Historonic
July 14, 2024 7:00 PM Subscribe
"Changing nominees at this point has literally never happened before—not even once. Richardson’s assertion that “in the whole picture of American history, if you change the presidential nominee at this point in the game, the candidate loses”—so clear, so forceful, so authoritative—is totally invented."
'Is the Age of the Resistance Historian Coming to an End?
(via A&L Daily)
Jan. 2023.
"History, as the historian Matthew Karp has written, has become “a new kind of political priority” for people across the political spectrum, a means to fight over what it is to be an American:" (archive link)
Jan. 2023.
"History, as the historian Matthew Karp has written, has become “a new kind of political priority” for people across the political spectrum, a means to fight over what it is to be an American:" (archive link)
As someone who has an MA in medieval history (though didn't go into the field professionally) and learned just enough historiography to be dangerous, I think the control of the history curriculum in the US has pretty much always been political. If the point of history as part of "civics" is to teach us how to be good citizens, you have to figure out what being a good citizen means. That's a subject for argument depending on your political views.
Not related specifically to the links, because I don't really have time for bitching about Heather Cox Richardson or complaining about the 1619 Project as bad history because that's what public historians do: write history in a way that's relevant to current events, which is, again, inherently political, but I think about this a lot with respect to not the high medieval period I studied but particularly early Norse/"Viking" history. That's incredibly contested turf because white supremacists have some firm beliefs about How Vikings Were and What Norse History Means and they don't like it when (liberal, POC, queer, women, etc.) professional historians/researchers say it wasn't the way they think it was.
Modern medieval history in Britain and a lot of the US relies a lot on Victorian foundational documents. For example, the Victorians published a lot of royal legal documents in English and law French so you could research cases without actually getting into the manuscripts. This was great but it also meant a lot of Victorian prejudices got baked into medieval history. As someone who dropped out of the field (the great medieval history boom of the 90s did not pan out), I don't see these discussions/fights up close but I read enough professional blogs/journal article discussions/book reviews to see it happening. Plus there's all the fighting with the white supremacist Viking-wannabes I mentioned above. Medieval history was a long time ago; if it's contested so heavily for modern political reasons, how can US history NOT be contested equally heavily for political reasons?
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:42 PM on July 14, 2024 [16 favorites]
Not related specifically to the links, because I don't really have time for bitching about Heather Cox Richardson or complaining about the 1619 Project as bad history because that's what public historians do: write history in a way that's relevant to current events, which is, again, inherently political, but I think about this a lot with respect to not the high medieval period I studied but particularly early Norse/"Viking" history. That's incredibly contested turf because white supremacists have some firm beliefs about How Vikings Were and What Norse History Means and they don't like it when (liberal, POC, queer, women, etc.) professional historians/researchers say it wasn't the way they think it was.
Modern medieval history in Britain and a lot of the US relies a lot on Victorian foundational documents. For example, the Victorians published a lot of royal legal documents in English and law French so you could research cases without actually getting into the manuscripts. This was great but it also meant a lot of Victorian prejudices got baked into medieval history. As someone who dropped out of the field (the great medieval history boom of the 90s did not pan out), I don't see these discussions/fights up close but I read enough professional blogs/journal article discussions/book reviews to see it happening. Plus there's all the fighting with the white supremacist Viking-wannabes I mentioned above. Medieval history was a long time ago; if it's contested so heavily for modern political reasons, how can US history NOT be contested equally heavily for political reasons?
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:42 PM on July 14, 2024 [16 favorites]
I'm just really tired of historians coming across like it's really exciting or unexpected when something about a presidential election is unprecedented. We haven't even had fifty of them. Most of the weird shit that can happen with elections has never happened before. It's like when a 48-month-old experienced a new thing this month, you know?
I guess maybe that's just how they keep getting calls from the media - "yeah, this has never happened before, most things haven't" doesn't really sell ads - but it annoys me anyway.
posted by potrzebie at 7:49 PM on July 14, 2024 [18 favorites]
I guess maybe that's just how they keep getting calls from the media - "yeah, this has never happened before, most things haven't" doesn't really sell ads - but it annoys me anyway.
posted by potrzebie at 7:49 PM on July 14, 2024 [18 favorites]
From the xkcd link:
posted by dg at 8:39 PM on July 14, 2024 [6 favorites]
'No Dem incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in scrabble (until Bill Beat Bob)'This is kind of how I often view 'historical' comparisons about elections in the media. Particularly for young countries like the US and Australia, there just isn't enough history to support legitimate statements, so people make up precedents in an attempt to give weight to their arguments. I feel this is exacerbated by a common view that something happening once before means it's bound to happen again sooner or later.
posted by dg at 8:39 PM on July 14, 2024 [6 favorites]
interesting I'm reminded of Croce who wrote: "the accusation forgets the great difference that our tribunals, whether traditional or moral, are present-day tribunals design for living, active, and dangerous men, while those other men have already appeared before the tribunal their day, cannot be condemned or absolved twice. They cannot be held responsible before any tribunal whatsoever, just because they are men of the past who belong to the peace of the past and as such can only be subjects of history, and can suffer no other judgment than that which penetrates and understands the spirit of their work.…those who on The plea of narrating history bustle about as judges condemning here and giving absolution there, because they think that this is the office of History.... and generally recognized as devoid of historical sense."
-History as the story of liberty
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 PM on July 14, 2024 [1 favorite]
-History as the story of liberty
posted by clavdivs at 9:04 PM on July 14, 2024 [1 favorite]
Hogeland’s newsletter Bad History is good btw.
posted by johngoren at 11:42 PM on July 14, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by johngoren at 11:42 PM on July 14, 2024 [1 favorite]
eponysterical? metahistory relates [:g]
Americans must do everything in their power to avert the end of history
didn’t fukuyama already say it’s over?
seriously Gramsci explicitly called for an “anti-Croce” to overcome the Idealist and Spiritualist hegemony [global dialogue]
posted by HearHere at 12:20 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
Americans must do everything in their power to avert the end of history
didn’t fukuyama already say it’s over?
seriously Gramsci explicitly called for an “anti-Croce” to overcome the Idealist and Spiritualist hegemony [global dialogue]
posted by HearHere at 12:20 AM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
I think Richardson failed at talking honestly to the public about the prospect of replacing Biden in a similar fashion to the CDC's repeated failure to communicate honestly with the public about Covid.
When you're facing an immediate catastrophe it must be very tempting to tailor your message to try to achieve a certain outcome rather than informing the public about what is happening and trusting them to react in the way that you think will prevent the catastrophe.
Telling people that replacing Biden makes a Trump victory a certainty must feel like its more likely to make people support Biden the same way telling people that masks don't work must seem like it would stop people hoarding masks.
But people will always dig into public pronouncements that seem dodgy - the conventional wisdom as represented by betting markets has replacing Biden as a lower risk strategy - and now Richardson looks like a Nate Silver level moron without swaying anyone.
posted by zymil at 1:41 AM on July 15, 2024 [9 favorites]
When you're facing an immediate catastrophe it must be very tempting to tailor your message to try to achieve a certain outcome rather than informing the public about what is happening and trusting them to react in the way that you think will prevent the catastrophe.
Telling people that replacing Biden makes a Trump victory a certainty must feel like its more likely to make people support Biden the same way telling people that masks don't work must seem like it would stop people hoarding masks.
But people will always dig into public pronouncements that seem dodgy - the conventional wisdom as represented by betting markets has replacing Biden as a lower risk strategy - and now Richardson looks like a Nate Silver level moron without swaying anyone.
posted by zymil at 1:41 AM on July 15, 2024 [9 favorites]
Richardson seems to have parlayed credentials as a historian into a second career as current events blogger and apologist - I don't mean that word in an especially pejorative way, I just can’t think of a better one to describe her role in relation to Biden. The historical content of her current output is underwhelming in quantity, not just quality.
posted by atoxyl at 9:14 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 9:14 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]
> Richardson seems to have parlayed credentials as a historian into a second career as current events blogger and apologist - I don't mean that word in an especially pejorative way
This is spot on, including the "not especially pejorative" part. She's a social media influencer and blogger on the subject of current political events in USA. That's all. She's good at what she does, but she doesn't even have as wide a reach as many others who occupy the same space as she does, like, she has fewer followers than Nate Silver for example. She is much smaller and has far less power and importance than her critics seem to think.
Comparing her to the literal CDC and accusing her of failing Americans the same way the CDC did during Covid is really quite fantastically hyperbolic. Singling her out as some uniquely powerful and devastating voice in national politics is slightly less so, but still pretty freaking hyperbolic! She's not that important, guys. She is not a national institution with a federal mandate to protect citizens, nor is she an oracle we have been invited to pin all liberal hopes on. She's one person with nothing but her own agenda and ambitions to answer to, and *that is not a bad thing for her to be*. She is exactly as and who she should be: who she wishes to be. Everyone else needs to calm tf down and stop being so testerical at her.
posted by MiraK at 9:28 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]
This is spot on, including the "not especially pejorative" part. She's a social media influencer and blogger on the subject of current political events in USA. That's all. She's good at what she does, but she doesn't even have as wide a reach as many others who occupy the same space as she does, like, she has fewer followers than Nate Silver for example. She is much smaller and has far less power and importance than her critics seem to think.
Comparing her to the literal CDC and accusing her of failing Americans the same way the CDC did during Covid is really quite fantastically hyperbolic. Singling her out as some uniquely powerful and devastating voice in national politics is slightly less so, but still pretty freaking hyperbolic! She's not that important, guys. She is not a national institution with a federal mandate to protect citizens, nor is she an oracle we have been invited to pin all liberal hopes on. She's one person with nothing but her own agenda and ambitions to answer to, and *that is not a bad thing for her to be*. She is exactly as and who she should be: who she wishes to be. Everyone else needs to calm tf down and stop being so testerical at her.
posted by MiraK at 9:28 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]
I do think that, for someone who started as a serious academic historian, appealing to dubious historical context to support an opinion is not good and worth criticizing. But yeah Nate is a good comparison, because he also started out as an expert but has turned into more of a standard gut take pundit.
posted by atoxyl at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2024 [3 favorites]
I have many thoughts about the place of history in the public discourse - though not directly related to the American election.
in no particular order:
- it would be good for the world if policymakers did listen more often to historians, to balance out the experts they tend to listen to more or exclusively, like economists or political scientists (who, compared to historians, tend to have more theory but also less empirical evidence). History does have a lot to teach us about the complex ways in which people interact with their environments - physical, economic, social, political
- some bigwig historians are better than others: I am know Timothy Snyder's work and it is deeply researched and thoughtful; but there are awful, famous historians like Niall Ferguson whose work is sloppy and easily disproved -- his thesis supervisor was Jay Winter, who isn't much better
- but it's also really bad for the media and public policy people to keep going to the same few, famous historians. It's a narrow view, and you also end up calling someone who may have little or no expertise on the topic at hand: this is how you end up with ridiculous situations where the BBC calls in David Starkey (a specialist on the monarchy) to talk about race riots in 2011, instead of any of the many, many historians or riots and/or race in Britain. If they had to have an old, white, male, early modern British history specialist named David on the panel, they could have at least gone with David Underdown who was at least an authority on the history of riots (not saying this would have been the right choice - someone with more expertise on race in Britain would have been better - but the original choice still made no sense)
- when the public - whether policymakers and/or the media - are looking for experts, they should approach it more like In Our Time. Sure, the radio program does have a few regular ringers who are glib and great at introducing topics - like Simon Conway Morris or Jane Francis for biology/paleontology (I stan Jane Francis) - but they always match them with people who are specialized in the topic of the day even if they aren't regularly public facing academics. (I remember turning on the "Agricultural Revolution" episode and thinking, if they don't have Mark Overton, I'm going to be very annoyed - and they did! He was still very senior/well-known in the field, but he did write THE book on the issue for England and wasn't tv-famous).
posted by jb at 10:36 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]
in no particular order:
- it would be good for the world if policymakers did listen more often to historians, to balance out the experts they tend to listen to more or exclusively, like economists or political scientists (who, compared to historians, tend to have more theory but also less empirical evidence). History does have a lot to teach us about the complex ways in which people interact with their environments - physical, economic, social, political
- some bigwig historians are better than others: I am know Timothy Snyder's work and it is deeply researched and thoughtful; but there are awful, famous historians like Niall Ferguson whose work is sloppy and easily disproved -- his thesis supervisor was Jay Winter, who isn't much better
- but it's also really bad for the media and public policy people to keep going to the same few, famous historians. It's a narrow view, and you also end up calling someone who may have little or no expertise on the topic at hand: this is how you end up with ridiculous situations where the BBC calls in David Starkey (a specialist on the monarchy) to talk about race riots in 2011, instead of any of the many, many historians or riots and/or race in Britain. If they had to have an old, white, male, early modern British history specialist named David on the panel, they could have at least gone with David Underdown who was at least an authority on the history of riots (not saying this would have been the right choice - someone with more expertise on race in Britain would have been better - but the original choice still made no sense)
- when the public - whether policymakers and/or the media - are looking for experts, they should approach it more like In Our Time. Sure, the radio program does have a few regular ringers who are glib and great at introducing topics - like Simon Conway Morris or Jane Francis for biology/paleontology (I stan Jane Francis) - but they always match them with people who are specialized in the topic of the day even if they aren't regularly public facing academics. (I remember turning on the "Agricultural Revolution" episode and thinking, if they don't have Mark Overton, I'm going to be very annoyed - and they did! He was still very senior/well-known in the field, but he did write THE book on the issue for England and wasn't tv-famous).
posted by jb at 10:36 AM on July 15, 2024 [5 favorites]
She's good at what she does, but she doesn't even have as wide a reach as many others who occupy the same space as she does, like, she has fewer followers than Nate Silver for example. She is much smaller and has far less power and importance than her critics seem to think.Her substack has 1.5 million subscribers which I believe makes her the most read person on substack.
I think Nate probably has a somewhat bigger reach right now but I'd be surprised if she hasn't clearly passed him in the next year or two.
posted by zymil at 6:16 PM on July 15, 2024 [1 favorite]
> I think Nate probably has a somewhat bigger reach right now
Right, and yet nobody is likening Nate Silver's responsibilities to his readership to the CDC's responsibilities to Americans. In critiquing him we seem to have a sense of proportion.
posted by MiraK at 3:05 AM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
Right, and yet nobody is likening Nate Silver's responsibilities to his readership to the CDC's responsibilities to Americans. In critiquing him we seem to have a sense of proportion.
posted by MiraK at 3:05 AM on July 16, 2024 [1 favorite]
« Older A small nice thing in these trying times | Survey of the ocean floor discovers submarine... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clavdivs at 7:06 PM on July 14, 2024