purpose. That is what I mean when I say that politics corrupts history absolutely.
(Cribbed some of this from a blog post I wrote a few months back, so I plagiarized myself a bit here. No doubt this is poor citation form!)
That you will hearing Maddow at the AHA is a good example off meetings must have entertainment.. She has done a lot of work in exploring the right in the 1930s and she is worth listening to. But if this topic were explored with a panel including historians in would get to the nuances readers here are discussing. Have fun at the meeting.
Great insights into how the producers of news networks work. You nailed it that viewers want their beliefs to be confirmed rather than challenged. Sad truth.
When I was in high school our world history teacher had us hold a mock trial as to which nation was most responsible for the start of world war 1. I and another student acted as prosecutors, six students represented German, Russia, Serbia, France, UKc and Austro-Hungary. FUN!
But to "it's more complicated than that"
I have the same response to people complaining about the so-called border crisis. The right seems to like the simplistic "build a wall" to which I argued that that is like seeing a person being assaulted on your sidewalk and simply closing the door and ignoring the crime. I always ask them to describe the root cause. As a Quality Engineer, my training is to drill down and examine the actual root cause, not just the symptom.
I then point to 100+ years of US government policy of destabilizing these nations from which the migrants come, installing dictators, destabilizing the economies there to the benefit of US corporations, funding death squads and civil war as well as imposing economically ruinous sanctions.
When I hear complaints about "taxpayer money funding housing etc" on illegal immigrants or asylum seekers- I point to US law which doesn't allow migrants (illegal or otherwise) to get work permits for six months. Six Months! With a labor shortage, why not amend this law and give them an immediate work permit while their cases are under review. They want to work and will be paying taxes too as well as be documented.
But unfortunately, for many people "it's more complicated than that" is too difficult to deal with.
I had the pleasure to meet you and discuss history small h and large H in Austin circa 1998. Much has changed since then. Columbus was a product of a Catholic world and Euro technology exploring and planting flags of ownership. I, on the other hand, am a product of go to Vietnam and support your country. Both of us later in life vilified for being good citizens at the hour of need. Your perspective on history is and has been a great comfort and joy
Your experience with the news media that represents both sides of what passes for politics in America underscores just how arrogant both they and who they support are.
The uses and abuses of history in politics is unfortunate. It is especially so when true historians - the academics who create new historical knowledge - engage in it. I am on my way to the American Historical Association annual meeting in San Francisco. The Saturday night plenary session features Rachel Maddow, talking about "Rethinking the Far Right in American History." Perhaps I shall write it up. Maybe I can smuggle in a flask.
There are a great many reasons not to weaponize history. Among those is that using history to shape politics undermines history's greatest value. In my most humble opinion, in the fewest possible words, history's greatest value is that it teaches epistemic humility. The term has a hardcore philosophical meaning, but I mean it in a more popular sense: That history teaches that even the greatest and most consequential humans – not to mention perfectly ordinary people – were capable of astonishing errors, lapses of judgment, and moral failing, and therefore so are we all. History teaches that we should be humble rather than certain in our beliefs, for they probably won’t stand the test of time.
The problem, of course, is that partisan politics, especially as practiced today, requires precisely the opposite: Absolute confidence in one’s beliefs, however unwarranted that confidence may be. Call it epistemic arrogance. Our media, as you point out, promotes exactly that. The political use of history, therefore, corrupts history absolutely — the purpose of history is to teach epistemic humility, but partisans use history to bolster epistemic arrogance, the antithesis of its purpose. That is what I mean when I say that politics corrupts history absolutely.
(Cribbed some of this from a blog post I wrote a few months back, so I plagiarized myself a bit here. No doubt this is poor citation form!)
That you will hearing Maddow at the AHA is a good example off meetings must have entertainment.. She has done a lot of work in exploring the right in the 1930s and she is worth listening to. But if this topic were explored with a panel including historians in would get to the nuances readers here are discussing. Have fun at the meeting.
There will be historians in addition to Maddow. I haven’t read her book although presumably there will be an opportunity to buy one.
Great insights into how the producers of news networks work. You nailed it that viewers want their beliefs to be confirmed rather than challenged. Sad truth.
"it's more complicated than that"
INDEED.
When I was in high school our world history teacher had us hold a mock trial as to which nation was most responsible for the start of world war 1. I and another student acted as prosecutors, six students represented German, Russia, Serbia, France, UKc and Austro-Hungary. FUN!
But to "it's more complicated than that"
I have the same response to people complaining about the so-called border crisis. The right seems to like the simplistic "build a wall" to which I argued that that is like seeing a person being assaulted on your sidewalk and simply closing the door and ignoring the crime. I always ask them to describe the root cause. As a Quality Engineer, my training is to drill down and examine the actual root cause, not just the symptom.
I then point to 100+ years of US government policy of destabilizing these nations from which the migrants come, installing dictators, destabilizing the economies there to the benefit of US corporations, funding death squads and civil war as well as imposing economically ruinous sanctions.
When I hear complaints about "taxpayer money funding housing etc" on illegal immigrants or asylum seekers- I point to US law which doesn't allow migrants (illegal or otherwise) to get work permits for six months. Six Months! With a labor shortage, why not amend this law and give them an immediate work permit while their cases are under review. They want to work and will be paying taxes too as well as be documented.
But unfortunately, for many people "it's more complicated than that" is too difficult to deal with.
I had the pleasure to meet you and discuss history small h and large H in Austin circa 1998. Much has changed since then. Columbus was a product of a Catholic world and Euro technology exploring and planting flags of ownership. I, on the other hand, am a product of go to Vietnam and support your country. Both of us later in life vilified for being good citizens at the hour of need. Your perspective on history is and has been a great comfort and joy
This was a great read. As I always say to people: IT’S COMPLICATED.
Your experience with the news media that represents both sides of what passes for politics in America underscores just how arrogant both they and who they support are.