- This topic has 3 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Are there historical questions that we are afraid to ask? Or, rather, who historians are generally afraid to explore? I think there are, largely because of political correctness. You?
This is a good question I've been pndering most of the day and I can't think of anything offhand. All I can come up with is different ideologies or “sides” of an issue.
Sometimes those “sides” issues are important, though. Sometimes questions are so politically incorrect that they seem shameful to ask, and sometimes the questions are easily refutable. But maybe not always.
Here is one. The historical reasons for the state of race relations in this country. This is one issue in which only one side gets published. There is only one political orthodoxy for the origins of race relations and dissenting views do not get published except in radical journals which further discredits the sometimes reasonable historical accounts. I am not advocating radicalism, but reasoned, factual debate of historical events without preconceptions. Isn't that what history is supposed to about?There are many subjects that are politically charged to the extent that only the PC history of theses issues sees the light of day. Examples include, social spending, women's rights, abortion, drugs and drug use, political conservatism and liberalism, or my favorite whipping post, the notion that all Germans in 1930's Germany were not just Nazi's but fanatics. When was the last time anybody here has seen serious scholarly work on these issues and their history that did not have a political axe to grind? That last issue has only recently begun to be exploded for the myth that it is and scholars who have tackled it have had to buck trend to get the balanced version of events published. Phid, I agree with you to the extent that politics and the politicization of certain issues make it difficult or impossible to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. This keeps historians from asking important questions about the history of issues that affect contemporary life. Ski, the questions that do not get asked because of orthodoxy are probably the one that need to be asked the most.
Phid, you make a very good point that these need to be asked and sometimes we need to be open-minded to a view different than our own. Historians NEED to be like that. It's all part of the skepticism we should possess. I haven't been in any academic situation yet where I was afraid to ask a question or even be "controversial" myself.scout are you implying all German's were or weren't fanatics?I don't knwo if this question goes along with the topic but what do you feel about going against the consensus? Should history be like science in this way where we have to agree with the majority of what every major historian has said about something? What if some (who are not revisionists) come along and challenge their theories with good evidence or something else that makes sense? I just finished a Marathon paper. Most of the reknowned historians say who flashed the shield signal. Do I have to agree with this just because it's been the consensus for years? There is just not enough evidence to determine with any certainty who did it. I prefer the historian who can present all sides and show the weaknesses and strengths of them. That way I can determine for myself what side to take, or even if I should take a side.In an assignment I just finished we had to read Why Become a Historian? One statement in it, and I only partly agree "No one has a corner on truth, and there is no single truth." I agree with this only when we don't have enough historical evidence. I think many things are what they are -the truth, reagardless of our own cultural or personnal bias.
Phid, you make a very good point that these need to be asked and sometimes we need to be open-minded to a view different than our own. Historians NEED to be like that. It's all part of the skepticism we should possess. I haven't been in any academic situation yet where I was afraid to ask a question or even be "controversial" myself.
I guess I recall the fiasco that happened in the news last month or the month before with holocaust denial. It occurred to me that the issue is so politically charged that it has become an area where history may be difficult to do if one disagrees with the prevailing views. I'm not talking about denying the holocaust took place. Rather, what if someone did the research and honestly found that 5 million (or some other number) Jews were killed rather than 6 million? It would not remove the tragedy or the label of genocide, yet I imagine the finding would come up against some opposition based on political grounds. I don't know how they came up with the numbers in the first place, yet I have no reason to disagree with the prevailing historical account. Perhaps the research is rock-solid. And maybe this is a bad example because I think people do deny the holocaust probably in order to further a socio-political end, namely opposition to Israel. But I think it's an area where any questions that challenge parts of the historical account might be very unwelcome.
In an assignment I just finished we had to read Why Become a Historian? One statement in it, and I only partly agree "No one has a corner on truth, and there is no single truth." I agree with this only when we don't have enough historical evidence. I think many things are what they are -the truth, reagardless of our own cultural or personnal bias.
That statement about "No one has a corner on truth" is too loaded to be put in a book like that. I agree with that statement in one narrow sense as it applies to history, but only in that narrow sense. The way I think it is understood by many-a-student, however, is much broader. In this broader sense, the author seems to be leaving the role of historian and entering a role of ideological advocate. We have enough of those already.
Ski, The prevailing wisdom is that all or at least most Germans in the 1930's were Nazi's. If you dont believe me, pick any show the History Channel has aired on Nazi Germany and then tell me I am wrong. This is also the popular perception. My wife got this all the time in the States, I even got asked a few times if she was mean because she is German. A look at what happened in Germany at the time shows that this is not true. That is the same as saying that all Americans are Rabid Obama supporters or Democrats because he won the elections. Remember, Hitler was elected too, and with a smaller majority than Obama got. Come to think of it, to a certain extent, that is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists or support the terrorists. What is terribly different between the Nazi Rallies and Muslims rioting over cartoons?Politics plays into scholarship, especially history and medicine. Is that the way it should be? Probably not, but the only way I can think of to challenge the orthodoxy is to have principles and stay true to them whether they agree with political correctness or not. I am content to agree with most historical scholarship, it is only the treatment of some historical events that I think have been corrupted. These are mainly politically or emotionally charged events. Fitting right in to Phid's thoughts on holocaust scholarship is Turkey's refusal to admit to the Armenian evictions and slaughter of 1915-1916. They are trying to ignore events that demonstrably happened because it is politically inexpedient for the Turks to admit it.
scout, I was only asking you to clarify. I agree with you and also agree that it is “marketed” by the mainstream as ALL Germans.
This should probably be split into a separate thread because it is starting to diverge.
scout, I was only asking you to clarify. I agree with you and also agree that it is "marketed" by the mainstream as ALL Germans.
Sorry, but this is one area of historical ignorance in the general populace that is unforgivable in m opinion. This point has led me to question assumptions we make today about Muslims and their support for terrorist goals. I am starting to think that you are right Ski, and we should take a more nuanced view of Muslim support for terrorism. I am not certain that the western public has enough information about the man on the street in the Muslim world and what they think that we can truly make an informed opinion. Personal experience tells me that most Muslims do indeed support terrorists and their goals.
Actually, what you said might bring the thread back. Here's a politically-incorrect question: Should all Germans, including today's Germans, feel guilty for the holocaust?
Actually, what you said might bring the thread back. Here's a politically-incorrect question: Should all Germans, including today's Germans, feel guilty for the holocaust?
Short answer, NO. Should white Americans feel sorry for slavery? I say no and for the same reason. I never owned any slaves and the vast majority of living Germans were not even born until after WWII and therefore did not kill any Jews.
