Old School Revisionists
Greetings All!
Today officially kicks off my two-week spring break. HUZZAH!!! At last a much needed opportunity to catch up on some writing (see below) and of course, reading. I am currently working through a most wonderful book – an intellectual biography of one of my favorite historians – C. Vann Woodward: America’s Historian, by James C. Cobb from my friends at UNC Press. If you are into historiography and southern history – two of my favorite things – then you will want to get a copy. Cobb goes deep into the writing of some of Woodward’s most iconic works – such as Origins of the New South and The Strange Career of Jim Crow, just to name a couple. He also discusses the early years of the Southern Historical Society, and especially Woodward’s work to integrate the organization in the 1940s and 50s. The cast of characters in this story includes some of the heaviest hitters in the discipline, and if you are a historiography geek like me, you’ll love the read.
What I found most intriguing was the issue of “revisionist” history that came up from time to time. Funny, we often here that term today as a pejorative, particularly harnessed when someone wants to dismiss a “history” that does not align with their politics or world view – they simply dismiss it as revisionist. Well, turns out, this is nothing new. Folks waaaaaaaay back during the mid-twentieth century who were bothered by the direction of the discipline weren’t so keen on the revisionism.
This kind of rather thoughtless dismissal always makes me roll my eyes. Friends, as shocking as it might sound (sarcasm absolutely intended), revision is precisely what historians do. Think about it – if historians did not revise then there would be one history book, we would all read it, and that would be it. But of course, that’s not how it works. Historians’ job is to hold historical writing up to the evidence and to hold other historians accountable. And, if new evidence (or new questions) lead to new conclusions, well then – we have revision. So, I guess I am saying that all history is revisionist history. Let’s embrace it.
With compliments,
Keith
Oh and one more thing…
Not to toot my own horn here, but by the time my students graduate they are pretty adept at historical thinking. After four years of me putting through the paces, teaching them about how we historians do our thing, they head off to college ready - many of them quite enthusiastically leading the charge of intellectual honesty. Some of them have suggested that I put my methods down in one place, and make that available to the public. So that is precisely what I am doing. And I am kind of enjoying the process too...writing all this stuff out is proving to be a worthwhile exercise, and it is even helping me with a few little pedagogical tweaks. So if you know a history student who might benefit from a straight forward and honest approach to learning history and achieving excellent while doing it - please pass along my mailing list sign-up. I'll be notifying everyone when it is ready to go.