Short video highlighting the downfall of historical interpretation in Academia

1,526 Views | 12 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Sapper Redux
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interesting video about the Confederacy that shows how historical interpretation today is as polarized as politics. Both sides need to get back to shades of gray (pardon the pun) in both arenas.

OldArmy71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who is this person?

I agree with quite a bit of what he's saying. One of the main things that galls me about the SJW approach to the statues and to the South is the notion, as he says, that the South was UNIQUELY racist and corrupt, when in fact racism was pandemic in America.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have to disagree with your thread title OP. This video discusses how the general population has interpreted the Civil War through a politicized lens. Academics rarely present history, especially something as complex as the Civil War, in such a simplistic fashion.

The guy in the video is a high school history teacher in South Carolina from what I can tell. He does a good job discussing various viewpoints about the Civil War, but he's speaking to a high school audience and engaging with binary issues that are prevalent with Facebook level discussions about the war. No Civil War historian in academia takes the simplistic approach to interpreting the War as presented in the video.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I stand by my title, where do you think these sociology, gender and race studies majors are getting their ideas. Some history profs still look at all angles and perspectives but the general Confederate, not American view is what is coming out of American universities today. Anyone who even suggests the Confederacy wasn't just evil, racists, traitors are ostracized by their peers. I know because many of them are my friends.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

I stand by my title, where do you think these sociology, gender and race studies majors are getting their ideas. Some history profs still look at all angles and perspectives but the general Confederate, not American view is what is coming out of American universities today. Anyone who even suggests the Confederacy wasn't just evil, racists, traitors are ostracized by their peers. I know because many of them are my friends.
These students are probably getting their ideas from the profs in their majors.

I know Prof Dawson and Prof Foote, both Civil War historians in the A&M history department, teach a nuanced and complex history of the CW. If you go the Society for Military History conference each year or read the Journal of Military history you will also find a very sophisticated level of engagement with the Civil War that does not make simplistic arguments about "evil, racists, traitors". I'm not sure who you know or where you're getting your take on how the Civil War is taught in universities, but your view does not accurately reflect A&M or the SMH.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A&M isn't the norm, but it's working it's way in that direction.
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

I stand by my title, where do you think these sociology, gender and race studies majors are getting their ideas. Some history profs still look at all angles and perspectives but the general Confederate, not American view is what is coming out of American universities today. Anyone who even suggests the Confederacy wasn't just evil, racists, traitors are ostracized by their peers. I know because many of them are my friends.
I listened to the video while I was cooking dinner last night. It wasn't that great but, OK to casually listen to.

I do agree with your points here.

A few months ago, one of my liberal friends from Seattle started a Confederacy/Slavery/Racism discussion on his FB and it went nowhere. Anybody who deviated from the racism narrative was shouted down. I think the compelling event was the West Point History professor with his video about the Civil War being all about slavery.

Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A&M is a great place for history, but it is not the exception when it comes to faculty that teach a nuanced approach to Civil War that goes beyond the simplistic evil, racist, traitors approach you claim are abounding in academia. For example Steve Woodworth (TCU), Richard McCaslin (UNT), Joeseph Glatthaar (UNC), Mark Grimsley (Ohio State), Jennifer Weber (KU), James Huston (OSU), Aaron Sheehan-Dean (LSU), Lesley Gordon (Alabama), Gary Gallagher (Virginia), Paul Quigley (Virginia Tech), and Andy Lang (Miss State) are just a few of the Civil War historians in academia that offer a balanced view.

You say you have friends in universities who have been ostracized for their approach to teach the Civil War, could you share who they are and where they work?

Bottom line, the average low information (when it comes to history and particularly Civil War history) person on Facebook (or dare I say Texags?) likely engages in a very simplistic interpretation of the Civil War that paints people with a broad brush. Nearly every historian I know in academia does not use that approach. Don't accuse university historians for what you see in internet discussions.



Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HollywoodBQ said:

BQ78 said:

I stand by my title, where do you think these sociology, gender and race studies majors are getting their ideas. Some history profs still look at all angles and perspectives but the general Confederate, not American view is what is coming out of American universities today. Anyone who even suggests the Confederacy wasn't just evil, racists, traitors are ostracized by their peers. I know because many of them are my friends.
I listened to the video while I was cooking dinner last night. It wasn't that great but, OK to casually listen to.

I do agree with your points here.

A few months ago, one of my liberal friends from Seattle started a Confederacy/Slavery/Racism discussion on his FB and it went nowhere. Anybody who deviated from the racism narrative was shouted down. I think the compelling event was the West Point History professor with his video about the Civil War being all about slavery.


Key bit of context here. I completely agree that most internet discussions quickly devolve to politicized narratives that distort history.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Ag_EQ12 said:

A&M is a great place for history, but it is not the exception when it comes to faculty that teach a nuanced approach to Civil War that goes beyond the simplistic evil, racist, traitors approach you claim are abounding in academia. For example Steve Woodworth (TCU), Richard McCaslin (UNT), Joeseph Glatthaar (UNC), Mark Grimsley (Ohio State), Jennifer Weber (KU), James Huston (OSU), Aaron Sheehan-Dean (LSU), Lesley Gordon (Alabama), Gary Gallagher (Virginia), Paul Quigley (Virginia Tech), and Andy Lang (Miss State) are just a few of the Civil War historians in academia that offer a balanced view.

You say you have friends in universities who have been ostracized for their approach to teach the Civil War, could you share who they are and where they work?

Bottom line, the average low information (when it comes to history and particularly Civil War history) person on Facebook (or dare I say Texags?) likely engages in a very simplistic interpretation of the Civil War that paints people with a broad brush. Nearly every historian I know in academia does not use that approach. Don't accuse university historians for what you see in internet discussions.




Especially do not confuse them with journalists and "newsmen" or "activists" and "community organizers". You would probably find it is sociological kind of professors, or only somewhat related department profs, that are teaching the Alinsky-toned stuff you are referring to. Its hard to imagine an actual Civil War academic being that shallow. A curriculum? Sure.

BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I prefer to not name names since this is a public forum and these people are still trying to survive in an academic environment but I will say your list of names includes one of the people I've talked to about this problem and that person agrees with the general disregard for Civil War and military history and laments the growing prevalence of the Confederate, Other POV in academia. The problem seems to be worse on the two coasts but the disease is spreading.

And that is a great list of historians you have listed who are, as you say, still nuanced in their approach. I was sorry to see that Gary Gallagher is retiring in October.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's fair. I agree that there is a challenge from society and elements in academia and it is something all historians should fight.

Military history as a whole has been under pressure for some time. Many departments have decided not to replace prominent military historians when they retire. Frankly, I wonder if PME will be the only place left that actually encourages military history.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Ag_EQ12 said:

That's fair. I agree that there is a challenge from society and elements in academia and it is something all historians should fight.

Military history as a whole has been under pressure for some time. Many departments have decided not to replace prominent military historians when they retire. Frankly, I wonder if PME will be the only place left that actually encourages military history.
The italics are true, some closed anyway. Some peers had to retire for that reason. As for PME being the last place left ultimately, maybe at least until we lose a major battle or even a war and re-learn how necessary some familiarity with military history is, and how superfluous fringe issue social engineering is.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BQ78 said:

Interesting video about the Confederacy that shows how historical interpretation today is as polarized as politics. Both sides need to get back to shades of gray (pardon the pun) in both arenas.




Honestly, as soon as I got to his chart I was done. "Other" is not explained as a term or a historiographic school and is put in quotes. Obviously that's the bad interpretation. American is not put in quotes and is comprised of no identified historiographic school, but is given a nuance totally denied to the "Other" interpretation. That's not historical or historiographical interpretation, that's a straw man argument. As near as I can tell, his "American" argument is a slightly spruced up Lost Cause argument with a little less hagiography. And as for his point in Beauregard's statue, that research has been done. It's like he's not heard of the history of memory research out there and the work done on the timing and motivations for erecting Confederate statues.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.