Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
=================== HES POSTING ===================
In Roy Weintraub's most recent post, he says that perhaps
I join him in a call for a change in emphasis in the histories
written by members of HES. I do not "perhaps" agree with this
statement, I wholeheartedly agree with it.
The calls in other recent posts for "making room" for Whig
histories and tolerating them as a legitimate form of history
seem to miss the point. They are almost all we have,
and the real need is to make room for the kind of history that
Roy and Ross are calling for.
I take Ross's statement of the inevitability of "geistesgeschichte"
as a fair and reasonable acknowledgement of the possible value of
this kind of work. If people write it, and it's good, that's great.
But how many of the Whig histories that we see are really good examples
of this genre? How many articles published in HOPE, JHET,
or EJHET have moved the rest of the discipline to rethink
their research agenda? How many of them deserve to be read
by the rest of the profession?
What we might best contribute to the rest of the profession, what
we might do that deserves to be read, is work that is better researched
and is informed by a fuller sense of what good historical work is.
Brad Bateman
Grinnell College
================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|