The Purpose of the Past


 “We Americans have such a thin and meager sense of history that we cannot get too much of it. What we need more than anything is a deeper and fuller sense of the historical.” Gordon S. Wood

The Vatican Splendors Exhibition has been  extended in St. Paul by a few days.  Until January 11th.  I have not traveled the half-mile or so to the Minnesota History Museum to see it.  I have already been to the Vatican.  Long ago, after visits to about 10 European countries, I lost a lot of desire to see many more museums.  Why did people need to go to museums where there seemed to be at the ticket booth a display of one fundamental truth: The fundamental truth that we differ from our ancestors.  The fundamental arrogance was that the modern world was better.    

 

I had this overdue library book, The Purpose of the Past by Gordon S. Wood, on history.  Wood, the past winner of the Pulitzer Prize.   There was too much to digest in the book and I had trouble giving it up.  In The Purpose of the Past, Gordon S. Wood reviewed the debate over narrative history and microhistory.  Wood believes that the mission of the historian is to communicate the past to everyday people.

 

Wood was frustrated by the microhistories that used individual stories of common people to help make inferences from the past.  At a time when enrollment in higher education was booming from 1970 to 1986, “the number of history degrees granted by all American colleges and universities declined almost by two-thirds.”  In a generation when academics shunned so-called triumphalist U.S. history, “graduate students of history are well aware that ‘race, class, gender’ is the mantra they must repeat as they proceed through their studies and write their dissertations,” Wood wrote.   History had become valued more as a science than as part of the humanities.  Storytelling had become frowned upon in favor of theory.   

 

Story-telling.  Dealing with past reality.  Unconnected series of events.  Memoirs.  Some people were now making theirs up.  History.  Objective story-telling.  Or just another social science about problem-solving?  Ideology?

 

In September 2001, there was a plane ride from Warsaw to Amsterdam next to soon-to-be history professor, this twenty-something male teaching assistant.  I was reading a book.  There was his initial contemptuous comment about Columbus, about Christianity’s part in the new world.  There was discussion, a contemptuous comment, about the way history was taught to the generation behind me which I made.  History now as a social science, like your use of social media.  The ideology  – your personal ideology – as some kind of purchased commercial time.  

 

I had been privately reading at the time Eva Hoffman’s Shtetl.  There was discussion about September 11th.  A discussion about Poland and Jews.  This young man was Jewish.  This guy was very secular.  He had spent 2 years in the Peace Corps here.  Then he was asked to extend his stay one more year.  His brother had been in New York City on September 11th.  I was the first American he had seen since that day, who had been in the United States on September 11th.  I bore witness to all what televised America had seen that day.  He really wanted to get to this brother in New York.  To see him again before heading back to Portland.  His brother was alive. 

  

The struggle to say something meaningful.  Long-lasting.  The search for the Truth.  In narration.  in museums.  But the fundamental Truth carries this arrogance that the modern world is better … in history, through history, which is to society what memory is to the individual: without it, we don’t know who we are.    

 

Memory.  Telling the stories.  And searching for understanding.  From the past.  Jews were a story-telling people.  People with a common history.  And I loved to listen to them speak about their faith, from which I could learn a lot.  There was discussion about the conflict between Poles and Jews and whether Poles were anti-semitic.  In a sense I had come to Poland in answer to the question.  So had he.  It was one of two international flights when the time length did not seem long enough.  

 

The writing of history.  Stories call us, lead us to significance.  In History, there is the suddenness of evil.  Was the evil here so sudden?  That is the reality of world history.  In Poland in the 1930s.  In the United States today.  The suddenness of evil is the reality of world history.  To keep evil under some kind of control.  With freedom.  With an objectivity.  The human struggle for decency is to keep evil under some kind of communal and individual control.  

 

It was New Year’s Day in 1998.  It was New Year’s Day in 1999.  It was New Year’s Day in 2000.  There was talk of the New Paradigm.  Firms were trying to devise more sophisticated risk models because the world was changing around them.  It was still September 2001 when that flight came back from Poland.  The Market had crashed.

  

In That Noble Dream:  TheObjectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession, Peter Novick bemoans the age when ideology has replaced objectivity.   No wonder the fundamental human condition seemed to carry a doubt of the presence of the Devil in the world.  In the days leading up to September 11th, there was the fundamental arrogance that the modern world – bigger, stronger, faster – is better.  It was the New Paradigm that became old that week.  

 

 

http://carmenpampafund.org/


 



Bookmark & Share

 

Google Ads

 

Advertisements

2 comments so far

  1. paperlessworld on

    Leading. The fear, the first time. About the societal concern, with the long-term side-effects in the power to destroy, on the farms and plantations. Where there are the take-away from story, from song that touch you deeply.

    There is this song, “after you’re gone….”

    “I come from a family in which some deep injuries exist. The type of injury made by family member against family member which are profound. The type of injury which reaches across generations, affecting those not even born when they were committed. The type of injury that spawn subsequent injury of emotion, of relationship, of memory. Perhaps you can relate to some deep hurt among your family or friends, or in your life. When extending mercy in these instances can seem impossible … may seem even unjustified. Is it right to forgive or love someone who has done such wrong, letting them off the hook? The one who offended us so deeply?” — Scott McClure

    Taken. In stories of the have and the have-nots, the fruit, and the fruitless, or even of the first born son. The ones who witnessed nobility and remembered. Places taken, after Time is taken away from the old civilization, in a era when everyone seemed to have been “related.”

    Sons who remembered when their father was not rich. When the place struggled, to survive.

    Extreme crime. Extreme wealth. As history becomes a social science, left only for social media. Note the missing obit, but only rewritten. What did he know about Robert E Lee and real sacrifice – the other side of Gettysburg? From worst to first, U S Grant who one day went bankrupt. Lost everything too. With this CIA approach – education to destigmatize, did you have a public school education? In a superficial society? “Using the mass media, because the primary goal was to destigmatize. Often, we left evidence behind.”

    Pretending … as if you never even existed at all. When the present supercedes the past as well as the future, for not real prayerful people.

  2. paperlessworld on

    “Accepting the surrender of Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia in April 1865, Ullyses Grant offered generous terms that paroled Confederate soldiers and officers and allowed them to return to their homes. He even permitted the men to keep their horses and mules for use as farm animals. Grant believed leniency was critical to achieving a lasting peace, and he was furious when a federal grand jury later negated the terms of his agreement and charged Lee and several other Confederate generals with treason. During a subsequent meeting with President Andrew Johnson, he stated his intention to ‘resign the command of the army rather than execute any order to arrest Lee or any of his commanders so long as they obey the law.’ Unwilling to lose Grant’s support, Johnson reluctantly dropped the case.” — Evan Andrews


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: