Occupy History

[Sigaba]

sapperdaddy will do well at berkeley.

FWIW, I earned my B.A. at Cal.

In my experience, the faculty and students (both undergraduates and graduates) were able to discuss controversial issues from a variety of perspectives and with a little snark from time to time. (I once argued during an upper division seminar on the Cold War that Elmer Fudd and Dwight Eisenhower were actually the same person.)

[oseirus]

(I once argued during an upper division seminar on the Cold War that Elmer Fudd and Dwight Eisenhower were actually the same person.)

How DARE you sir (or) madam! To cast such aspersions on 2nd greatest president is an unmitigated insult of unheard proportions! Elmer Fudd is CLEARLY Nikita Khrushchev. Ike would've successfully hunted down that wascally wabbit because he was an American hero!

[Sigaba]

ALCON--

Rather than just voting oseirus down for post #23, why not also articulate why you disagree with his viewpoint?

[SapperDaddy]

sapperdaddy will do well at berkeley.

I subscribe to the APAB party platform. Remember, I've a veteran. The only thing a politician is good for is getting people killed and usually people who are way better than any politician.

[oseirus]

ALCON--

Rather than just voting oseirus down for post #23, why not also articulate why you disagree with his viewpoint?

I hope my post wasn't offensive. I generally try to take a mild approach in posting things on forums and message boards. I was merely trying to bring a different voice that I hadn't heard on here. If I said something inaccurate, unfactual or disrespectful, then I sincerely apologize.

[Sigaba]

I hope my post wasn't offensive. I generally try to take a mild approach in posting things on forums and message boards. I was merely trying to bring a different voice that I hadn't heard on here. If I said something inaccurate, unfactual or disrespectful, then I sincerely apologize.

Oseirus--

One of the many lessons you may learn as you progress through graduate school is that written words often impact readers, even those who are sympathetic, with greater weight than you may intend as a writer.

As you're a new member to this BB, you may not have had the opportunity to read previous discussions of the OWS movement (). Many of the posts in that thread and this one indicate that members of this BB have invested time, thought, energy, and effort into the OWSM. Because of these efforts, glib comments about it may not go over well in this environment.

Additionally, the philosophy of history that you present in your post is, as you will find out in years to come, highly controversial--if not anachronistic-- because it hinges on the concept of "objectivity" (see posts numbers 4-7, and 9-10 in this thread).

Moreover, your comments about "simplistic assessments," "lazy assessment," and what "accredited historians spew" are a bit off putting given the fact that you do not offer compelling arguments to support your assertions. Why is the OWS nothing like the revolutionary movements of the Arab Spring? Why don't the sensibilities of the OWS reflect a revolutionary frame of mind? If each revolution is "unique," then do established academics spend time comparing and contrasting a variety of events to determine if revolutions across time have similar features? How would history be better off if your sensibilities about the craft drove programming at the History Channel?

The point here is that if you're going to imply that participants in a discussion about history are offering views that are "simplistic" or "lazy" or that established academics are "spew[ing]" it is incumbent upon you to offer sustainable arguments that support your point of view. At the very least, you should know if what you say is "inaccurate, unfactual, or disrespectful." (That is, if you're going to talk trash to generate controversy, know that you're talking trash, be ready to back yourself up with evidence, and be prepared for what follows. )

[oseirus]

I was once told, "perception is reality" and if that is the case then let me do my best to change that. My main point in all of this is to say that historians shouldn't always treat similar events as always being germane, because it is a disservice to that event. The Arab Spring certainly has SOME similiarities to OWS, sure: mass popular uprisings over a frustrated political structure, however when you leave it at that, it detracts from the uniqueness of both cases. For example, in the Arab Spring, those countries were ruled by autocratic despots and didn't have much means to protest against the political structure. In the Arab Spring, there was the sense that it could potentially lead to armed conflict. Obviously there are stark differences between OWS & the Arab Spring, and therein lies my issue. To use a comparison as the main basis for a discussion does a disservice to whatever things you are comparing and that is why I used the term 'lazy'. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter, in my opinion because we are too focused on looking at the surface issues that match both cases. To me, the point of the historian is present the issue that has occurred, discuss all tangential issues and then finally incorporate a similar situation to highlight how things could have unfolded. To start off by discussing the similarities waters down your case because the average person isn't looking for nuance, they are looking for quick and easy sound bites. As a historian your duty is to get as much of the information out as possible, without having to make it fit into a neat, cookie cutter pattern. Comparing and contrasting is important, but it shouldn't be the first or the key step. Looking at the prime cause/s can also incorporate that but again I strongly believe there must be independent assessment done before you can get to the stage of matching and contrasting.

To say that objectivity is anachronistic (if I am reading you correctly) in my mind is not only wrong, but dangerous. Read the classics, where half of the stuff in there is idle gossip that can't be corroborated but is now treated as fact. Caligula slept with his sisters. Lucrezia Borgia not only committed incest but she participated in poisonings. Marie Antoinette said that the starving French masses should 'eat cake'. My view is that the historian HAS TO divorce themselves from what is occurring (or has occurred) and relate all things factually. If for example, you discover that the Donation of Constantine is a fake, you can't gloss over that fact if writing a seminal tract about the power of the papacy during the Middle Ages, it has to be an essential piece to the story. However, you can't also make it the ONLY part of the story. You as the historian have to strike that perfect balance of showing both sides fairly and objectively.

I know that SD wrote in one of the posts that we need to let some time pass before we make an assessment. In a way he is both right and wrong, if you look at my argument. The immediacy of what is happening can injure objectivity; try as you may, however, history never stops being made. So in that window of time, you can asses what has occurred and do your best to be objective, as difficult as it maybe. The need for later historians to look at that assessment is where the real need for objectivity lies because they not only have hindsight but they have those primary documents to utilize as a tool to distill what occurred and what those in the immediacy of the moment thought caused it to occur.

Finally, I want to apologize if my tone was off-putting or offending. I believe in debate and dialogue. I am sure there are those who vehemently disagree with all that I have written here and I can understand. I am in no way saying they are necessarily lazy or that their burden is lazy, in doing any kind of research. What I am simply trying to say is that there needs to be more digging and going beyond the accepted comfort zone that historical analysis and research resides in. I thank you for your time.

[oseirus]

P.S. I avoided any and all talk about the history channel because I just can't .... I can't do it ... it would not only cause me to convulse violently but it would derail the topic at hand here. Hope I can be forgiven?

[crazedandinfused]

Oseirus,

In my humble opinion your views could use some refinement and it might behoove you to digest what older members of this board, and more accomplished scholars than you and I, have to say about methodology. While it is undoubtedly frustrating to see flippant and thoughtless comparisons made between historical and current events, there is a definite utility to trying to understand the present through the events of the past (after all, isn't the goal of historical study a better understanding of where we are today?). Working in the other direction, it is nearly impossible for the historian, or for any scholar, to fully remove themselves from their contemporary intellectual context in attempting to understand the past. Many times this undoubtedly leads to bias, but I think that some of the sentiment against quixotic quests for objectivity comes from the observation that when many scholars try to wiggle their way out of their own biases they unwittingly introduce even more bias and more anachronism because they use their own constructions of "objectivity" to decide what to leave in and what to leave out. In a weird way, trying to run away from bias is the most biased thing one could do. I think that there is a widely held and eminently justified feeling that it is better to try to acknowledge one's own personal bias and let the reader make of your scholarship what he/she may. Regardless of whether or not any of what I just said makes sense, I think that you should really take into account what others have to say and maybe relax some of your own positions. That is the number one duty of any scholar.

Oh, if I don't get in anywhere i would really like to become one of those melodramatic reenactors on the History Channel. I would love to wave a broad-ax and burn down Potemkin Villages for a living.

Edited January 18, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

I was once told, "perception is reality" and if that is the case then let me do my best to change that. My main point in all of this is to say that historians shouldn't always treat similar events as always being germane, because it is a disservice to that event. The Arab Spring certainly has SOME similiarities to OWS, sure: mass popular uprisings over a frustrated political structure, however when you leave it at that, it detracts from the uniqueness of both cases. For example, in the Arab Spring, those countries were ruled by autocratic despots and didn't have much means to protest against the political structure. In the Arab Spring, there was the sense that it could potentially lead to armed conflict. Obviously there are stark differences between OWS & the Arab Spring, and therein lies my issue. To use a comparison as the main basis for a discussion does a disservice to whatever things you are comparing and that is why I used the term 'lazy'. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter, in my opinion because we are too focused on looking at the surface issues that match both cases. To me, the point of the historian is present the issue that has occurred, discuss all tangential issues and then finally incorporate a similar situation to highlight how things could have unfolded. To start off by discussing the similarities waters down your case because the average person isn't looking for nuance, they are looking for quick and easy sound bites. As a historian your duty is to get as much of the information out as possible, without having to make it fit into a neat, cookie cutter pattern. Comparing and contrasting is important, but it shouldn't be the first or the key step. Looking at the prime cause/s can also incorporate that but again I strongly believe there must be independent assessment done before you can get to the stage of matching and contrasting.

While I have very much enjoyed the discussion of subjectivity vs. objectivity in historical study, I'll try to move the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Let's talk about comparing and contrasting. I see your point regarding the dissimilarities between OWS and the Arab Spring. If we as scholars go too far in our attempts to frame these two (disparate, in this formulation) movements as a singular entity--as, say, early symptoms of an inchoate global revolution--we risk de-historicizing them by ignoring the unique circumstances and histories that gave birth to and propelled them. These specific (usually national) histories are worth understanding.

That is not to say, however, that we cannot gain anything from comparing and contrasting OWS and the Arab Spring. Indeed, as the historian John Lewis Gaddis says, "surely understanding implies comparison: to comprehend something is to see it in relation to other entities of the same class [that may] . . . stretch over spans of time and space that exceed the physical capabilities of the individual observer" (The Landscape of History, 24-25). If we fail to probe the similarities between OWS and the Arab Spring, we risk missing the bigger picture. And while these similarities can sometimes be superficial, as you claim, many significant ones lie not on the surface but deep beneath it. To use one example, Jeremi Suri has a wonderful book in which he reframes superpower detente as a reaction to the protest movements in the US, France, FRG, USSR, and PRC that can be summed up under the banner "1968." Even so, Suri has been criticized for leaving out important protest movements in Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Argentina, India, Pakistan, and more. Why should we not search for commonalities among the origins and trajectories of these protest movements (or between 1968 and 2011, for that matter)?

Then we've come full circle, or close to it. If there are both national and transnational elements to any history, and if our goal is a fuller understanding of the past, why should we establish the primacy of one perspective? (By no means to I intend to limit the scope of this discussion to these two perspectives--national and transnational. They are convenient because they are relevant and easily juxtaposed.) If an amalgamation of historically sound perspectives gives us the fullest and most nuanced knowledge of the past, then subjectivity reigns.

[crazedandinfused]

While I have very much enjoyed the discussion of subjectivity vs. objectivity in historical study, I'll try to move the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Let's talk about comparing and contrasting. I see your point regarding the dissimilarities between OWS and the Arab Spring. If we as scholars go too far in our attempts to frame these two (disparate, in this formulation) movements as a singular entity--as, say, early symptoms of an inchoate global revolution--we risk de-historicizing them by ignoring the unique circumstances and histories that gave birth to and propelled them. These specific (usually national) histories are worth understanding.

That is not to say, however, that we cannot gain anything from comparing and contrasting OWS and the Arab Spring. Indeed, as the historian John Lewis Gaddis says, "surely understanding implies comparison: to comprehend something is to see it in relation to other entities of the same class [that may] . . . stretch over spans of time and space that exceed the physical capabilities of the individual observer" (The Landscape of History, 24-25). If we fail to probe the similarities between OWS and the Arab Spring, we risk missing the bigger picture. And while these similarities can sometimes be superficial, as you claim, many significant ones lie not on the surface but deep beneath it. To use one example, Jeremi Suri has a wonderful book in which he reframes superpower detente as a reaction to the protest movements in the US, France, FRG, USSR, and PRC that can be summed up under the banner "1968." Even so, Suri has been criticized for leaving out important protest movements in Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Argentina, India, Pakistan, and more. Why should we not search for commonalities among the origins and trajectories of these protest movements (or between 1968 and 2011, for that matter)?

Then we've come full circle, or close to it. If there are both national and transnational elements to any history, and if our goal is a fuller understanding of the past, why should we establish the primacy of one perspective? (By no means to I intend to limit the scope of this discussion to these two perspectives--national and transnational. They are convenient because they are relevant and easily juxtaposed.) If an amalgamation of historically sound perspectives gives us the fullest and most nuanced knowledge of the past, then subjectivity reigns.

Very well said. Comparative analysis need not entail packaging disparate events into a "singular entity." Without getting into a nitpicking discussion over the difference between comparison and juxtaposition, I think that there are very tangible benefits to understanding the relational differences and similarities of the object of inquiry. Comparing race relations in Brazil with race relations in the US gives us not only a more in depth understanding of the subtleties and nuances of each country's system of categorization, but can bring to light broader historical and sociological mechanisms and tendencies which have the ability to enrich our understanding of the history of race in general. Obviously, in order to do such a comparison one must have a working understanding of each object which is to be compared with another, but trying to understand race relations in the United States (for the sake of my example) without understanding the history of Atlantic slavery (of which Brazil is a huge part) is well nigh impossible. In order to build the foundation for comparison the historian needs to be mired in relational inquiry. From the transnational we can build the national, and then go back and continue the inquiry on a truly inclusively transnational and comparative basis. I'm afraid that the desire to understand historical events "on their own terms", while undoubtedly important in the sense that one should not carelessly import from one context to another, has the potential to be a misleading trope with very little meaning beyond its linguistic allure.

Edited January 18, 2012 by crazedandinfused

[oseirus]

While I have very much enjoyed the discussion of subjectivity vs. objectivity in historical study, I'll try to move the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Let's talk about comparing and contrasting. I see your point regarding the dissimilarities between OWS and the Arab Spring. If we as scholars go too far in our attempts to frame these two (disparate, in this formulation) movements as a singular entity--as, say, early symptoms of an inchoate global revolution--we risk de-historicizing them by ignoring the unique circumstances and histories that gave birth to and propelled them. These specific (usually national) histories are worth understanding.

That is not to say, however, that we cannot gain anything from comparing and contrasting OWS and the Arab Spring. Indeed, as the historian John Lewis Gaddis says, "surely understanding implies comparison: to comprehend something is to see it in relation to other entities of the same class [that may] . . . stretch over spans of time and space that exceed the physical capabilities of the individual observer" (The Landscape of History, 24-25). If we fail to probe the similarities between OWS and the Arab Spring, we risk missing the bigger picture. And while these similarities can sometimes be superficial, as you claim, many significant ones lie not on the surface but deep beneath it. To use one example, Jeremi Suri has a wonderful book in which he reframes superpower detente as a reaction to the protest movements in the US, France, FRG, USSR, and PRC that can be summed up under the banner "1968." Even so, Suri has been criticized for leaving out important protest movements in Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Argentina, India, Pakistan, and more. Why should we not search for commonalities among the origins and trajectories of these protest movements (or between 1968 and 2011, for that matter)?

Then we've come full circle, or close to it. If there are both national and transnational elements to any history, and if our goal is a fuller understanding of the past, why should we establish the primacy of one perspective? (By no means to I intend to limit the scope of this discussion to these two perspectives--national and transnational. They are convenient because they are relevant and easily juxtaposed.) If an amalgamation of historically sound perspectives gives us the fullest and most nuanced knowledge of the past, then subjectivity reigns.

In essence this here is the challenge that a historian faces and the need to be sensitive to all these issues I feel creates an interesting topic of discussion for not just OWS but the overall direction of how history should be studied.

[StrangeLight]

FWIW, I earned my B.A. at Cal.

In my experience, the faculty and students (both undergraduates and graduates) were able to discuss controversial issues from a variety of perspectives and with a little snark from time to time. (I once argued during an upper division seminar on the Cold War that Elmer Fudd and Dwight Eisenhower were actually the same person.)

that's not what i was implying.

i gotta say, if i read someone's SOP and it was full of assertions that history can be objective (or that journalism can be objective, or that "slant" is something that can be turned off or on) i would throw that application in the trash. "objectivity" is simply reinforcing the status quo, and doing so is absolutely a politically biased choice. "center" is very much a political position, just like "left" and "right" are. to claim to offer the "true" history, consisting "only" of facts (which facts? whose facts? choosing what to exclude is as political and subjective as what you put in) is an incredibly dangerous perspective because it keeps a historian ignorant of his or her own biases.

so, someone arguing long and hard about doing history the "proper" way by presenting only facts and making centrist/status quo arguments would (probably?) be a big turn-off at schools like berkeley or michigan or texas.

Edited January 21, 2012 by StrangeLight

[SapperDaddy]

What I really hate about the OWS movement is the narcissism. They do not represent the 99% of America. They are not looking out for my interests. And what really bothers me is that any time you question them, they act like you are either an idiot or committing treason just for questioning them.

[oseirus]

that's not what i was implying.

i gotta say, if i read someone's SOP and it was full of assertions that history can be objective (or that journalism can be objective, or that "slant" is something that can be turned off or on) i would throw that application in the trash. "objectivity" is simply reinforcing the status quo, and doing so is absolutely a politically biased choice. "center" is very much a political position, just like "left" and "right" are. to claim to offer the "true" history, consisting "only" of facts (which facts? whose facts? choosing what to exclude is as political and subjective as what you put in) is an incredibly dangerous perspective because it keeps a historian ignorant of his or her own biases.

so, someone arguing long and hard about doing history the "proper" way by presenting only facts and making centrist/status quo arguments would (probably?) be a big turn-off at schools like berkeley or michigan or texas.

Let me clarify by what I mean when I say the right way, I mean the need to not selectively editing research to fit a model you have already preconceived. You have to go in blind, no matter what you already know (or think you know). I concede that human emotions will always crop up, no matter how much you try to push them back, this doesn't mean we are to indulge them.

Objectivity ISN'T reinforcing the status quo. The purpose of objectivity is to look at an issue w/no prejudice and present the issue clearly, with all available evidence that supports the case. When I hear objectivity, I expect to hear both sides, but that doesn't mean I expect it to be slant free. You can choose to be an advocate for one issue and still be objective by acknowledging what critics may have said about the issue. This leaves the reader the choice to either support your argument in totality or for them to do further investigations IF they feel narrative is incomplete.

[oseirus]

What I really hate about the OWS movement is the narcissism. They do not represent the 99% of America. They are not looking out for my interests. And what really bothers me is that any time you question them, they act like you are either an idiot or committing treason just for questioning them.

I have a feeling some people get going to get upset at this comment

[superfluousflo]

It just doesn't strike me as pertinent to the original intent of this thread. Not that I'm trying to police how people use the forum.

Edited January 22, 2012 by superfluousflo

[barricades]

Let me clarify by what I mean when I say the right way, I mean the need to not selectively editing research to fit a model you have already preconceived. You have to go in blind, no matter what you already know (or think you know). I concede that human emotions will always crop up, no matter how much you try to push them back, this doesn't mean we are to indulge them.

Objectivity ISN'T reinforcing the status quo. The purpose of objectivity is to look at an issue w/no prejudice and present the issue clearly, with all available evidence that supports the case. When I hear objectivity, I expect to hear both sides, but that doesn't mean I expect it to be slant free. You can choose to be an advocate for one issue and still be objective by acknowledging what critics may have said about the issue. This leaves the reader the choice to either support your argument in totality or for them to do further investigations IF they feel narrative is incomplete.

I'd recommend you to read Novick's That Noble Dream, if you haven't. It's a very thorough analysis of the idea of objectivity within the american historical tradition.

[Riotbeard]

Let me clarify by what I mean when I say the right way, I mean the need to not selectively editing research to fit a model you have already preconceived. You have to go in blind, no matter what you already know (or think you know). I concede that human emotions will always crop up, no matter how much you try to push them back, this doesn't mean we are to indulge them.

Objectivity ISN'T reinforcing the status quo. The purpose of objectivity is to look at an issue w/no prejudice and present the issue clearly, with all available evidence that supports the case. When I hear objectivity, I expect to hear both sides, but that doesn't mean I expect it to be slant free. You can choose to be an advocate for one issue and still be objective by acknowledging what critics may have said about the issue. This leaves the reader the choice to either support your argument in totality or for them to do further investigations IF they feel narrative is incomplete.

I think every professional or apprenticing historian can agree that intentional manipulating of facts is bad history, but that is a different issue from objectivity vs. subjectivity. Objectivity implies being able to shut off one's ideology which is pretty much impossible, because subconscious narrative formation and arrangments of "fact" will inevitably intrude. Likewise, showing "both" sides of the argument implies as does mainstream american political discourse, that political ideologies can be simplistically reduced to left and right, republican and democrat, the list goes on. Moreover true "objectivity" is impossible due to the various constraints on historians based on choices outside of their control. What sources are still extant, to what degree was a society literate, who read the sources that do exist, which sources do I consult or are the sources compelling? The sheer amount of voices lost due illiteracy, destruction of sources by either natural or human agents, means that every historians start with a reletively random array of facts or a group of facts that derive from one specific group. Therefore, narrative creation is an essential part of history, and historical narratives are inevitably inventions of historians, even if we attempt to be unbiased. My view is that the best way is to attempt to state one's own ideoligical concerns and methodoligical influences from the outset and then right the story. As far as Occupy Wall st. is concerned, I will paraphrase E. P. Thompson in the Making of the English Working Class, they have confused democracy as an end instead of a means. Sorry for any typos, missing words, etc. but I don't have time to proofread

[oseirus]

I think every professional or apprenticing historian can agree that intentional manipulating of facts is bad history, but that is a different issue from objectivity vs. subjectivity. Objectivity implies being able to shut off one's ideology which is pretty much impossible, because subconscious narrative formation and arrangments of "fact" will inevitably intrude. Likewise, showing "both" sides of the argument implies as does mainstream american political discourse, that political ideologies can be simplistically reduced to left and right, republican and democrat, the list goes on. Moreover true "objectivity" is impossible due to the various constraints on historians based on choices outside of their control. What sources are still extant, to what degree was a society literate, who read the sources that do exist, which sources do I consult or are the sources compelling? The sheer amount of voices lost due illiteracy, destruction of sources by either natural or human agents, means that every historians start with a reletively random array of facts or a group of facts that derive from one specific group. Therefore, narrative creation is an essential part of history, and historical narratives are inevitably inventions of historians, even if we attempt to be unbiased. My view is that the best way is to attempt to state one's own ideoligical concerns and methodoligical influences from the outset and then right the story. As far as Occupy Wall st. is concerned, I will paraphrase E. P. Thompson in the Making of the English Working Class, they have confused democracy as an end instead of a means. Sorry for any typos, missing words, etc. but I don't have time to proofread

On that point, as far as the subconscious narrative is concerned, I will concede but with a caveat. I do think even those with a prejudice can limit it (their prejudices) in a scope so as not to be overtly advocating one particular position. The subtext is then open left to the interpretation of the individual reader.