As I was saying … or, here we go again …
I was both amused and bemused by this outburst that greeted a reading of my comments at the OAH at the Pinstripe Press Blog.
Oddly enough, of course, Michael Aubrecht’s rant actually does a fine job of illustrating the anti-intellectualism that some non-academic historians display. It also displays more than a little ignorance about the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians. At each annual meeting there are hundreds of sessions on a multitude of topics. It’s not a Civil War conference: it’s a conference in which people present findings and discuss scholarship. The purpose of our session was to throw out some ideas on the state of the field, in part to bring some people who are interested in these sorts of things up to speed, and in part to poke professional historians about new directions research might take. Somehow Mr. Aubrecht and portions of his readership find that to be offensive or condescending: why this is I don’t know, since Mr. Aubrecht, for all of his protests, reads this blog, and he wouldn’t do so unless he found something of value to it.
As for the professional/academic/amateur debate, I’ve commented on that before, and it is clear from Mr. Aubrecht’s comments that he’s ignorant of what I’ve had to say. There are none so blind as those who will not read. There are non-professionals and non-academics with whom I’ve worked, including Eric Wittenberg: Mr. Aubrecht’s post (and his postscript about his nameless cheering section) seems to promote the very divide he claims to deplore. But by linking to it, I can use the post as evidence of one of the points that I wanted to make, and so it served a useful purpose for me. Thank goodness other folks believe differently.
Well, at least he’s a Yankees fan.
Kevin wrote:
Brooks, — You nailed it. I’ve commented about this anti-intellectualism on a number of occasions. It is rampant within the Civil War and MA’s post is a wonderful example of it. Underlying it is an insecurity about certain types of historical studies which question long-standing assumptions or offer differing perspectives. I think in this case the problem is a simple misunderstanding of what is involved in doing history. For many it is simply a matter of telling stories rather than engaging in analysis and dialog. I read his post as a sign of defensiveness as if you and the rest of the participants were engaged in some clandestine operation to destroy all that is good in our memory of the war. I saved the post for my SHA talk in October. Thanks again for posting your talk.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 5:45 am | Permalink
ken Noe wrote:
And of course, you might add that OAH membership is open to all, not just academics, and especially seeks and supports high school teachers in their teaching.
As someone who has been involved in battlefield preservation including just recently, led tours, and who has spoken to dozens of round tables over the years, the post in question truly left me shaking my head in sadness and frustration. What’s it going to take, a kidney?
Ken
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 7:59 am | Permalink
Ken Noe wrote:
By the way, please excuse the typo and incoherent first sentence. I had just rolled out of bed to see how the Dodgers did last night. Thanks for Torre!–Ken
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 9:01 am | Permalink
Michael Aubrecht wrote:
Wow! I guess that I should have expected some response, although I did not think my initial post was all that insulting. I made a point of giving you all your due as experts on your subject matter. Still, I stand by my commentary that there is an ever-widening divide between the ‘pros’ and ‘amateurs’ and I think that most people on both sides will agree. Clearly, my personal bias against certain teachers has been honed due to myself being attacked by them on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, as often happens with blogging, I appear to have touched a nerve. My apologies to anyone who I upset, that was not my intent. Despite my utter disappointment with him as a person, Mr. Levine has perhaps summed it up perfectly when he said, “For many it is simply a matter of telling stories rather than engaging in analysis and dialog.” I guess I’m simply trying to share stories. AND I’m sick of me (and my peers) being looked down upon for that. I kept the emails of those who supported my post private (for this very reason) but I invite them to join in this conversation as their experiences and perspectives are important too. You may be right that I am ignorant in my knowledge, but I have never been ignorant as a person. Unfortunately, this is not the case with some of your peers. My critical statements were not intended to insult anyone, but the merely illustrate how the other side sometimes looks at this group.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 9:33 am | Permalink
Michael Aubrecht wrote:
Kevin, please be sure that if/when you choose to use my post that you quote it in its entirety at your SHA talk in October instead of grabbing excerpts as you did over on your blog. It then becomes a misrepresentation and fails to express the overall point of which you actually agreed with. Thank you.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 11:40 am | Permalink
Brooks D. Simpson wrote:
Michael, when you remark that you believed that you did not think your post “was all that insulting,” you concede that it was insulting. As for what “most” people think, well, I see a diversity of opinion out there among professionals and non-professionals, and to me the world looks a bit more complex. Blogging can help bring these misunderstandings to an end by having people engage in conversation … or not. It all depends on how one uses the tools available to one. Kevin Levin rightly sees blogs as one way for professionals to communicate with a wider world and to break down the very barriers you appear to endorse. Your perception may vary, and many of us been over this ground before. If professional historians have treated you badly, name names. But to craft an other styled as “professional historians” and then to wag your finger at it seems to me to be poor practice, and when you craft your message as you have, you target me.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 12:28 pm | Permalink
Michael Aubrecht wrote:
Point taken Brooks. I have included links to blog postings that support my own personal experiences on my original post. I invite you to read them. I will add that those readers who emailed their support w/ my post shared experiences of being snuffed at round tables and ignored when emailing or petitioning leads for sources by those in your field. They did name names and out of respect, I did not and will not reveal them. I will say that they are VERY familiar.
[Note: Mr. Aubrecht then criticized Kevin Levin in ways that left me uneasy about the ability of the internet to make claims, etc., about people that stick. If Mr. Aubrecht wants to repeat those claims on his own blog, that's fine. But the comments section here should not become a place where folks assail each other. I understand that it's an embittered relationship, but that contest needs to take place elsewhere. Thank you.]
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
Eric Wittenberg wrote:
Michael,
Honestly, I’m not sure I do agree with you here. I’ve certainly had my run-in’s with this issue over the years, but since I started my blog, it’s been my experience that the academic historians–Ken, Brooks, Ethan, Tom Clemens, and Mark G. come to mind immediately–are regular readers of what I have to say, and that I’ve had more regular and more productive dialogue with them than ever before as a consequence. Each has been unfailingly kind and each has been unfailingly encouraging of my work. That can only be a positive and productive thing.
My own opinion is that the gap is narrowing, not widening, and I, for one, am very pleased by that.
Eric
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
Kevin wrote:
Wow! You are right Brooks. This is about me. I am sorry about that.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Michael Aubrecht wrote:
I’m very glad that things have gone differently for you Eric. Perhaps my frustration and anger with an individual’s treatment of me and my work has spilled over into a ‘generalization’. I’ll be man enough to admit that. Perhaps I jumped on this post as it fit my thoughts at the time. Still, I think those who are familiar with the ‘abuse’ that I have taken over the years will understand where my frustration came from. Perhaps I have some growing up to do. Frankly, I’m starting to think that there is no place for emotion in blogging as this is exactly what happens. I just did an interview for a Christian pub in which I warn people about the dangers of posting their rants in cyberspace where they can come back and haunt you. Looks like I’m a bit of a hypocrite. And this is starting to get embarrassing for all of us involved going back and forth like a bunch of high school kids. I’ll keep the post up as it is – solely because it is generating discussion, but the personal attacks (including mine) serve no purpose. I’m done.
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Cash wrote:
Anti-intellectualism has been almost an American tradition–as Richard Hofstadter could tell you if he were alive today, but I really noticed what seemed to me to be an increase with Thomas DiLorenzo’s columns where he regularly denigrates professional historians. This was taken up by some other internet denizens, and we see the results.
Regards,
Cash
Posted on 02-Apr-08 at 11:53 pm | Permalink
Daniel Sauerwein wrote:
I have to say that I have had great experiences presenting research at a conference in front of professionals as well as CW round table folks. Michael, historians hold conferences to allow scholars and amateurs a chance to showcase their research. Conferences are a chance to asses the changes in scholarship. Historical research is always changing and evolving as new understandings and new sources come to light. I often seek a middle ground between the New History and the old, as I like the overly patriotic old-style history, as it makes me proud of my country, but I like the new because it shows that we are great, but we have flaws. In addition, the new history allows us to see new stories previously unheard of or ignored. Not all academic historians are like what you say, do not let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, as you do not want to burn a bridge that you may need to use to conduct research. This whole issue is a lesson in watching what we post, as it can come back at us.
Posted on 04-Apr-08 at 2:21 am | Permalink
Michael Aubrecht wrote:
Brooks, I would like to thank you for emailing and giving me an opportunity to provide some additional explanation behind the scenes, as well our friend Eric for bringing the two of us together. Consider this as an open apology to all of you teachers for my hastily framed post towards the wrong people for the wrong reasons. I also apologize to the guys here at Civil Warriors as I would never have believed that my rant would ignite an embarrassing series of comments and criticisms. I simply didn’t put that much thought into my post. And I should have.
Mostly, I want to publicly share my own humble and heartfelt explanation. Some will no doubt make fun at me for being overly-sensitive on the subject, but at this stage I don’t care as much about what people may think of me, as I do about what they think about my original message. Reading Brook’s comments and much of Kevin’s post, I get the feeling that everyone believes I was responding to what Brooks had actually said here about the conference he attended, when in fact, the ONLY words I read here were: “I’m in New York City right now, and tomorrow I’m part of a session to discuss the state of Civil War military history scholarship.”
I based my entire link to Civil Warriors on that SINGLE sentence. I never read any additional postings. I have no idea what the report said. Also, my use of the term “state of” and the part about other disciplines not holding conferences was also poorly written and not understood. My point was that I don’t think English teachers are holding seminars and saying, “Everything they taught about Shakespeare for the last 100 years was racist propaganda, let’s change it.” I know it’s a stretch, but I think historians sometimes appear overanxious at times to change things.
This whole mess started as I was having a discussion with some other ‘blue-collar’ history guys about negative experiences that we’ve had with academics. One guy got turned away at a seminar in Boston and that’s where this all came from. One sentence about attending a conference that caught my eye on Civil Warriors, my embittered relationship with Mr. Levine, and three whiney guys in a chatroom. The post was not intentionally directed to all teachers or even the ones here at Civil Warriors. My apologies to all.
Posted on 04-Apr-08 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
Brooks D. Simpson wrote:
Thanks much, Michael.
Posted on 04-Apr-08 at 7:15 pm | Permalink