YoungQ

kotov - just because you do not like my discipline or my opinions does not mean I am too inflexible or uneducated. Again, two of my four undergraduate majors are interdisciplinary and I am familiar with other disciplines. However, at the end of the day, different disciplines exist for different reasons. If everyone thought all disciplines were equal there would not be different disciplines (and there is a sect of scholars out there that hate that there are various disciplines, but they are a fringe group that few take seriously). I have never said that I will never review the scholarship of other disciplines, but that does not mean I will weigh it with the same value or praise it as if the other discipline's standards as are good as History's (perhaps you are not familiar with the Sokal Affair? have you not read Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand? - for example). Every non-interdisciplinary scholar I have spoken with agrees with my opinion on that. With all due respect, I would argue that you are in the minority, not me. You seem to forget that the entire fields of Middle Eastern History and Middle Eastern Studies have been dealing with these questions very difficulty over the last few decades and there is not a consensus on this matter, just like there is not a consensus on many, many, many things in Middle East scholarship (such as Bernard Lewis vs. Edward Said, whether the Armenian Genocide was a genocide, who is indigenous to Modern Israel, and so on). So, I will of course read publications like the Journal of the Middle East & Africa and see what non-Historians have to say about the Middle East, but if you are going to insist that I abandon the discipline of History because criticizing other scholars "offends" them, then you are going too far and arguably against the Western academic tradition. As for language training, I appreciate your recommendation. I have being doing summers with Middlebury College and find that they teach foreign languages better than any other university I have ever studied at. I would also recommend them to everyone else out there who needs to improve their language skills.

TMP - perhaps you are right, but I feel like I already have a strong background in other disciplines (2 of my 4 undergraduate majors are interdisciplinary). However, the advantage of an interdisciplinary MA would be that I can catch up on my language skills while also studying History, and that is my goal after all...

Oh yes, because being objective surely is an evil oppressive concept. By the way - most historians I have spoken with agree with me. I would argue that you are in the minority, not me. I mean - I agree that many people claim to be objective and are not, but that doesn't mean that the basic idea of objectivity is bad.

Another thing I forgot - Khalidi is a professor of Arab Studies, even though he also serves in the History Department. Therefore, he is hardly a typical historian.

And one more thing to boomah - I would contest the idea that Khalidi is a widely admired historian. He is widely admired within a certain group, yes, but there are also many people who are extremely critical of him.

telkanuru - perhaps you should read some of the recent posts. One of the posters literally said they were offended by my negative view of other disciplines. There is nothing stupid in negatively viewing other disciplines. If, for instance, I said I hate Political Science (btw - I don't hate Poli Sci) because Political Scientists do a, b, and c yet they do none of those things, then that would show that I have no idea what I am talking about. However, that is simply not the case. Rather, you are literally just attacking someone for having a different view from you. It's that plain and simple. You are intolerant of those favoring traditional academic methodologies. Period.

boomah - you are absolutely correct in assuming that those people are not all historians, although they are common reading materials in History courses. Therefore, I do think mentioning them is important. Likewise, they are all extremely motivated by politics and used in History courses, so that is my issue with them. About Khalidi - my problem with him is that he's not motivated by traditional scholarly commitment to the truth, but is rather motivated by politics. The whole point of academia is to seek the truth without personal prejudices. If politics is your thing, then you can run for President of the United States, be an aid worker for the UN, or work for Fox News. And about Morris - he is extremely objective and a fan of traditional academia. His main argument is all about how early Israeli historians were not practicing proper scholarship when writing about the early history of Israel.

Hi boomah - thanks for your thoughts. I am very well aware of which places are great for the MA in Middle Eastern Studies, but I'm not a big fan of interdisciplinary subjects. I like traditional history and want to be a Historian, not study things like Political Science, Arab Studies, or Jewish Studies.

It's good that we can at least agree on something

How mature of you all. Well, get over it. I'm not going to change my opinion or omit facts because they "offend" you. That's completely contrary to the spirit of academia.

There's something I forgot to add and that is about why exactly History is supposed to be objective. The main reason that research should be objective - other than the fact that subjectivity pollutes facts and causes false information to spread - is the fact that there are so many other avenues out there for those who want to be political pundits. I am not attacking everyone who wants to distort reality to support a political agenda. After all, all societies need politicians to run them. However, if you want to dabble in politics and not strive for the objective truth in everything you do then you can go into politics, become a journalist, or write a novel. You could join a military, become a celebrity, or get a job as a human rights worker. All of those things are fine and in those professions you can forgot objectivity all you want. I am not calling for everyone to leave those jobs and just start working in universities. Nevertheless, the whole point of academia is that it's supposed to be different (and I will even say, better) at understanding things than the rest of society. That's the whole point of the "elitist Ivory tower."

stillalivetui - they are not serious in the sense that they are not as committed to objective analysis as most Historians are. ashiepoo72 - you are correct in saying that a scholar can be both interdisciplinary and also objective. I completely agree and I believe that the famous Bernard Lewis is a great example of that (he now works in an interdisciplinary department). However, it is much harder to be both interdisciplinary and objective and when you stick to traditional academic approaches it is much easier to be objective.

To the last couple of posters: You all need to chill out. I have said nothing new on this thread and was merely regurgitating what some others have said here and been attacked for saying. You say you support the "opening" and "liberalizing" of out-dated History but sure seem intolerant of those with different ideas. When I say that a lot of pseudo-academic nonsense is getting taken seriously as scholarship what I am referring to is how a bunch of neo-extremists try to use the History discipline to further their political goals and do not use rigorous academic standards when doing so. For instance, I study the Modern Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Jewish-Muslim relations. In this area, we have radical leftists like Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Lila Abu-Lughod, and Joseph Massad who attempt to distort history to attack the West and promote Palestinian political aspirations. At the same time, we have radical fascists like Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'or who attempt to demonize the Islamic world to excuse the crimes of the West. It is the more traditional scholars - like Norman Stillman and Benny Moris - who come to these debates with more objective and moderated views that actually contribute to our knowledge on these subjects. To those who want to study "cultural studies" and embrace "post-modernism" as "sociologists" and "interdisciplinary scholars" - that's fine - you do that. However, History is supposed to be a serious academic discipline where research is supposed to be based on actual facts and objectivity and not "feelings" and "emotions." If you want to "study" in such a manner, there are many other disciplines out there for you. If you actually want to do research, then History is for you.

I study the History of the Modern Middle East with a focus on the Arab/ Israeli conflict. I came to be interested in the Middle East because I truly believe it is the most important part of the world to understand and that the region's history affects everyone in the world, regardless of who they are or where they live. I came to be interested in the Arab/ Israeli conflict because I noticed much of the research on the topic is politically-motivated and therefore pseudo-academic. My goal is to research the topic and provide insights without being influenced by religion or politics.

To the OP - yes, History is being diluted with radical post-modernist interdisciplinary nonsense. It truly is awful. This does not mean I hate new ways of thinking and new approaches to things, but at a certain point History is not really History anymore... :/