[lit-ideas] Re: On studying history
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:45:35 +0100
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:
