For the past couple of decades now, many in the world of academic history have shunned the study of what left wing professors call "dead white men." Instead they try to seek historical truths by looking at the lives of the masses. Peasants count more than kings, servants more than presidents.
In some fields, they are called "structuralists." They study patterns of large segments of people. "Intentionalists" adhere to the more traditional studies of history, emphasizing the effects of leaders and innovators. They believe that the actions of some men and women resonate more than others. George Washington had more impact than a Continental Army private in their eyes.
Predictably, left wingers embrace structuralism and blast the idea that "dead white men" had any importance at all (of course Elizabeth I of Britain and Catherine the Great of Russia are among these figures.)
My question to left wingers is this: if leaders had no effect on the past, if history was shaped entirely by commoners, then why get so bent out of shape over George W. Bush or treat Obama like some kind of messiah? After all if George Washington or Winston Churchill were not worthy of study because masses make history, why was Bush such a demon?
And just think of how much better off we'd have been if the country were founded by "wise Latina women" who according to Obama's choice for Supreme Court, have naturally better decision making skills than any white men.
No comments:
Post a Comment