Last month I unhesitatingly promoted a review essay of mine at USIH. In that essay, as well as my prior work here on transnationalism (particularly in November 2008 and the January just past), I cited OAH and AHA work on the topic. Sadly, however, I overlooked this Perspectives on History piece from December 2008. But it's not just the article; it's the content. So my situation gets worse.
Perspectives detailed the work of a summer institute on transnational topics for college teachers held in 2008. The article also noted that a 2005 institute gathering predated the one last summer. The Perspectives essay publicized, furthermore, a 2008 publication edited by Peter Stearns and Noralee Frankel, titled "Globalizing American History: The AHA Guide to Re-Imagining the U.S. Survey Course." Through the link you can purchase the 128-page pamphlet for $15. [FYI: Rob Townsend of the AHA informed me that a key part of the pamphlet is at this link.]
Prior to a few weeks ago I was ignorant of the AHA pamphlet, and therefore neglected it in my Councilor review. This is irritating---and humbling. I aimed for comprehensiveness in my write-up, at least from the late 1990s going forward. But somehow I missed a publication from one of the largest historical societies in the United States. Yep. Since the AHA pamphlet addresses teaching, it likely changes my perspective on the place of America on the World Stage (AWS) in the literature on transnationalism.
I haven't yet seen the AHA publication. But if it incorporates more practical advice on teaching, then it provides a concrete alternative to AWS---an alternative I explicitly called for in The Councilor review. The pamphlet might also indicate a deeper penetration of transnationalism into secondary education than I might have imagined.
The Perspectives article also enlarges the cast of characters cited in my review. I claimed that Thomas Bender was a kind of de facto leader of the transnational turn. He is still clearly important, but now I must recommend that interested parties explore the AHA conferees to sift who played key roles in the two institutes. It appears, on the surface, that Carl Guarneri and John Gillis are more prominent than I realized. This makes sense as Guarneri was mentioned in the endnotes of a few of the AWS essays.
In sum, I'm ashamed. I'll have to read the AHA pamphlet to discern whether its contents change my interpretation of the transnational turn, my prescriptions for future endeavors, or both. In the meantime, don't take my word for it. It appears I've done what every historian fears: cemented my ignorance in print. - TL
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tim's Light Reading (5/15/09)
1. Writing Tips from Scott Eric Kaufman---How many times do professed intellectual historians direct your attention to graphics that involve a hamburger? For the record, I generally agree with Ahistoricality when he/she comments that, with regard to history, the evidence needs to outweigh the analysis. Furthermore, as a adopted Chicagoan, my evidential burger condiments generally exclude ketchup (and I do like dijon).
2. Issues in Borderline Slavery Denial at Civil War Memory---I concede that my comments on this post are akin to killing a fly with a hammer: I propose a theoretical solution that overreaches the current problem. But I do genuinely wonder if memories of the American Civil War are, at times, being pushed by extreme revisionists into a denial of slavery. Is there a need for some kind of mild law against denying our own holocaust?
3. Is David Brooks Avoiding Politics by Rethinking the Intellectual Life? (here and here)---Mr. Brooks is known, among some, for his intelligent and reasonably moderate conservatism. His commentary on PBS last fall, during the presidential campaign party conventions, compelled a grudging admiration for his sense of perspective. But I wonder, in light of the current political scene, if he is sort of retreating into the intellectual life? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind. I'm finding the intellectual Brooks more interesting than the political one. And perhaps I don't know his biography well enough; he may have been this way all along?
But on the links provided, the first, on the notion of genius, contains important elements of consideration for all aspiring and working intellectual historians. In particular I appreciated Brooks' citation of Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code and Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated. Both works correspond with an ongoing theory I've held about how one becomes an intellectual with regard to whatever topic is at hand (assuming that multiple intelligences theories hold): superior ability doesn't always manifest itself clearly for evaluators of youth talent, but drive and discipline that correspond with an strong internal vision can sometimes be detected, and would be equally valuable to evaluators. With that, taking a more working, or developmental, view of "genius" would have no small consequences for how history departments, for instance, ought to select applicants. And since the brightest of our faculties in history are encouraged, for the most part, to develop their own genius to its fullest (i.e. research and publish) rather than train those under them, it seems likely that next generation of history "geniuses" is likely to come from hands-on, teaching-type doctoral departments. In other words, those that don't overly emphasize research.
The second Brooks piece looks at the Harvard College "Grant Study." Here he is underscoring Joshua Wolf Shank's June 2009 Atlantic article. That piece is about the pursuit and causes of happiness, but it's also an object lesson in the caprices of intelligence. It highlights something emphasized by Barzun in House of Intellect: namely, that pursuing the intellectual life has only a moderate correlation with intelligence (circling back to the Coyle/Colvin thesis above, reflecting a consistent thread in Brooks' reading list). And of course all historians should keep these two conclusions from Brooks in mind:
a. "It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear."
b. "There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute."
- TL
2. Issues in Borderline Slavery Denial at Civil War Memory---I concede that my comments on this post are akin to killing a fly with a hammer: I propose a theoretical solution that overreaches the current problem. But I do genuinely wonder if memories of the American Civil War are, at times, being pushed by extreme revisionists into a denial of slavery. Is there a need for some kind of mild law against denying our own holocaust?
3. Is David Brooks Avoiding Politics by Rethinking the Intellectual Life? (here and here)---Mr. Brooks is known, among some, for his intelligent and reasonably moderate conservatism. His commentary on PBS last fall, during the presidential campaign party conventions, compelled a grudging admiration for his sense of perspective. But I wonder, in light of the current political scene, if he is sort of retreating into the intellectual life? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind. I'm finding the intellectual Brooks more interesting than the political one. And perhaps I don't know his biography well enough; he may have been this way all along?
But on the links provided, the first, on the notion of genius, contains important elements of consideration for all aspiring and working intellectual historians. In particular I appreciated Brooks' citation of Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code and Geoff Colvin's Talent Is Overrated. Both works correspond with an ongoing theory I've held about how one becomes an intellectual with regard to whatever topic is at hand (assuming that multiple intelligences theories hold): superior ability doesn't always manifest itself clearly for evaluators of youth talent, but drive and discipline that correspond with an strong internal vision can sometimes be detected, and would be equally valuable to evaluators. With that, taking a more working, or developmental, view of "genius" would have no small consequences for how history departments, for instance, ought to select applicants. And since the brightest of our faculties in history are encouraged, for the most part, to develop their own genius to its fullest (i.e. research and publish) rather than train those under them, it seems likely that next generation of history "geniuses" is likely to come from hands-on, teaching-type doctoral departments. In other words, those that don't overly emphasize research.
The second Brooks piece looks at the Harvard College "Grant Study." Here he is underscoring Joshua Wolf Shank's June 2009 Atlantic article. That piece is about the pursuit and causes of happiness, but it's also an object lesson in the caprices of intelligence. It highlights something emphasized by Barzun in House of Intellect: namely, that pursuing the intellectual life has only a moderate correlation with intelligence (circling back to the Coyle/Colvin thesis above, reflecting a consistent thread in Brooks' reading list). And of course all historians should keep these two conclusions from Brooks in mind:
a. "It is as if we all contain a multitude of characters and patterns of behavior, and these characters and patterns are bidden by cues we don’t even hear."
b. "There is a complexity to human affairs before which science and analysis simply stands mute."
- TL
Sunday, May 10, 2009
"Richard Halloran: Owns Home Computer"
Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times mentions, in passing, a YouTube video entitled "1981 Primitive Internet Report on KRON," in which San Francisco's Channel 4 news announced that the San Francisco Chronicle and its then-jointly operated (and now defunct) semi-rival the San Francisco Examiner had started a service that allowed computer owners with modems to download text copies of the morning paper (download time: 2 hrs).
Here's the report:
It really is a fascinating historical document that nicely shows the technological and cultural distance we've traveled in a little over a quarter century. My favorite moment: the chyron that identifies one speaker as:
Richard Halloran
Owns Home Computer
Here's the report:
It really is a fascinating historical document that nicely shows the technological and cultural distance we've traveled in a little over a quarter century. My favorite moment: the chyron that identifies one speaker as:
Richard Halloran
Owns Home Computer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)