- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was reading an interesting article on Newt Gingrich as a historian and came across these comments from a fellow historian:
“My problem with Gingrich as an historian,” Mr. Kabaservice added, “is that history’s a big grab bag. You can find precedents for anything you want in there. Gingrich’s approach to history is like his approach to politics — sloppy, undisciplined, occasionally brilliant, but more often missing the mark.”
Gingrich Wields History, Seeking to Add ChapterDo you find that history is a "grab bag" for political purposes? If not, what is the context in which history may be used by politicians so that it is not a mere "grab bag"?
It's only a grab bag for politics if you want it to be. Gingrich, in most cases, is giving the interpretation of history before it was twisted by the Leftist revisionists.
Of course history is a grab bag. I don't even know if there is a specific context to make history apolitical and I doubt one even exists. History is like any other human endeavour and can be twisted to serve any need while still staying within the facts. that is the beauty of interpretation isn't it?
I don't even know if there is a specific context to make history apolitical and I doubt one even exists.
What about just reporting the facts and leaving out the opinions or commentary?
What about just reporting the facts and leaving out the opinions or commentary?
That is not history, that is reportage. History is the scholar explaining why he thinks something happened but at the same time leaving it to the reader to agree or disagree.Yes, my views on historiography continue to evolve, I am no longer as rigid as I once was. I don't think I have fallen into the trap of revisionism or deconstructionism just yet, but please warn me if you think I start to. ;D
