Having followed politics closely again, I'm reminded how tortured "history" becomes in a political context. Pundits like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are most annoying for constant showboating of their historical "knowledge", all the while proclaiming "historic" events and candidacies. First lesson, guys: history that is self-conscious is not history. It is new-s. That is all. Second lesson: "first" doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "historical", certainly not as they are torturing the term.
Perhaps if we would stop using football coaches for social science teachers and sportscasters for political pundits, our society might obtain a viable understanding of history. Contemplating on the abuse history is taking these days, I ran across the following, which I think provides perspective:
In the third lecture of the Chinese Vistas series, “American Dreams,” Jonathan Spence talked about American dreams of China and, more tantalizing, Chinese dreams of America. He sees a series of “paradoxes” from the American Revolution to the present which set Chinese and American dreams at odds.
In the question period, another paradox emerged, one between different uses of history. The lecture was broadcast from the Asia Society on Park Avenue in New York, where the initial questions came from Richard Holbrooke, President of the Asia Society and heavyweight diplomat, and Henry Kissinger, an even heavier weight (Spence had written about him, so it must have seemed strange). The questions asked if China had been more xenophobic than other countries, if industrialization would change Chinese mentalities, if China would be expansionist, and so on.
After responding to several questions, Spence started his answer to another by saying “I don’t know.” This was refreshing but perhaps it was also a tactful rebuke to the type of questions he was getting. Spence is not a present minded policy advisor, he is a public intellectual who writes about history to address questions of general meaning. Another Qing historian was recently asked what he told policy makers who sought his advice. He replied “as little as possible.” One of the few authentic lessons of history is that history does not offer “lessons,” much less predictions or tips on the horses, only stories of complications and confusion.
The China Beat: Jonathan Spence’s Third Reith Lecture: Dreams, Paradoxes, and The Uses of History
Oddly it is the whipping boy of the intelligensia, ol' W himself, who has impressed me with the best grasp on history, and their former darlings, the Clintons, who have the worst. Bill and Hillary are constantly attempting to make history--as if history could be made. Bush admits he makes decisions and history will decide. And it will, just as it will see through any machinations to influence it's judgments.
We may decide to leave Iraq, for example, or to stay, but it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the discipline of history to think we can make a "historical" assessment. We read the tell alls and listen to the pundits and think we know something, which only indicates we know nothing. It is not until all the players with axes to grind are dead and all documents released, unredacted, that any kind of objective, viable reading of history can even begin.
And by then it will be too late, for the truth is, you would have had to have been there. Any historian knows that. It is the fundamental paradox of history.
Recent comments
11 weeks 3 days ago
17 weeks 5 days ago
17 weeks 6 days ago
18 weeks 2 days ago
18 weeks 2 days ago