A Tale of Two History Conventions

Last January the American Historical Association had its annual conference. Scott Jaschik provided a review of how military historians faired with the academics who consider them court historians:

When historians gathered this weekend in Philadelphia for the annual meeting of the American Historical Association, military historians organized a session to talk about their unusual situation right now. Panelists included historians who work in academe and those who work in the military — all of whom said they face credibility issues. Those in academe must contend with those in the military who think they are scandal-mongers or irrelevant, and with academic colleagues who question whether they are sufficiently critical of the military. And scholars in the military — even those with solid publication records — face questions from academics about whether they are legitimate.

Members of all of those audiences turn to military history hoping that it will “offer a redemption story,” and most of the time it doesn’t, Stoler said. “I tell people, if you want a redemption story, go to church, go to synagogue.”... [Heh]

John Lewis, professor of history at Ashland University, provides "a report from the front" on the recent conference of The Society for Military History:

From the outset the conference set an utterly different tone than one hears at America's largest historical enclave, the American Historical Association. The difference starts with the membership: the AHA is almost totally academic, while the SMH has a large number of historians working directly with military units, either in uniform or as civilians. The opening speaker at the SMH said two things that I have never heard at the AHA: he praised our "passion for facts," and he urged us to write history always "with practical value for today." The purpose of history, I heard repeatedly at the conference, was to place modern events into an historical context, and to offer people—civilians, officers and soldiers—a means to better understand the present, and to plan for the future.

People not involved in academia may not understand how refreshing this was to me. At the AHA, outright hostility will usually greet such claims. I have sat on history panels where the first thing said is "there are no facts—only interpretations [cute, that's Nietzsche]; and there are no lessons—only the contemplation of complexity." I have been in job interviews where the committee members' eyes glaze over when you even mention political, intellectual or military history. To them, everything is the subjective creation of gender history, "queer" studies, how the average man lived, or the "history" of oppressed peoples. It's all generally disgusting, irrelevant to understanding human events, and downright boring.

The Greeks and Romans knew that the purpose of learning history was to live a better life today. In the world of today's academics, this is all but forgotten. To hear it stated as a matter of fact at a professional conference was like a breath of fresh air. I do hope they accept my paper proposal next year....

Crossposted at The Dougout