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