The White Guilt Thread

[seu2002]

HBCU, u pick on mobell too much.   

[J D]

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

[One Step Ahead]

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

Frankly I find that historians claim to agonize while they clearly perpetuate panegyric and polemic histories.  In my opinion a pure history is an ideal that will never be attained, if we work from that premise, ultimately I think we come closer to creating a historical body in allowing different narratives to come into play.

[HBCU.EDU]

HBCU, u pick on mobell too much.   

What are you gonna do about it SEU? Get RBG? I don't think so. Mob is an easy target because she is soft.....liberal...and sappy. I never liked her anyway. I'm going to smash her back to Yale. I'm going to smash everyone on this board in fact. I need to get use to verbally bashing people. I like to hurt feelings and get PMs like "why did you talk to me that way?" I'm better than everyone on this board. I'm better than you SEU. Get me a soda.   

[swordfish]

This thread has gotten off topic again, it was supposed to be about me.  I'm white, it's all about the white man for cryin' out loud.

[One Step Ahead]

HBCU--

you know all these personality changes are 'getting so tired, it's narcoleptic.'  we said be yourself, not an angry, bitter, #%@! face.  @#!* your soda.  Get back to us when you are ready to be real.

[blk_reign]

u aren't better than I am...

HBCU, u pick on mobell too much.   

What are you gonna do about it SEU? Get RBG? I don't think so. Mob is an easy target because she is soft.....liberal...and sappy. I never liked her anyway. I'm going to smash her back to Yale. I'm going to smash everyone on this board in fact. I need to get use to verbally bashing people. I like to hurt feelings and get PMs like "why did you talk to me that way?" I'm better than everyone on this board. I'm better than you SEU. Get me a soda.   

[J D]

JD good points and we are in agreement for the second paragraph.  I would like to come back to the question of normative analysis that you mentioned in your first paragraph.  I agree with you that there will always be a fair degree of normativity in our thoughts, but I don't think trying to purge those ideas is the role of the historian or social scientist.  In fact I would argue on the contrary that such normative aspects are the foundation of such scholarship, that the personal vision colors the perspective to an extent that it becomes the heart of the discipline.  Empirical evidence certainly lends the process more scientifically credible, but in choosing which statics have value we are inherently making normative judgments.

I agree that we cannot purge our analysis of all normativity.  One will always be intorducing a certain set of biases and assumptions into one's analysis and discussion.  You may want to get rid of some (because they're unreasonable or unwarranted), others not (becuase they're reasonable, or in some cases, because without those assumpions or biases you can't accomplish anything), but in any event you should be AWARE that you ARE introducing those biases and assumptions.  This is why historians, in my experience, agonize so much over how to call things, or how to periodize things, etc.  You can't purge all the normativity out; you have to be ware of what of it remains.  However, I don't think we should go so far as outright embracing normativity in all its aspects, because that usually leads to the production of panegyric and polemic rather than history.  That's what mostly concerns me here.

Frankly I find that historians claim to agonize while they clearly perpetuate panegyric and polemic histories.  In my opinion a pure history is an ideal that will never be attained, if we work from that premise, ultimately I think we come closer to creating a historical body in allowing different narratives to come into play.

True to some extent.  But I think (hope?) that it's more true in fields like bigraphy.  At lteast the historians that trained me have always been very big on getting me to think about, and admit to assumptions I am making in my analysis, to biases inherent in the sources (i.e. if all the evidence you have is about elites, it's kind of difficult to say as much about poor schlubs on the street).  I agree that the "pure history: is an ideal that we work toward, rather than a realistic goal.  But I also think that different narratives already play a very important role.  I think the real meat of the discipline comes from the debate and the competing interpretations and re-interpretations in the discourse.  That's a large part of the reason why I'm not really bothered by so-called "revisionist" history (so long as the actual scholarship has merit in its own right, is based on a fair reading of the sources, etc.).  Frankly there is a lot of history (back in the days when the ONLY kind of history was panegyric and polemic; think Tacitus, 19th century racist theorists, etc.) that DESERVES to be revised.  Put it this way: the historians I respect the most carefully and deliberately try to avoid the sins of panegyrists and polemicists, and, most of the time I think, succeed. 

[HBCU.EDU]

HBCU--

you know all these personality changes are 'getting so tired, it's narcoleptic.'  we said be yourself, not an angry, bitter, #%@! face.  #@!* your soda.  Get back to us when you are ready to be real.

get me a soda and get off HBCUs d*ck!

[HBCU.EDU]

This thread has gotten off topic again, it was supposed to be about me.  I'm white, it's all about the white man for cryin' out loud.

say you are sorry! Say it!