A note on "Revisionist Historians"

The other day, I wrote a thoughtful (toot toot), albeit poorly edited (my apologies) blog about archives, how they work and how archives are affected by naturally occurring historical processes. Today, the professor I work with as a Graduate Assistant brought up a pet point of mine- revisionist history. I’ll admit, I’m a dirty-R word revisionist historian. According to talking heads, that must mean I’m out to destroy America, destroy families and education and I alone am responsible for the Red Menace, the economic downturn and TSA body scanners.

Let me alleviate your fears, dear reader. All historians are revisionist historians. Historians seek to answer historical questions, sometimes the same questions that have already been answered. To not do so, to simply accept the master/dominant narrative as it has been written is not conducive to the field. The dominant narrative exists because it provides structural framework to communicate historical events and actors to large numbers of people. This narrative changes over time (slowly) to reflect the needs and changing times. But once one looks past this dominant narrative, one becomes a revisionist merely by not accepting the dominant story as “correct.”

However. Dominant narratives are constructed. They can be patriotic (American Revolution!), parables (Washington, meet cherry tree) and can reflect biases in our own, modern day society (I promise you, in early America, women were involved in Revolutionary thought, as the very least, even if there are not countless biographies written in their memory). Some standards need to exist for the purpose of education and that is true of any field. Also, there is too much to discuss in one term. Imagine trying to teach, in one term, all interpretations of the American Revolution. Also, many interpretations are simply too advanced to teach to students who (at the level I work with, freshman college students) are just beginning to gain intellectual bearings. For these reasons (and others, although probably less altruistic), a basic, overarching narrative exists. Once we accept that, we can start to conceive of that dirty R word differently.

If you were to accept the talking heads at face value, you’d assume dirty liberal hippies, assisted by evil Muslims and Karl Marx’s disembodied head drive the revisionist movement. However, what is seen as being revisionist is often changes in historical theory, methodology and the “culture” of history, as well as technology, access and national culture. In the quest for legitimacy, historians strove to be objective. This here’s the facts, ma’am, and nothing but. Yes, this is noble; however what is considered objective changes over time. Now acknowledged as a bias, or cultural baggage, Eurocentrism used to be accepted as something factual, cool, rational and objective. Those who established slavery as an institution objectively thought it was the best method to “civilize the uncivilized.” We now understand, because of new methods, science and changes in our cultural fabric, that slavery is not only wrong, but also probably not a useful way to make outsiders feel as thought they are being “civilized” or learning a new culture. And why do we want to do this? It gives us a more accurate, complete depiction is the past, and that’s what we want from history, correct?

Now, we accept and unpack our biases, which become more clear with time. It is easy to write off older monographs as being biased and not objective, but in reality, those historians were upholding the historical standards of their time. This becomes much clearer when looking at the historiography. Take, for example, the historiography of American Indians, first, they were ignored, then seen as savages, later as victims and only with our more recent historical tools (such as understandings of agency, etc.) have historians begun to suggest American Indians had their own motivations. It’s not that earlier historians didn’t read documents correctly, or anything else it’s that they lacked the historical lenses to look at these sources in this manner. Also, the construction of the American Indian as a non-white, savage other (how Ethnocentric!) was accepted and supported by societal biases, attitudes, etc. Examining these historical players as human beings, with agency, motivations, goals, etc., helps paint a more clear historical picture, of the colonists and the Natives.

As historical lenses (theory), or technologies, change, so do people. It’s not necessarily conscious, and it’s not always malicious. There’s a phrase for this- shit happens. For instance, the Genoveses, a historian husband and wife team, used to be a left leaning, Marxist theory using historian couple. For one reason or another, they had some sort of religious epiphany and are now conservative, right leaning, etc. Where Fox-Genovese used to deconstruct gender, she now upholds gender roles. That doesn’t mean she’s a liar, necessarily, just that shit happens. Shit happened, her beliefs changed. She wasn’t trying to dupe her readers, and her change of lifestyle doesn’t invalidate her previous work. Of course, there are liars and malicious people, but people also change, and they and their work should not be thrown out entirely because of it.

New discoveries and technology can also change the historiography and challenge widely accepted theories. For the longest time, the idea that the first Natives come to America across the Beringia land bridge was the strongest theory. However, with new technology, we discovered most of North America was covered by huge glaciers AND we also found artifacts from South America, as far south as Argentina and Chile, that date earlier than North American artifacts. A new(er) theory suggests the first Americans moved down the east coast by boat- island hopping, as it’s known to historians and anthropologists. This isn’t to say the Beringia theory is out, or that it wasn’t sound- it was for its time. New technology coupled with new archaeological finds poked holes in what was formerly the dominant theory.

All this in mind- developing historical lenses/tools/theoretical frameworks, changing worldviews and societal norms, technology and potential for new discovery and new readings of previously accept works- why WOULDN’T a historian want to be a revisionist? Part of being a historian is contributing new ideas, and one does not contribute by simply accepting the dominant narrative. To not be a revisionist historian, I’ll conclude, is to simply bend over and accept the status quo, the dominant narrative as it has been handed to you. To be against looking at history with modern tools and fresh eyes is to be against historical innovation and to deny potential for new interpretations and applications of new theory.

How History Works: Archives

How History Works: Archives

There seems to be maybe, some confusion as to how historical institutions work. The most common question I hear about archives is what they contain, how they work, and why they can be lacking.

A brief history of archives- the earliest types of archives were collection held by wealthy individuals or families. They were not for the public eye, the artifacts one owned may have no relation to one another. However, these collectors kept lists of their items, which may have reflected their station in life- such as fine paintings or statues.

In their earliest days, museums were used as archives, one of their functions was just to house items. Museum Origins contains many early, and short, readings from early museum employees, owners and benefactors. The earliest museums dedicated themselves to showcasing science. History museums came later.

Currently, and most recently, archives served as a place to catalog, house and preserve artifacts. Some archives have more resources or specialize further than others, factors which may cause disparity between archives. Furthermore, what archives contain also depends on archivists take a personal stake or interest in, including prevailing historical theories.

Howard Zinn dubbed archivists as potential “activist archivists.” Awesome phrase. Archivists, like any other historian (or human) are subject to their own biases and baggage. An activist can only practice activism in context. Currently, people aren’t activists for interracial marriage, because the need for that sort of activism is not needed. Archivists can be instrumental in making new forms of historical study possible.

Some of the earliest historical artifacts don’t need to be sorted- statues, buildings, paintings, all stand on their own. Makes sense. Other early artifacts reflect not only societal biases, but material reality. Why do some archives contain more materials from elite, white men? Early history extolled the importance of this kind of history- it was all that mattered- the political, powerful elites. Also, as a historical reality, these people just wrote more and had more material possessions. Yeoman farmers had less time and less education, therefore did not have as many things seen as worth “saving” due to their social location and lack of access.

That said, as historical theory develops, more items are seen as valuable. As historians include more voices in the narrative, more items can be worth preserving. With the development of social, cultural, gender, another other lenses, items representing the common human have value, not just powerful elites or military items. However, this is a process. Academia is trickle down. Surely museums and other academic-like settings are at least a decade or more behind in historical theory. (I’d argue the public is still eons behind- the most popular selling history books often focus on powerful, elite male figures and/or the military.) It’s a process, but more items can be added to archives- diaries, children’s toys, personal items used by every day people.
Also, historians learn to read between the lines, so to speak. Just because no document spells out what women did in a certain society, reading other documents (through the lens of more recent historical theory) can reveal new information. For example, church records record births, deaths, marriages, etc. Seeing the pattern of women having babies mere months after marriage shows women were having pre-marital sex, despite official doctrine. Diaries or correspondence can reveal how policy/world events affected people on a daily level. Even in reading the same documents examined over centuries can reveal new things, for example Joanne Freeman’s careful cultural historical lens reveals how the concept of honor was woven in the lives of early politicians. With the development of new theory, archives can begin to value other items, and old documents can shine in new lights.

However, these advancements aren’t without limitations. Space, of course, is one, as is focus. Boxes of medals from the Civil War might be great, but a local archive may not have the space or need for such items. (And women’s auxiliary medals reveal hands-on roles some women took during the war!) Monetary investment might also pose a problem- some archives lack resources or human power to preserve or catalog some collections, like 2000 silverfish-worked-over photos. That said, many items, potentially full of historical value are out there- in closets, Goodwills, antique shops, or private collections, just waiting to be discovered or passed on. Collectors often have very sentimental attachments to each of their items, making it hard for them to part with pieces or either chunks of their collection.

Some archives may be digitized- when items can be. Obviously artifacts can only be photographed (possibly). But this also requires lots of human power. Even in my university’s small-ish archive has thousands and thousands of items, far too many to be digitized at once, even by a full-time staff. Also, this requires a huge upgrade in servers, processors, back up storage- lots of space and financial investments that many archives cannot afford. Let me also remind you that museums are conservative places in their nature (museums are not places the general public would like to see their national myths and master narrative questioned) and usually, so are the people working them. It’s a slow moving entity, and even the common use of modern computer technology is not to be taken for granted.

That said, I wonder if archives/museums/universities want to keep some of their archives a mystery? That said, even if an entire archive was digitized, that does not mean each item would be searchable (needs a good finding aid, at least!). It’s an interesting topic to watch, as far as archives go, tying in with the democratization of history and knowledge as well as new historical theory.