[lit-ideas] Re: On Studying History
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:29:42 -0700
Judy. Your note didn't appear in my inbox and I only knew of it from your
correction; so I retrieved it from the Lit-Ideas web site and copy it below:
Of course Collingwood said more than the one sentence I provide. Of course
the 9/11 terrorists were influenced by more than Sayyid Qutb. And of course
Marxists said other things than I am concerned about. I am not interested
in quibbles, the "all, none, some quibble." Islamists were influenced by
the thinking of Sayyid Qutb and they couldn't be quite like they are without
it. It explains what they believe and what they are after. Bernard Lewis
wrote a little book called What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle
Eastern Response, published in 2002; which I read that year. There was a
review of it called something like "the root cause of 9/11" or "the root
cause of terrorism" if memory serves me. In his book he doesn't mention the
name of Qutb, although he does elsewhere. But he approximates what Qutb
writes about, the glory that was once theirs, the great fall from that
period, the inexplicableness of Western ascendancy, attempts to justify
Islam's reputation, and the desire to overcome the West in any way possible.
Now what I say about Marxists is wrong only if you quibble once again. It
isn't wrong about the Marxists who wrote about the Islamists and Terror or
the Marxists who developed the studies that became the paradigms for future
studies. You can't dismiss Edward Said because he is critical. He
influenced a whole generation of Islamic history professors aka
Middle-Eastern Studies professors. In America, he changed the thinking in
regard to how Universities perceived the study of Middle-Eastern history and
consequently what exists in the Middle-East today. And you are wrong to say
that John Esposito is not an historian. The term used to encompass history,
sociology, economy, etc in America is "Area Studies" thanks to a plan
someone had to get governmental access to those in Universities who knew
most about the nation's governmental officials wanted to know about: MESA
Title VI. Once again you quibble. I use the term "historian" but
Universities and the government use the term "studies" or "area studies."
I have no wish to go into the development of historical, sociological,
economical studies in American universities each time I discuss the
influence of Marxist-oriented historians on American "Middle-Eastern
Studies." It seems to be easier to get Title VI money if you use the word
studies. Thus, Esposito graduated in Islamic studies at Temple University
in 1974. His rise to fame was due to Said's Orientalism. MESA sought out
professors who met Said's standards. Esposito wrote Islam and Politics in
1984 and Islam the Straight Path in 1988, both favorable to Islam (one of
Said's requirements) he was elected head of MESA and Oxford University Press
commissioned him to edit a four-volume encyclopedia of the modern Islamic
world. In 1993 Esposito went to Georgetown University where he assembled a
group of like-minded colleagues. It was his The Islamic Threat, Myth or
Reality published in 1992 that became the magnum opus of Middle-Eastern-Area
Studies professors. Esposito was invited to the White House where he told
the administration that the Islamic Threat was largely "myth."
And I have mentioned another Marxist who strongly influenced the attitude of
the Muslims in the Middle East who were becoming Militant, Franz Fanon who
wrote The Wretched of the Earth, 1961, translated into English in 1968. It
was Colonialism, Fanon wrote which caused the militantism he was witness to,
largely in Algeria. This paradigm had been around for awhile. Colonialism
oppressed people. Once Colonialism was removed the people were angry and
wanted to strike out against injustice. They wanted revolution to
thoroughly remove all the vestiges of Colonialism. America was not a
Colonial power but the paradigm could be made to fit, after all wasn't
Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and therefore wasn't the US
Imperialistic, and doesn't Imperialism oppress people in the same way the
Colonialism did?
Lawrence
I didn't mean historiography, Lawrence, I meant something
like "what historians are like and what they do". Collingwood,
well, I haven't read _The Idea of History_ so can't really comment
on his views though I did think there was rather more to them
than "try to be objective".
LH>Unless one seeks to present the points of view of the actors
LH>in the history; then one as an historian has not done his job.
that's one type of history.
LH>I sought out historians who attempted to employ Collingwood's
LH> principle. We know what Marx and Marxists say, but what do the
Islamists
say?
that's intellectual history -- which is fine, but not all there is. Also,
if
Collingwood really meant
LH>to present the points of view of the actors
LH>in the history
then surely one would want to present the points of view of e.g.
the 9/11 bombers (insofar as that's possible now) or the 21/7 failed
bombers here; and by "points of view" I do not mean "works of an
Islamist thinker who inspired various, though not all, radical Islamist
movements, but was not their only inspiration".
LH>It was as a result of having studied Collingwood that I was
LH>especially critical of the Leftists who wrote about the
LH> Islamists and terrorists. They advanced the idea that
LH> these people were engaged in just another Marxist-type revolutionary
activity
I have replied to this before. It seems to me untrue. In fact, it *is*
untrue.
It is
demonstrably untrue.
LH>There are those here on Lit-Ideas who view me through a
LH>Marxist paradigm. It does me no good to say that Kenneth Pollack
LH>was a Democrat and a Clinton appointee,
LH>(etc. etc.)
Lawrence what on earth do you mean by "Marxist paradigm"? You are,
surely, misusing the term. Grossly.
LH>And if the Marxist historians disagree with what the Islamists say,
LH>why are they in a better position to know the mind of the Islamists
LH>than the Islamists themselves?
1. Clearly it's OK for Marxist historians (and indeed others)
to disagree with an Islamist interpretation of an event (and indeed,
we might wish them to). 2. Clearly "knowing the mind" of
Islamists is a different matter, and if we get really fundamentalist
about this, we can say that you can't say anything about what
a woman thinks because you are not one, I can't say anything
about what a Marine thinks because I am not one, etc. etc.
Trivially true, but unhelpful.
3. Marxist historians are distinguished from others by their field
and focus of study, not by explicit theoretical frameworks.
LH>That obviously is making the same mistake that the
LH>aforementioned Edward Said and John Esposito made.
?
LH> They are engaging in the creation of poor history
Said was not an historian. It's unclear that he was a Marxist (boring
stuff about this will follow on request...). Esposito is not an
historian. He is surely not a Marxist?
Judy Evans, Cardiff
Other related posts:
