From the frying pan into the fire!
Although as I explained yesterday I feel somewhat alienated from my discipline, there are things that historians bring to the table that no one else does. This is by no means the dernier cri–it’s a document that I invite you all to critique and add to. It’s about time for me to add another page to this blog for disheartened historians young and old to remind us of what it is we can do and why what we do is important. Let’s call it “Why Historians Matter” although again, that’s just a suggestion. I’m certainly open to catchier titles–and ones that don’t appear to plagiarize Judith Bennett quite so much!
So far, I’ve tried to focus on the key elements of historical research (collection, analysis, and evaluation) and one aspect of teaching history (citizenship). Continue reading
Grab a cup and join me!
That’s the question for today: what are we historians doing, and does it matter? I wonder if it’s possible that 20 years after earning my Ph.D. that I might have chosen the wrong academic discipline. Most historians are way too methodologically conservative for me. Why has it taken me half a career to figure this out? Is it history, or is it me?
I always preferred history to literature. I always took at least one English literature course per semester in college, and toyed for a time with majoring in English, but I never got the hang of writing a literature paper. You historians can probably guess the kinds of papers I wrote for my English classes, papers that explored the historical context of whichever text or author I was supposed to be writing about instead of the text itself! I worked with loads of lit students in graduate courses in cultural theory, which were a big deal in the early 1990s at Penn. I appreciated its insights for history, but was a bit dazed at the thought of applying the ideas just to one or two “texts,” instead of loads of “primary sources.” Continue reading
Do I look like a dangerous leftist to you?
. . . because they can’t complain endlessly about the “illiberal arts” majors at Middlebury College, can they? Or can they? The amount of ink they have spilled over the shut-down of white nationalist Charles Murray‘s talk there is pretty impressive, considering the shambling embarrassment of a presidential administration and the inability of the governing party to agree on much of anything. I guess there’s always the antics of a few pissed off students at an elite, private liberal arts college in Vermont, population 2,500 students, to induce panic in the ruling classes.
It’s kind of cute that they seem so fearful of us! If only we faculty were the diabolically powerful leftist Svengalis that they imagine we are. Most of us are just desperate to wean our students from fragment sentences, the bizarre use of the word “off” these days (“Based off of. . . ” What??? What is a “base?” Is a “base” something you put stuff ON, or OFF OF? Yegads, people.), and to inculcate an appreciation of the subjunctive tense as well as to pass on a little discipline-specific knowledge. (Just a little!) Continue reading
Portrait of Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), by John Singleton Copley, 1763. In her correspondence with Abigail Smith Adams and John Adams, Warren called herself “Marcia,” and Adams signed herself “Portia.”
Do women historians exist? If we exist, do men historians know it? Going by the antics of the editors of the Journal of the American Revolution, the answer to both questions is an entirely nonsensical no! Which you must admit is pretty hilarious, especially considering that the very first historian of the American Revolution (yes, that one!) was, in fact, a lady! It’s true! Mercy Otis Warren’s Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (3 vols., 1805) is widely recognized as the first, and for probably more than a century the only authoritative history of the American Revolution.
For a historical subfield invented by a woman, you’d think there would be a little more remembering of the ladies happening in this list of the “100 Best American Revolution Books of All Time.” You’d think that, but you’d be so very wrong. Tragically wrong, in fact. Of the 114 separate books they list, there are only 11 by women, and one co-authored by a woman. And of those 11 single-authored books by women, fully three are by the great Pauline Maier, so the list includes only ten women historians in all. TEN women, and eleven and a half books. Take that, Marcia! Continue reading
It’s International Women’s Day. What are you not going to do today?
I *love* getting letters!
Friends, this semester is busybusybusy for me–I’m doing a lot of talks for the book, in addition to the usual teaching and service. I’ve just given up entirely on that little thing called “scholarship” until the spring semester is over. (How many more weeks to go is that? Oh, lord.)
Fortunately, a troubled soul wrote a letter asking for our advice. That’s worth at least 20 minutes of work avoidance, don’t you think? Give a broad a break–I’ve got a few ideas, but let her know what you think, especially if you’re a fellow scientist and have a better grasp of the traditions and etiquette of academic culture in the sciences. Read on, friends–the highlights in the letter below are my own: Continue reading
Yale University Press. 2016
Friends, if you’re in New England anywhere near the Piscataqua River, come out and see me talk about my book, The Many Captivities of Esther Wheelwright*, at the Berwick Academy as a guest of the Old Berwick Historical Society’s Forgotten Frontier lecture series this winter and spring. Last night, I was a guest of Bowdoin College where I also gave a talk about my book–the audience there will be hard to beat. They were so attentive and asked so many questions that they kept me more than an hour AFTER my 40-minute talk with their questions and responses. Whew! And thank you! Continue reading