Kevin, you’ve done some excellent teaching here, as always. And between you, Dr. Joanne Freeman, and the Washington Post, I’ll now have to buy this book.
As a librarian, I will tell you that people have many reasons for not finishing books they’ve started. And many do not read introductions but go straight to the first chapter, or essay in this case. I’ll be checking my Hernando County, Florida, public library system to see how many copies they purchase, since 45% of registered voters here are Republican and only 26% Democrat (I get lonely down here).
As a loyal Republican wife who quit the GOP when dt came down that brass, not gold, escalator, I can tell you that my many family members who still support dt, including my beloved husband of forty-six years, will not read this book. However, they WIIL hear my opinions which become informed by this book. And I think that is a good goal for any academic historians.
I too just started this book and just finished the Introduction. I am very concerned that what is said in the intro arguments presented; ie. the modern (post-Nixon) Republicans have mythologized American history in inappropriate ways and we want to address that. I think this is true, American history has been mythologized and in inappropriate ways by segments of the culture. I do think ithis inappropriate mytholgization (not sure that is a word) needs to be called out. But, any attempt by academic historians will usually fall short (full confession I am an academic historian, too). Academic historians usually come across as setting the record straight and what is being referred to here as the other side doesn't see it that way. They see setting the record straight as attacking their history and prompting an alternative history that leaves those whom (?) today we call conservatives out.
Academic historians have to learn how to talk to, how to present their arguments to, people who are not academic historians. If we cannot figure out how to do that we are not going to have the impact on this process that we could have and should have.
Thanks for the comment. Let me be clear that I am not averse to calling out the distortions and lies that stem from the Trump years and the broader conservative community, but the introduction to this books seems unnecessarily reductionist. As I read through the essays it is clear that there are a wide range of factors that help to explain why Americans continue to misunderstand different aspects of our history.
This doesn't need to be framed in overtly political or partisan terms and I fear that is how this fine collection of essays will be received by some.
I agree that it's dangerous to emphasize the recent conservative attacks on historical truth when discussing historical myths in general. I have a young conservative friend who is very interested in American history but would be turned off by this approach. It makes me wonder if the publisher convinced the editors that an anti-Trump message that addresses recent culture wars is "topical" and will sell more books, at least in the short run.
In my rube opinion, you may well believe you never “approached the many Civil War myths and distortions in such a way” but I have seen you both tried and convicted of being just another liberal trying to tear down the South, so what you may or may not intend readers to think has no bearing on what they think.
This is where many err, again IMO. It was political then and it is political now and you cannot change that. The fact that the conservatives fighting for slavery were Democrats then (and for decades after) and those fighting for the myths of confederacy now are mostly Republicans is simply the truth. Not admitting that fact and the political exploitation leaves too much history out.
When I first started writing online back in 2005 my detractors came almost exclusively from conservative/reactionary circles. Today, most of the criticisms I hear are from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Funny how that works.
I am not suggesting that politics isn't relevant in how the past gets distorted. What I was suggesting is that it works in both directions.
What on God’s earth would not be political about a rebellion to tear asunder our Union and create an independent slave republic? How can that be argued as not political? I cannot see your point at all.
You said: "You know where I stand politically on this stuff, but I also care about effectively reaching the audiences who need to know that the only real division is between an accurate interpretation of the past, based on evidence and analysis, and mythology."
I couldn't agree more, especially since I tend to think that most people do not approach the past in an overtly partisan or political way. Most of the people that I've encountered over the years want to better understand history even if that means having to set aside distortions and myths that they grew up with.
I will agree with Kevin that all political parties have revisionist history myths on their own behavior, and I think historians should point out that Civil War conservatives were the Democratic Party. But I will never agree that the truth of conservative politics is divorced from history. Not then, not now, not likely to ever be. If you cannot reach people who refuse to recognize their own roll in the problem, pretending it isn’t so for the sage of gaining an audience is pointless. Historians are supposed to tell the truth. And the truth is that our history and our current both feed the political party system and vice versa.
Let me say that I seldom engage with actual historians or teachers. I discuss history mostly with lay people on forums and websites. So I admit I am out of my depth here.
The strongest thread that runs from our revolution/rebellion from the crown to now is that factual history is viewed through the political lens of those who “lead” us. And it is the lens voters use to choose. Conservative “truth” is almost universally distorted from 1619 to 2023. That is my experience with them daily. They speak of the signing statements when ratifying our Constitution to defend the confederacy. They speak of Jeffersonian ideals even knowing they are not reality. They defend white supremacy as being proud of the confederacy “for the sacrifice” of the soldiers while arguing to keep the iconic confederate leader’s statues.
I never see this separation or attribution that history is not political or does not carry political baggage from them. They believe history is on their side.
Maybe it is different in talking to your audiences.
If the book you reviewed had ignored the conservative political effort to reframe truth and where that got us, regarding the myths, it would not be worth reading.
There is no question that you can find plenty of evidence that those on the extreme political right have gone out of their way to distort and mythologize certain aspects of the American past just as you can find on the opposite side of the political spectrum. That said, I think that our understanding of the past is influenced by a wide range of factors.
You said: "If the book you reviewed had ignored the conservative political effort to reframe truth and where that got us, regarding the myths, it would not be worth reading."
We agree, but historians shouldn't be focused exclusively on this alone. To do so is to offer its own distorted picture of how our past has been manipulated over time.
Thanks again for engaging in this important subject.
I certainly think the framing is problematic, which is unfortunate because the essays that I have read are incredibly rich and informative. As I was trying to suggest, there is a way to frame a project like this around better understanding how history is crafted and revised over time, but I suspect that this isn't as attractive to a publisher as one that focuses almost exclusively on Trump and conservatism. Unfortunately, and as you suggest, it only fuels the history wars even more.
Carlos Lozada talked about the book in his op-ed piece for the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/opinion/kruse-zelizer-myth-history.html
I saw it. Thanks, Brad.
Kevin, you’ve done some excellent teaching here, as always. And between you, Dr. Joanne Freeman, and the Washington Post, I’ll now have to buy this book.
As a librarian, I will tell you that people have many reasons for not finishing books they’ve started. And many do not read introductions but go straight to the first chapter, or essay in this case. I’ll be checking my Hernando County, Florida, public library system to see how many copies they purchase, since 45% of registered voters here are Republican and only 26% Democrat (I get lonely down here).
As a loyal Republican wife who quit the GOP when dt came down that brass, not gold, escalator, I can tell you that my many family members who still support dt, including my beloved husband of forty-six years, will not read this book. However, they WIIL hear my opinions which become informed by this book. And I think that is a good goal for any academic historians.
Hi Suzanne,
You will definitely find the book worth reading and I have no doubt that it will lead to some interesting conversations with your husband.
I would love to be a fly on the wall for some of your discussions with him. Good luck. :-)
I too just started this book and just finished the Introduction. I am very concerned that what is said in the intro arguments presented; ie. the modern (post-Nixon) Republicans have mythologized American history in inappropriate ways and we want to address that. I think this is true, American history has been mythologized and in inappropriate ways by segments of the culture. I do think ithis inappropriate mytholgization (not sure that is a word) needs to be called out. But, any attempt by academic historians will usually fall short (full confession I am an academic historian, too). Academic historians usually come across as setting the record straight and what is being referred to here as the other side doesn't see it that way. They see setting the record straight as attacking their history and prompting an alternative history that leaves those whom (?) today we call conservatives out.
Academic historians have to learn how to talk to, how to present their arguments to, people who are not academic historians. If we cannot figure out how to do that we are not going to have the impact on this process that we could have and should have.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comment. Let me be clear that I am not averse to calling out the distortions and lies that stem from the Trump years and the broader conservative community, but the introduction to this books seems unnecessarily reductionist. As I read through the essays it is clear that there are a wide range of factors that help to explain why Americans continue to misunderstand different aspects of our history.
This doesn't need to be framed in overtly political or partisan terms and I fear that is how this fine collection of essays will be received by some.
I agree
I agree that it's dangerous to emphasize the recent conservative attacks on historical truth when discussing historical myths in general. I have a young conservative friend who is very interested in American history but would be turned off by this approach. It makes me wonder if the publisher convinced the editors that an anti-Trump message that addresses recent culture wars is "topical" and will sell more books, at least in the short run.
Hi Margaret,
Thanks for the comment. I think you make a really good point and one that I am concerned about as well.
In my rube opinion, you may well believe you never “approached the many Civil War myths and distortions in such a way” but I have seen you both tried and convicted of being just another liberal trying to tear down the South, so what you may or may not intend readers to think has no bearing on what they think.
This is where many err, again IMO. It was political then and it is political now and you cannot change that. The fact that the conservatives fighting for slavery were Democrats then (and for decades after) and those fighting for the myths of confederacy now are mostly Republicans is simply the truth. Not admitting that fact and the political exploitation leaves too much history out.
Thanks for the comment, Sandi.
When I first started writing online back in 2005 my detractors came almost exclusively from conservative/reactionary circles. Today, most of the criticisms I hear are from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Funny how that works.
I am not suggesting that politics isn't relevant in how the past gets distorted. What I was suggesting is that it works in both directions.
What on God’s earth would not be political about a rebellion to tear asunder our Union and create an independent slave republic? How can that be argued as not political? I cannot see your point at all.
You said: "You know where I stand politically on this stuff, but I also care about effectively reaching the audiences who need to know that the only real division is between an accurate interpretation of the past, based on evidence and analysis, and mythology."
I couldn't agree more, especially since I tend to think that most people do not approach the past in an overtly partisan or political way. Most of the people that I've encountered over the years want to better understand history even if that means having to set aside distortions and myths that they grew up with.
I will agree with Kevin that all political parties have revisionist history myths on their own behavior, and I think historians should point out that Civil War conservatives were the Democratic Party. But I will never agree that the truth of conservative politics is divorced from history. Not then, not now, not likely to ever be. If you cannot reach people who refuse to recognize their own roll in the problem, pretending it isn’t so for the sage of gaining an audience is pointless. Historians are supposed to tell the truth. And the truth is that our history and our current both feed the political party system and vice versa.
What do you mean by "the truth of conservative politics"? Thanks, Sandi.
Let me say that I seldom engage with actual historians or teachers. I discuss history mostly with lay people on forums and websites. So I admit I am out of my depth here.
The strongest thread that runs from our revolution/rebellion from the crown to now is that factual history is viewed through the political lens of those who “lead” us. And it is the lens voters use to choose. Conservative “truth” is almost universally distorted from 1619 to 2023. That is my experience with them daily. They speak of the signing statements when ratifying our Constitution to defend the confederacy. They speak of Jeffersonian ideals even knowing they are not reality. They defend white supremacy as being proud of the confederacy “for the sacrifice” of the soldiers while arguing to keep the iconic confederate leader’s statues.
I never see this separation or attribution that history is not political or does not carry political baggage from them. They believe history is on their side.
Maybe it is different in talking to your audiences.
If the book you reviewed had ignored the conservative political effort to reframe truth and where that got us, regarding the myths, it would not be worth reading.
I always value and appreciate your comments here.
There is no question that you can find plenty of evidence that those on the extreme political right have gone out of their way to distort and mythologize certain aspects of the American past just as you can find on the opposite side of the political spectrum. That said, I think that our understanding of the past is influenced by a wide range of factors.
You said: "If the book you reviewed had ignored the conservative political effort to reframe truth and where that got us, regarding the myths, it would not be worth reading."
We agree, but historians shouldn't be focused exclusively on this alone. To do so is to offer its own distorted picture of how our past has been manipulated over time.
Thanks again for engaging in this important subject.
Good to hear from you, Taylor.
I certainly think the framing is problematic, which is unfortunate because the essays that I have read are incredibly rich and informative. As I was trying to suggest, there is a way to frame a project like this around better understanding how history is crafted and revised over time, but I suspect that this isn't as attractive to a publisher as one that focuses almost exclusively on Trump and conservatism. Unfortunately, and as you suggest, it only fuels the history wars even more.