X-Envelope-to: HISTORY@PSUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"HISTORY@PSUVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:16:00 CST
From:         RICHARD JENSEN <CAMPBELLD@APSU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War

    Denis Paz zaps me with the comment
    >Evidently, to argue that economic
    >causes operate in determining
    >foreign policy is, in Richard
    >Jensen's view, to airbrush,
    >to assume, and to be leftist.
    >The first two, to airbrush (i.e.,
    >to suppress evidence that goes
    >against one's views) and to
    >assume (i.e., to prejudge), are
    >bad history. The last, one's
    >political views, is irrelevant,
    >so long as one's history is good.

    What I was trying to say was that a whole school of
    historiography ("the Wisconsin school" with affinities to
    Charles Beard a half-century ago) operates on the "profit"
    assumption that the main (sometimes, only) motivation for US
    foreign policy is to line the pockets of special business
    interests. I consider this a gross, wild, wrong,
    misinterpretation that (by catering to cynicism) damages the
    students' understanding of what makes the world go round.
    This "profit" assumption forces Wisconsin historians to
    structure their history in very peculiar ways, and forces them
    to ignore (or "airbrush out") humanitarianism and
    military-strategic national interests.  This I argue has
    happened regarding 1898. Wisconsin historians identify
    themselves proudly with the left (some new left, some old left),
    and write their history as a weapon in the political wars.  I
    gave as an example LaFeber's textbook.
    --I strongly disagree with Denis that the historian's political
    views are "irrelevant so long as one's history is good." I
    disagree because it leads to a very common misunderstanding, one
    that is endemic among non-historians. That is the assumption
    that if a reputable historian says something it must be "true."
    The vast majority of laymen and students do not realize how much
    political and philosophical positions color the work of
    reputable historians.
    --I suppose the issue is whether there is such a thing as "good"
    history that all historians regardless of political views will
    agree on.  Yes, in one sense: names, dates, places (the sort of
    stuff that fills almanacs and high school courses). I suppose
    practically all reputable historians publish a lot of these
    names-dates-places-texts in their books and articles. What makes
    history interesting and worth discussing & debating are the
    interpretations. Interpretations have to conform, more or less,
    with names-dates-places-texts, but they range widely beyond
    them. The most interesting involve the assumption of deeper,
    hidden forces that are in operation. Sometimes this involves
    psychology, sometimes economics or demography or (most often)
    ideas and ideologies and isms.  I venture that the names-dates-
    places-texts rarely confirm one interpretation or refute another
    (though sometimes they do).  Most of the time I think historians
    believe certain interpretations because of the mindset (and
    ideology) they bring to history in the first place.
    Richard Jensen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU