Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:58:21 CST
From:         Don Mabry <djm1@RA.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Truth in History
Comments: To: history@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: cc: labbey@gtri01.gatech.edu

        Recent comments on the list, prompted by the discussion of the
Spanish-Cuban-American War (as the Cubans call it) and of U.S.
interventionism and/or annexations have been useful for a variety of
reasons.
        The reaction of some persons prompts me to suggest that we discuss
how historians know what they think they know. Reading a study [secondary
work] on a historical topic informs us but not as much as reading all of
the relevant original documents. A study is always an interpretation. That
it is printed does not make all or some of it valid. The academic community
uses specialists as referees to try to enhance the possibility of the
validity of a work, for the generalist usually doesn't know the original
sources. The amount of original sources on any given topic can be quite
large.
        In historiography classes and graduate seminars, we try to teach
students (1) that there are many studies of a topic, (2) that some of
the conclusions reached are different, (3) how important the use of
original sources are, and (4) how one has to come to terms with the
creators of original documents first on their own terms. Of course, there
is more that we do in such settings; I am trying to be brief.
        A number of persons have written on such topics as Manifest
Destiny, the Mexican-American War, the annexations of the Floridas,
the 1898 war, etc. Usually, there is broad general agreement as to the
"facts." In the case of the war in 1898, almost all historians note
that Bill McKinley told the country that his God told him that he should
favor the war; one can read his comments. Figuring how the validity of
them is a different matter, however. How could one verify his statement?
        I raised the issue some time ago about the problem of attributing
motivation. How can we know what people were thinking? How can we know
the relative weight/importance of what they were thinking?
        Lenny Abbey read a book which said that the war was conducted by
the U.S. for altruistic reasons. Perhaps so, but how do we know? How did
the author of the book know? He couldn't have asked the people who made
the decision. Is it possible that *some* people wanted to kill other
people for altruistic reasons? Yes. That is not as nasty as it sounds,
for the judgment often has to be made to do things one doesn't necessarily
like doing in order to achieve a loftier goal. Did some U.S. citizens
want to have the U.S. intervene in the Cuban War for Independence for
altruistic reasons? There is a lot of evidence to suggest that such was
the case. What were the altruistic reasons? That is an interesting
question, for the answer is complex. Some people believed that Roman
Catholic Cuba was not Christian and, for them, intervention meant
saving Cuban souls. Others might have seen themselves as being altruistic
because they believe that the U.S. could guide the Cuban people into a
much better political-economic-social system. Altruism can be defined
in a variety of ways.
        Were there other reasons why the U.S. intervened and what were
there relative weights?
        In sum, perhaps now is a good time to discuss how history is done.


Don Mabry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU