My good friends at The Pen and the Spindle have just posted a fascinating article on an early African explorer that I'm going to bet most of you have never heard of. The article is titled, "The Young Chicagoan Explorer."The article also got me thinking - Who owns history? Discuss.
Recommended reading:
For those with access to the Chicago Tribune Archives, please see October 3, 1897; October 22, 1900; November 18, 1900
Incline man's family past one for the history books by Bill Casey
"EXPLORER CHERRY IN PARIS.; Young Chicagoan Arrives from His Travels in Africa." New York Times, October 22, 1900 (Full article available)
Photo Credit: Chicago Tribune, Nov. 18, 1900
5 comments:
A brilliant question, Sharon, and I am going to broadcast your post far and wide!
I am little surprised that this is such a high quality article. The Pen and Spindle is an invaluable resource to internet historians.
The question "who writes history?" is an interesting one for historians. Unfortunately it is often hijacked by conspiracy theorists and myth-makers who have little respect for establishment of facts or the methods of the serious historian. This is a topic I explored with Dr. Heather Vallance from the Pen and Spindle: http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-history-be-objective-conversation.html
Nobody owns history. History is not a commodity to be traded or owned. Ownership can't be transfered to anyone or anything be it a university, college or the government.
But that might be a tad naive. We're a political animal and so we behave like it must "belong" to someone - notably the "winners."
Which brings us into the debate about whether historians can be "objective."
To me, history is about building the past both in the concrete - much like an engineer builds a bridge or a lawyer builds a case and abstract - the nuances of humanity if you will. Moreover, they may guide with a "gut instinct" in many cases I presume.
I'll stop here lest I begin to ramble. History is a lot like jazz - it just is. It should be that way anyway.
Actually, I agree with Jamie. I've discussed this on my blog many times. The Alchemists as I call them. By the way, I put Michael Moore in that group. He doesn't do documentary he does docu-mancy.
Yep, I'd put old Moore in that group too. His stuff is entertaining and emotive, but that doesn't make it truthful. Heather's point about the con-theos is right on the money: history is like a game to them not a serious investigation.
Post a Comment