Yesterday this retired old guy historian (old white guy) came to visit us. He just won a big prestigious award for his book. He gave a talk about writing the book.
He said the following.
"I wanted this book to be inclusive. I wanted to include the old, traditional history, because it is still valuable. And I also wanted to include the newer types of history that many historians are working on."
Me silently thinking: Oh, OK. Well, at least you are including the new stuff.
He elaborated:
"I wanted to include traditional history--political, diplomatic, and military history..."
Me thinking: Oh, good. Now I know what those are.
Old guy: "And I wanted to include the new history--"
Me thinking, as you probably are: hmm, how will I feel when he categorizes women's history as "a newfangled kind of history that he wanted to include," will I feel OK about that? Or patronized?
Old guy: "The new kinds of history: cultural, social, and economic history."
Me: panicking.
Note: Social history was "new" in 1970.
6 comments:
Hmmm, let me guess. Princeton?
Do you think of cultural history as "new"?
I voted in the poll.
Thanks.
If cultural history was new there might be some job ads for it.
Isn't "modern" art, like, everything since the turn of the 20th century? Like from 1901 onward or something ridiculous. I believe "modern" poetry is no more recent than say World War II, or perhaps the inter-war period at the earliest.
I think, when you're talking about history especially, "new" has to be taken with some industrial grade salt.
Post a Comment