Historians Are Cranky. Good Thing, Too!

Charles

This came in from Dave, commenting on my Lewis & Clark piece:

Charles, I have noticed in your writing that you often seem a little "down" on America's westward expansion (which would seem to make sense considering the frequently left leaning tone of this blog). Although I agree that we did some awful things to the indians and probably could have gone about some things differently, but the creation of a great nation in the modern sense does require a certain amount of Lebensraum.... Thanks! Dave.

Dave reads and leaves comments regularly. His comments are clearly intelligent and reflect a grasp of history's intellectual use, history's value in helping us measure the world we live in. Dave's a smart guy, and "gets it," so his comments mean a lot.

Of course, before I put my thoughts together to discuss this, Senator Edward Kennedy passed away and my colleague wrote a reflection on his work with the Senator. So Dave, let me tell you the Kennedy piece, right after you suggest we're "left leaning," is totally a coincidence.

Honest!

The "left leaning" startled me a bit, because I blog about Wells Fargo history, and history in general — not about politics. And the mission of this blog is to share our history and collection. In all frankness, it's a little hard to do politics when you're discussing the history of ATMs. My writing style is nicely marbled with my personality, but my historical point of view is studiously apolitical. I blogged about elections in 2006 and 2008, for instance, but it was strictly historical. Hey, I have colleagues who proof my stuff and they tell me when I've transgressed ( even when I haven't. It's a daily struggle!).

History can seem political because as a social science, it is committed to looking at the evidence without any preconceptions. As a result, findings may go counter to accepted beliefs, may challenge myths we hold dear. If we feel someone is revealing something just to attack our position, well yeah — that's political all right. But then again, it's not.

See, it's true that people ( as I mentioned in the Lewis and Clark piece) moved West and knocked aside everything in their path. That action did indeed nearly exterminate millions of human beings — acts of total war under the guise of peaceful negotiation. It extinguished the bison, and introduced new plant and animal species that dramatically altered the landscape.

But that action also gave us irrigation that feeds the world, expanded democratic institutions, introduced rule by law and respect for law, and coalesced a strength of national character that secured the continent and established one of history's great civilizations.

A civilization, I might add, that allows historians and other intellectuals to challenge everything.

I have taken classes from radicals in conservative universities, and read traditionalist history texts assigned by them. The discussions were always freewheeling and the opinions were usually prompted by a personal point of view. Nobody ever won the argument, which was the point, I think. We were supposed to take away the info and the emotions, ponder it all and come out of it with an historical conclusion, not just another personal opinion.

Most important, we were supposed to come out of it with a conclusion we knew would be argued about, by everyone, forever.

That's kind of political, but not the political that Dave is concerned about. Historians are trained to argue because we're all right. (Sorta like Congress, but the difference is we're likeable!) The process is about furthering intelligence. Does our experience since one historical moment modify what came of that moment? Or — were Nixon and Reagan good Presidents, let's say, irrespective of their immediate legacies?

So Dave, I'm glad you read my blog and I'm glad you contribute, and I hope you stick around. And if I come off left-leaning, it's only because I'm ornery, as a Historian is trained to be.