|We're all Sherlock Holmes, some of|
us just suck at it more than others.
I don't really care to discuss Huckabee's bullshit history lessons, but rather the overall competition between perspectives of history. Here's the quote that did it for me: "I'll never trust white men history again."
It's difficult for me to understand why people can't view history objectively. I mean, I know that almost all historical interpretation is fairly subjective, but that doesn't change the facts of what happened. When you take all the perspectives of history and combine them, then you realize that history is objective, you just need all the perspectives to see the objectivity of it.
Here's an example to clarify exactly what the fuck I'm talking about. Let's look at the American Revolution. Now, from an American perspective we were trying to preserve and enhance our democratic way of life. We believed that the taxes imposed on us, which we were unable to oppose because we were barred from representing ourselves in Parliament, were ridiculous and restrictive. We also believed that the crown was wrong to keep us from moving west to settle. Those are all very valid points, and the perspective is correct.
|Joseph Ellis: To some, what he has said about the American|
Revolution is bullshit simply because he's a white male.
Competing perspectives doesn't mean that history is "wrong." History is never wrong, it's merely the people who write about it. History has already happened, it can't be changed, and it's up to us to discover the truth.
The problem today, especially with progressivism, is that people think that only one specific perspective of history is the "correct," version. People don't realize that unless a version of history is completely making up facts or erroneously recounting an event, then it's not wrong simply because it leaves out some facts. Compare the historical perspective of the landed Southern planter class to the slaves perspective. "America sucked ass," we could imagine the slaves recounting. "America was fucking balling out of control," said the planters.
Both perspectives are correct but slanted. Of course the slaves thought America sucked because they were getting their fucking feet cut off and shit, but they're leaving out the fact that America was really good to people who weren't slaves. And of course the planters thought America was awesome because they were rich as hell from all the "free labor," but they leave out the fact that they "owned" human beings and treated them like livestock to be bought, sold, and brutally repressed.
|Richard Hofstadter: White male, therefore also|
So I'm sorry for all of you Marxists, but viewing history as nothing more than the history of class struggle, although meritorious and truthful in some respects, is not a complete view of history. Ignoring historical perspectives doesn't make you anymore knowledgeable or enlightened, in fact it just means that you've sacrificed one brand of tunnel vision for another.
(Fun Fact: my brand of history has always been intellectual history.)