In Henry IV (Part II), one of those planning to overthrow the incumbent royal dynasty says: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” It’s a line we attorneys have frequently heard since we were in law school. Usually offered as a derogatory remark, it misconstrues Shakespeare’s sense that lawyers were, in fact, laudable champions of order, whose disposal would pave the way for revolution.
It’s hard to know what the Bard would write about our own parlous times. The current administration clearly doesn’t want to get rid of all the lawyers. After several years of foaming about the Dems “weaponizing” the law, the current incumbents are offering a master class in how to do so. They clearly want at least some lawyers to validate their own interpretations of all sorts of laws. And, as some law firms have demonstrated, there are plenty who (even if not fully fallen to the dark side) have been willing to make Faustian bargains. It seems likely, after all, that we will have plenty of lawyers for years to come.
Nonetheless, Dick the Butcher (Shakespeare’s character)’s sentiment would seem well applicable to my second profession. Whether in terms of attacks on universities in general, or planning to promote only “patriotic history” (according to a recent proposal from the rump Department of Education), or willfully ignoring inconvenient historical facts (foreign or domestic), or trimming the booklists at your local public library, History is under attack as never before.
Regular readers of this blog are familiar with my critiques of the History discipline, so I won’t rehearse them here. After all, those shortcomings all fall within the category of venial sins and the critiques were intended to promote a more robust engagement with the complexity of our pasts. The current onslaught is more severe and Orwellian.
History, as the saying goes, is “written by the victors” and has been a tool of state power for millennia. The rise of a professional discipline in the 19C, working toward producing “accurate” descriptions of the past has thus been a counter-vailing trend, which flourished in the 20C; an important branch of the “speak truth to power” school of public engagement. History has also been part of the modern project of recognizing and dealing with the complexity of life. Indeed, one of my grad school professors constantly challenged us to “complicate” the stories we were exploring and explaining.
There are virtues in simplicity and the versions of history that are told in elementary schools are necessarily more cursory than those in high school (a fortiori, in college). It is a sign of intellectual maturity to be able to hold conflicting interpretations and perspectives in one’s head simultaneously. It’s difficult to square the call to only offer “patriotic” history with such aspirations, but perhaps it’s only fitting for an Administration whose members often seem to be stuck in sixth grade and who generally seem to prefer mythology. As Jack Nicholson’s character says in “A Few Good Men” they “can’t handle the truth.”
We can see this not only in terms of the specific policies and budget moves towards History (slashing NEH and public broadcasting budgets, rewriting the signage in National Parks), but also in the renaming of the Defense Department, recalling the halcyon days of the “War” Department when America won all its wars (and was right (dammit!) to do so), soldiers were soldiers, and men were men. In its eagerness to be anti-“woke”, the Administration is planning a broad return to the “good old days” when only white male lives mattered. Military bases; names are once again named in honor of Confederate Generals (whose patriotism did not fully extend to the United States of America), not to mention the likely plans to haul various Confederate statues out of storage. The “hit list” (so far) of senior government officials includes the Archivist of the United States, most of the leadership of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Librarian of Congress.
Beyond the political level, the discipline is in disarray and ill-prepared to defend itself. Universities caving into Administration pressures provide little cover for those who wish to “speak truth to power” and stand up for their version of history and, more importantly, for the possibility of multiple interpretations. Drops in enrollment generally and evaporating endowment of small liberal-arts colleges (on top of the disorientation of dealing with AI) have demoralized academic Historians across the country. If there’s relatively little protest about the gutting of health care, you can be sure that “History Forever” will not be the battle cry of a mass-movement Resistance.
Almost five years ago, in the context of the first impeachment trial, I noted that the final appeal was not to the legal courts, but to History. This assessment is especially important if (at least) some of the lawyers are “killed” (at least metaphorically). It also highlights the importance of a diverse and vibrant community of Historians to argue over the interpretations of the past and engage youth and citizens in considering their own place in history. In contrast to the (mercifully) relatively incompetent first term, this time around, they seemed to have learned to move against this fallback line of defense as well.
In doing so, the Administration and its fellow-travelers demonstrate their own short-sightedness. They think theirs is the final act and that the pendulum will not swing back in due course (even if not soon enough for many). If I were to overstep my role as a Historian and enter into a prophecy, I might say that “History will come back.” Instead, I will merely point out that it always has so far.
It’s hard to know what the Bard would write about our own parlous times. The current administration clearly doesn’t want to get rid of all the lawyers. After several years of foaming about the Dems “weaponizing” the law, the current incumbents are offering a master class in how to do so. They clearly want at least some lawyers to validate their own interpretations of all sorts of laws. And, as some law firms have demonstrated, there are plenty who (even if not fully fallen to the dark side) have been willing to make Faustian bargains. It seems likely, after all, that we will have plenty of lawyers for years to come.
Nonetheless, Dick the Butcher (Shakespeare’s character)’s sentiment would seem well applicable to my second profession. Whether in terms of attacks on universities in general, or planning to promote only “patriotic history” (according to a recent proposal from the rump Department of Education), or willfully ignoring inconvenient historical facts (foreign or domestic), or trimming the booklists at your local public library, History is under attack as never before.
Regular readers of this blog are familiar with my critiques of the History discipline, so I won’t rehearse them here. After all, those shortcomings all fall within the category of venial sins and the critiques were intended to promote a more robust engagement with the complexity of our pasts. The current onslaught is more severe and Orwellian.
History, as the saying goes, is “written by the victors” and has been a tool of state power for millennia. The rise of a professional discipline in the 19C, working toward producing “accurate” descriptions of the past has thus been a counter-vailing trend, which flourished in the 20C; an important branch of the “speak truth to power” school of public engagement. History has also been part of the modern project of recognizing and dealing with the complexity of life. Indeed, one of my grad school professors constantly challenged us to “complicate” the stories we were exploring and explaining.
There are virtues in simplicity and the versions of history that are told in elementary schools are necessarily more cursory than those in high school (a fortiori, in college). It is a sign of intellectual maturity to be able to hold conflicting interpretations and perspectives in one’s head simultaneously. It’s difficult to square the call to only offer “patriotic” history with such aspirations, but perhaps it’s only fitting for an Administration whose members often seem to be stuck in sixth grade and who generally seem to prefer mythology. As Jack Nicholson’s character says in “A Few Good Men” they “can’t handle the truth.”
We can see this not only in terms of the specific policies and budget moves towards History (slashing NEH and public broadcasting budgets, rewriting the signage in National Parks), but also in the renaming of the Defense Department, recalling the halcyon days of the “War” Department when America won all its wars (and was right (dammit!) to do so), soldiers were soldiers, and men were men. In its eagerness to be anti-“woke”, the Administration is planning a broad return to the “good old days” when only white male lives mattered. Military bases; names are once again named in honor of Confederate Generals (whose patriotism did not fully extend to the United States of America), not to mention the likely plans to haul various Confederate statues out of storage. The “hit list” (so far) of senior government officials includes the Archivist of the United States, most of the leadership of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Librarian of Congress.
Beyond the political level, the discipline is in disarray and ill-prepared to defend itself. Universities caving into Administration pressures provide little cover for those who wish to “speak truth to power” and stand up for their version of history and, more importantly, for the possibility of multiple interpretations. Drops in enrollment generally and evaporating endowment of small liberal-arts colleges (on top of the disorientation of dealing with AI) have demoralized academic Historians across the country. If there’s relatively little protest about the gutting of health care, you can be sure that “History Forever” will not be the battle cry of a mass-movement Resistance.
Almost five years ago, in the context of the first impeachment trial, I noted that the final appeal was not to the legal courts, but to History. This assessment is especially important if (at least) some of the lawyers are “killed” (at least metaphorically). It also highlights the importance of a diverse and vibrant community of Historians to argue over the interpretations of the past and engage youth and citizens in considering their own place in history. In contrast to the (mercifully) relatively incompetent first term, this time around, they seemed to have learned to move against this fallback line of defense as well.
In doing so, the Administration and its fellow-travelers demonstrate their own short-sightedness. They think theirs is the final act and that the pendulum will not swing back in due course (even if not soon enough for many). If I were to overstep my role as a Historian and enter into a prophecy, I might say that “History will come back.” Instead, I will merely point out that it always has so far.
RSS Feed