The Economist - USA (2019-08-17)

14 The EconomistAugust 17th 2019

Lettersarewelcomeandshouldbe

addressedtotheEditorat

TheEconomist,TheAdelphiBuilding,

1-11 JohnAdamStreet,LondonWC 2 N 6 HT

Email:[email protected]

Morelettersareavailableat:

Economist.com/letters

Letters

History lessons

Given Bagehot’s disdain for

those who fiddle with

footnotes, it is hardly surpris-

ing that he gives no evidence

for his claim that academic

historians have neglected the

study of politics, power and

nation states in favour of the

marginal, the poor and

everyday life (July 20th).

Today’s course offerings and

publishers’ lists suggest that

political and military history

are alive and well in Britain.

The websites of the university

presses of Oxford and Cam-

bridge include recent books by

historians on the Peterloo

massacre, Hitler, administra-

tion and war in colonial India,

American foreign relations,

medieval Anglo-papal

relations, the German nation-

state and 21st-century general-

ship, to name just a few. A

search of British university

websites reveals an array of

history courses on politics, war

and power.

I am baffled by the assertion

that academic scholars are

isolated in professional

cocoons. Many historians,

besides the three mentioned

by Bagehot, appear on or

consult with the bbc, tweet on

current issues and write pieces

in mass-market publications.

It is true that history enrol-

ments are falling, and that the

level of historical knowledge

among Americans and Britons

is disappointing. But reversing

these trends requires analysis

of their causes, not evidence-

free straw men.

sara lipton

Professor of history

State University of New York at

Stony Brook

Never have so many attendees

at history festivals, book-

buyers, students and school-

teachers benefited from the

efforts of academic historians.

The global success of Radio 4’s

“In Our Time” depends on the

contributions of experts.

History in Britain is rightly

viewed as a sensible education;

training for careers in muse-

ums, charities, the law, jour-

nalism, design, theatre, the

civil service and more. Young

people tell us they choose to

study history at university not

only out of interest, but

because they understand that

history will prepare them well

for a world of change, complex-

ity and diversity.

All forms of expertise have

been denigrated and

lampooned of late. The popular

history Bagehot celebrates,

especially on television, is

often forced by the medium to

be formulaic and sensational.

Our public conversations have

become sites of emotive

outbursts, rather than

reasoned exchanges where

historical understanding can

be marshalled. History is alive

and well in our universities,

but do we deserve it?

miri rubin

Professor of medieval and early

modern history

Queen Mary University of

London

Bagehot correctly laments the

absurd bureaucracy of modern

academia, then blames histori-

ans for the result. Grand books

of the sort he likes now carry

heavy penalties for author and

university if they cannot be

fitted into the time frame of the

research assessment exercise.

He may lament the days of

A.J.P. Taylor, but few newspa-

pers are interested in informed

comment, and television

prefers to take the work of

academics and put it into the

mouths of more scenic pre-

senters. There is not much

historians can do about that.

He yearns for more books

on great men and battles, and

more constitutional history of

the old sort. But if you want a

good biography of Gladstone or

a sound account of parliamen-

tary procedure after the Great

Reform (and few do) there are

excellent ones already. Why

should historians spend their

time, and other peoples’ mon-

ey, repeating what has been

done so well before? When a

non-academic fulfils Bagehot’s

requirement for men and

battles, the results are some-

times excellent (Antony

Beevor), but are equally often

unreliable vanity projects.

Does he seriously want aca-

demics to emulate Jacob Rees-

Mogg on the Victorians, or

Boris Johnson on Churchill?

Historians are producing

more interesting books than

they have done for years, large-

ly because they are no longer

shackled by an Anglocentric

perspective. Peter Frankopan’s

book on the Silk Roads and

global histories by Chris Bayly

or John Darwin are only a few

examples. Moreover, Lyndal

Roper is unknown only to

those with a very parochial

range of interests. Her

biography of Luther was widely

reviewed, commercially

published and sold exception-

ally well in many countries.

iain pears

Oxford

As founding members of the

new Society for the History of

War, we were surprised by

Bagehot’s comment that “con-

stitutional and military affairs

are all but ignored” in British

universities. Far from it. The

history of warfare is an excep-

tionally lively field. Academic

historians played key roles in

the recent commemorations of

the first world war and D-Day.

We would, moreover, contest

the distinction Bagehot draws

between military affairs and

“marginal” topics. The well-

known adage that an army

marches on its stomach makes

the point that no competent

military strategist should

dismiss everyday life experi-

ence, still less the gendered

question of who cooks.

peter wilson

Professor of the history of war

University of Oxford

Recently retired after 48 years

of teaching history, I concur

with Bagehot’s lament. In 1995

James McPherson, an eminent

historian on the American civil

war, wrote an essay, “What’s

the Matter With History?”

Although his “Battle Cry of

Freedom” won the Pulitzer

prize, it didn’t receive an award

from any of the professional

historian associations. Mr

McPherson recounted how a

colleague told him that he was

in danger of becoming a

popular historian, rather than

a historian’s historian. When

he asked why he could not be

both, his colleague only

“smiled sadly” at his naivety.

steve kramer

Dallas

The problem with teaching

history in Britain starts in the

school curriculum. There is no

British narrative. British stu-

dents pass history exams

without understanding any-

thing about this country’s

history, such as the evolution

of Parliament. They know

more about the American civil-

rights movement than they do

the partition of India, the

Commonwealth or Windrush.

carol grose

London

The learning of history is

changing with the times.

History tours are among the

most popular tourist activities

in European cities. Archae-

ological sites such as Pompeii,

Machu Picchu and Petra are

some of the most visited places

in the world. CrashCourse, a

series of quirky history videos

on YouTube enjoyed by teen-

agers and adults, gets millions

of views. At the Radical Tea

Towel Company (where I work)

our weekly history newsletter

reaches more than 40,

people in Britain and America.

matthew buccelli

Berlin

Bagehot’s ruminations about

the state of history as an aca-

demic discipline brought me

back to a time when I faced

similar concerns, as I consid-

ered whether or not to pursue a

doctorate in history. In the end,

I followed my mentor’s advice:

“If you want to truly study

history nowadays, you should

concentrate on international

relations or economics.”

ore koren

Assistant professor

Department of Political

Science

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana