Obama falls into the history trap

I enjoyed Obama's speech last night up until he fell into the trap so common for politicians -- that of personifying 'history' and suggesting that it has the ability to teach or judge.

Obama said in his acceptance speech: "You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington."

No, no, no! Historians teach us. History just is.

Historians Will Judge

I heard it again this morning on NPR - the phrase I despise the most - "History Will Judge." The story was focused on Donald Rumsfeld's last day in office and the commentator argued that despite the fact that Rumsfeld is the second longest serving Secretary of Defense in history, how history will judge him depends a lot on the outcome of the war in Iraq.

As I've mentioned before HISTORY DOES NOT JUDGE - HISTORIANS DO!

I understand why many people (including some historians) find comfort in the phrase "History will judge", because it suggests that there is no interpretation involved, that the facts will just reveal the truth to future generations. It suggests that you can't argue with or appeal the judgement of history. History is Omnipotent.

However, we all know better. Historians will decide how to portray Rumsfeld in the future. And most likely the portrayal of him will change over time. There won't be ONE historical judgement but many.

Moreover, even the facts will change, or at least the facts that historians have access to will change. Government documents will become available, Rumsfeld's and Bush's papers will be opened, records in Iraq will be searchable and all these things will change how historians will judge the soon-to-be former Secretary of Defense.

Historians shouldn't be embarrassed by this, we shouldn't be scared of letting people know this, we should embrace it and shout it from the rooftops. History does not judge - Historians do!

I am thinking about walking around with this bag at the AHA just to get my point across.

The Phrase I Never Want to Hear Again

I hope never to hear or read again the phrase: "History will judge." It seems like every time I turn on the t.v. or listen to news on the radio there is someone else spouting off about the judgment of history. Listen people: HISTORY DOES NOT JUDGE - HISTORIANS DO!

Why do I care?

I care because by suggesting that history is the judge, rather than historians, you are undermining the place of the historian in society. I have 65 undergraduate history majors running around campus thinking that they aren't as important to society as the majors in business or chemistry or what have you because those other majors that "do" something - they might one day be influential and change the direction of society.

Well, historians do something too. We can put the actions of past political leaders in context, we can tease out the short- and long-term consequences of those actions, and we can JUDGE the significance and rightness of those actions. Moreover, the view of historians on events like the Vietnam War or Social Security or the Civil Rights Movement can impact policy makers. So how about we start giving historians some credit for what they do.

The All-Powerful Historian

I just love it when politicians try and predict how historians are going to view events in the future. President Bush's recent comment "that this traumatic period in Iraq will be seen as 'just a comma' in the history books" suggests that when all is said and done and historians look back on the beginning of the twenty-first century the current violence in Iraq won't merit much attention by those in my profession.

He might be right. Twenty years from now, when I am lecturing in my U.S. survey course and complaining about how I never get passed the presidency of the George W. Bush, I might not spend much time discussing the war in Iraq or the consequences of it. On the other hand, if Sept. 11 is the 21st Century's Pearl Harbor or the War on Terror becomes the next generation's World World III - I might devote a full week of lectures to the War in Iraq - maybe the class will do a book assignment on some American soldier's experiences at Guantanamo Bay - perhaps they will watch part of a documentary on the origins and development of neo-conservative foreign policy.

My point is that it is pointless to speculate about how historians will view some current action in the future. We won't know the full significance or importance of most policies or events until we know the complete consequences of those events. Moreover, how those consequences are viewed 20 years from now, is not necessarily the same way they'll be viewed 40 years from now as new evidence comes to light and society's concerns change and develop over time.

I realize this view of history is probably not very comforting to those who are seeking to leave an important legacy and hope to be remembered fondly in the future. However, it should be heartening to all my fellow historians. Because ultimately what it means is that we get to decide who was great and who was not. We get to interpret what events are significant and what is just a 'comma'. Who needs money or power or influence today - when the historian has the power to determine what the world of tomorrow remembers about the wealthy, influential, powerful leaders of today.