It seems like a simple enough question, but the thought does come to mind as we read various historical works. We should “do history” to uncover the past and determine how events unfolded. Perhaps we attempt to learn and understand motivations. We also should “do history” to acquire good stories. No need for fiction when our past has all the fascinating stories we could ask for. However, more and more it seems like some historians use history in an attempt to support their personal opinions or promote an agenda.
We are convinced some historians conduct research and write not to explain past events, but to explain the past as they see it or wish it to be. They have a pre-determined opinion and theory, and find evidence to support it, sometimes ignoring information that does not fit their model. A good example of this is the works of many writers of Native American history and the tumultuous Removal era. Some of these historians are so fixated on the flawed idea of Native American society as some sort of utopia that all their research and writings serve only to celebrate their positive aspects and discuss how white Europeans knowingly and single-handedly ruined the world’s finest civilizations. Many works on the counterparts to many of these stories, especially frequent villains such as Andrew Jackson, also seem to follow this pattern; writers either love or hate him and rarely do you get a balanced view. Writers either provide all the evidence they can find to prove he was a racist, war-mongering land grabber or others write about what an unqualified great American leader he was. We wonder if many authors have their minds made up on events and issues and then conduct research to find evidence that proves their point.
While America’s past provides one of the most inspiring sagas in all of world history, we’ll admit it hasn’t always been pretty. A lot of American history was created, experienced, and commemorated by what we would regard today as overtly racist, chauvinistic, and mostly Christian white men. Much of this country was built on the backs of people either forced to labor against their will, or paid inadequately. Regardless of where you live (if you live in the United States), a native group probably claimed the land you call home and formally ceded or informally was pushed off of it. Simply put, if we look for heroes from our past who measure up to modern standards of egalitarian enlightenment, we look in vain.
At one point in time, history was used to tell engaging stories of Americana, positive stories of American heroes who overcame great obstacles to win victories and secure independence and the growth of this country. Admittedly this was often overdone and certainly not inclusive as it should have been, but the form has merit. We have a lot to be proud of in this country, and what we are is the result of a series defining eras, each of which illuminated a combination of glorious successes and tragic failures. Sadly, this focus on the bigger picture is now-considered passé and irrelevant as many historians are now determined to emphasize only the inadequacies and faults of our past American leaders.
In recent years we have been treated to an avalanche of studies that have probed the private lives and thoughts of those who hold a place in the traditional pantheon of American heroes and discovered that they were, well, definitely men of their times with a wide variety of moral shortcomings. Some of our heroes don’t look so good up close when compared to the way we think today. All of this thoughtful reflection is well enough, and to a degree collectively improves our understanding of our shared past and how we came to be the country we are today. But much modern scholarship seems to be telling us we should almost be ashamed of many of the people who shaped this nation when in almost every instance they are simply representative of the times in which they lived. It is as if they are judging them not only by an impossible standard, but one that does very little to improve our understanding of their role in our past.
Regardless of what subject we are interpreting, objective historians should remember that being overlooked in the historical narrative and being on the short end of the stick in historical events does not automatically confer virtuosity any more than being recognized as an American hero in the past inherently makes one worthy of continuing veneration. Failing to meet modern standards of political correctness is not in itself a reason to dismiss someone’s actual influence on American history. Perhaps instead of questioning the motivations of past historical figures, we need to begin questioning the motivations of current historical writers.
The study of history is at heart an evaluation of how human actions have influenced the course of history; it is a quest to discover the series of events that led us to our present state and help us understand our future trajectory. When we seek to glorify or demonize historical figures based on current, ever-changing notions of morality and enlightenment, we do our audience and our profession a grave disservice. Our mission as American historians should not be to seek out those people from the past most like us or that we like most and declare them worthy of our respect. Rather, it is the historian’s task to identify those individuals and actions that influenced our nation’s development and to understand the context in which their actions took place. After all, history happened and impacts us today, whether we like it or not.
CPW/JMB