this is an interesting debate, interesting in that we have covered it
backwards and forwards in my seminars as a history grad student.

historians love to claim the objective "how it was" and deny that they
have an agenda of any sort.  but to be truthful and honest this is not
possible.  we all have an agenda of sorts which draws us to the study, and
creating, of history. mine is that i want to understand the past so i can
begin to figure out the future. sort of the still so naive and idealist
idea that if history repeats itself, somehow i can prevent us from
repeating some of the icky stuff...

what is interesting is that those who study literature--the great shaper
of discourse in society--have the same debate.  i am under the distinct
impression that much of literature is written *specifically* to pursue an
agenda.  certainly the study of what is written betrays an agenda by
simply what you choose to study.  also, does it not betray the author if
we attempt to disconnect their greater agenda from their work?

i agree that there is a great deal of political correctness and pressure
to adhere to the general consensus.  but what i do not agree with is that
this is anything new.

kathy farretta
northern arizona university