Fallen Knights.
I have read the first assignments for my history class, and I am deeply, truly, disappointed. I love history; it is--and has been--the topic which most captures my imagination. It is a winding, delicate, and striking synthesis of politics, philosophy, and every little thing that has come to define civilization. I love history because I love its constituent parts. I love the moments when things take their place in the order of history, when the chaos fades, receding to reveal the fabric of reason which has ever lain beneath.
History has always taken a somewhat considerable part of my reading time. The work of a gifted historian is art. It is a beautiful portrait that conveys thought and emotion, the burning sting of personal disappointment; the staggering enormity of grand empires which slowly grind themselves into the dust, which dust is but the remains of the mighty edifice that was their supposed immortality.
No event in history is a matter of black and white. All situations have many sides. It is because of the many sides of history that a historian must guard their objectivity with singular purpose and zeal. For historians who write for the education of those who are, as yet, developing, objectivity is law. Poor instruction makes for poor students, and faulty and incomplete information lays a foundation for misunderstanding and ignorance. Take the greatest novel ever written--Pride & Prejudice or The Brothers Karamazov: Dickens need not apply--remove half the words and tell me what you have. Remove Darcy from Pride & Prejudice. What is your story? You cannot just ignore players because you don't like what the have to say.
What sparked all of this anger and ennui? Foner provides only one side--of the many available--and does so to the exclusion of a great many facts and trends that showed their influence in later years. You would think that the Gilded Age had but one expanding and morphing conflict and that it was all class struggle. He forgets the horrifying ramifications of some of the trends he lauds. His is a story of the darkness against the light. The Hobbits rallied together as the Nazgul circled round. The synopsis of the material I just withstood would read like a cliche movie plot. Foner should know better. Foner does know better. But his desire to commit his opinions and preferences to posterity has lead him to violate that which should have been sacred to a man of his position. I actually experienced physical pain in reading his text and do not look forward to future readings.
If you wish to write a skewed history for the reading pleasure of those who agree with you wholeheartedly, do so. However, to use a text which will be required student reading as a vessel for your ideology is a bastardization of office. A historian is a guardian of the truth, of human thought, events, culture, and the form which they take today.
Tell me. What to do with a treacherous knight who turns on his queen? He knows history, but he is no historian.
History has always taken a somewhat considerable part of my reading time. The work of a gifted historian is art. It is a beautiful portrait that conveys thought and emotion, the burning sting of personal disappointment; the staggering enormity of grand empires which slowly grind themselves into the dust, which dust is but the remains of the mighty edifice that was their supposed immortality.
No event in history is a matter of black and white. All situations have many sides. It is because of the many sides of history that a historian must guard their objectivity with singular purpose and zeal. For historians who write for the education of those who are, as yet, developing, objectivity is law. Poor instruction makes for poor students, and faulty and incomplete information lays a foundation for misunderstanding and ignorance. Take the greatest novel ever written--Pride & Prejudice or The Brothers Karamazov: Dickens need not apply--remove half the words and tell me what you have. Remove Darcy from Pride & Prejudice. What is your story? You cannot just ignore players because you don't like what the have to say.
What sparked all of this anger and ennui? Foner provides only one side--of the many available--and does so to the exclusion of a great many facts and trends that showed their influence in later years. You would think that the Gilded Age had but one expanding and morphing conflict and that it was all class struggle. He forgets the horrifying ramifications of some of the trends he lauds. His is a story of the darkness against the light. The Hobbits rallied together as the Nazgul circled round. The synopsis of the material I just withstood would read like a cliche movie plot. Foner should know better. Foner does know better. But his desire to commit his opinions and preferences to posterity has lead him to violate that which should have been sacred to a man of his position. I actually experienced physical pain in reading his text and do not look forward to future readings.
If you wish to write a skewed history for the reading pleasure of those who agree with you wholeheartedly, do so. However, to use a text which will be required student reading as a vessel for your ideology is a bastardization of office. A historian is a guardian of the truth, of human thought, events, culture, and the form which they take today.
Tell me. What to do with a treacherous knight who turns on his queen? He knows history, but he is no historian.
I was able to survive several classes in the Honors Dept at UWM by making mental games out of how badly politicized the texts and lectures were and mocking them with friends.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, a college education is an exercise in hoop-jumping to get the degree that post-grad work will require you to have whilst working things out so that you have as much time to read and study what you want to as you can possible manage.
Dearest Patrick,
ReplyDeleteMay I ask you to please, please, PLEASE call out Erickson at any time during the lechture. Feel free to evoke some pent up anger (however immoral) at this woman. I feel that random conflict can enliven a classroom. It will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bret
Ah, remember my good man. I prefer that all her impressions of my are absolutely glowing...at least until my essay is graded, or I know this professor better. Remember, I had a cranky professor last semester who certainly adjusted grades based on how well she got on with the student. Having done a whole mess of peer review taught me that quality was not the only criterium.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I have no issue with Erickson, she is no different from what I expected--expectations generated by the fact she was my sisters advisor-- and she provides a much greater expanse of info than Foner does. If last lecture is an indication, I think that I will learn plenty, and much more from her than from Foner.
However, if you want to see a little bit of debate at some point, I am sure I could provide. ;-p