Is History History?

[Valin]

Power Line

Steven Hayward

Aug. 18 2022

“Is History History?” is the title of an essay out yesterday from the current president of the American Historical Association (AHA), James H. Sweet, who is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. Before turning to the essay, let us stipulate starting out that academic history has almost fully surrendered to the worst excesses of leftism and identity politics, and the result is that the number of students majoring in history is plummeting. And the AHA is an abyss of political correctness. (For my sins I am an adjunct member of the AHA, piggy-backing on my misbegotten membership in the American Political Science Association.)

(Snip)

Prof. Sweet appears to be a conventional academic liberal, though not perhaps a deep leftist. His major field of interest is African history, and in particular the slave trade. And yet in his AHA essay, he dissents, however gently and respectfully, from the near-universal hosannahs for The 1619 Project:

Whether or not historians believe that there is anything new in the New York Times project created by Nikole Hannah-Jones, The 1619 Project is a best-selling book that sits at the center of current controversies over how to teach American history. As journalism, the project is powerful and effective, but is it history? . . .

Yet as a historian of Africa and the African diaspora, I am troubled by the historical erasures and narrow politics that these narratives convey. . . If history is only those stories from the past that confirm current political positions, all manner of political hacks can claim historical expertise. . .

The present has been creeping up on our discipline for a long time. Doing history with integrity requires us to interpret elements of the past not through the optics of the present but within the worlds of our historical actors. Historical questions often emanate out of present concerns, but the past interrupts, challenges, and contradicts the present in unpredictable ways. History is not a heuristic tool for the articulation of an ideal imagined future. Rather, it is a way to study the messy, uneven process of change over time. When we foreshorten or shape history to justify rather than inform contemporary political positions, we not only undermine the discipline but threaten its very integrity.

(Snip)

[Valin]

Update: ‘Is History History?’ Answer: Sadly, Yes

Steven Hayward

Aug. 19 2022

(Snip)

It didn’t even take 24 hours. This from Prof. Sweet today:

Message from James H. Sweet (August 2022)

Aug 19, 2022 – 

My September Perspectives on History column has generated anger and dismay among many of our colleagues and members. I take full responsibility that it did not convey what I intended and for the harm that it has caused. I had hoped to open a conversation on how we “do” history in our current politically charged environment. Instead, I foreclosed this conversation for many members, causing harm to colleagues, the discipline, and the Association.

A president’s monthly column, one of the privileges of the elected office, provides a megaphone to the membership and the discipline. The views and opinions expressed in that column are not those of the Association. If my ham-fisted attempt at provocation has proven anything, it is that the AHA membership is as vocal and robust as ever. If anyone has criticisms that they have been reluctant or unable to post publicly, please feel free to contact me directly.

I sincerely regret the way I have alienated some of my Black colleagues and friends. I am deeply sorry. In my clumsy efforts to draw attention to methodological flaws in teleological presentism, I left the impression that questions posed from absence, grief, memory, and resilience somehow matter less than those posed from positions of power. This absolutely is not true. It wasn’t my intention to leave that impression, but my provocation completely missed the mark.

Once again, I apologize for the damage I have caused to my fellow historians, the discipline, and the AHA. I hope to redeem myself in future conversations with you all. I’m listening and learning.

(Snip)

____________________________________________

[Valin]

Google: James Sweet Is History History

 

[Valin]

The Answer is

[Valin]

History Is Bunk

Steven Hayward

Aug 21 2022

(Snip)

Who knows whether either quip is authentic. This exchange comes to mind in following the latest sequel to the disgrace in academic history that we have covered here and here over the last few days. As noted in our last installment, Prof. James Sweet apologized in the usual groveling fashion for the “harm” he caused by challenging, however mildly, the politicization of academic history. Sweet deserves to see his career sour with this kind of cravenness.

He should have known that this would not be the end of it. As usual it only fed the mob. So much so that the American Historical Association (AHA) has closed off its Twitter account:

How do you tell the difference between “trolls” and the tenured faculty members of most university history departments? And how pathetic are you as a supposedly premier academic organization that you have to “protect” your Twitter feed?

 

(Snip)

In other words, Prof. Sweet has apologized for saying what Nicole Hannah-Jones, the impresario of the 1619 Project, openly boasts.

Seems to me that as far as academic history is concerned, Henry Ford stands vindicated.

__________________________________________________

Dear AHA

 

 

[Valin]

WATCH: Bill Maher mocks leftists who try to judge history by modern standards

 

Bill Comes So Close. He just won't take those final 2 steps.