Re: Proyect v Woods

["Stuart Lawrence" <stuartwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not convinced by the claim that a historian or a historical analysis should
be judged in light of the scholar's involvement in current political struggles
or in light of its relevance to today's political tasks. What I think some (not
Louis, though, who's clearly given Woods and others a thorough reading) would
like to do is ask what kind of politics does this person have and what is his or
her world-view in the present, and following from that, how credible is that
person's take on history. It's natural to look for easier ways to assess the
credibility of someone's whose work besides doing one's own investigation and
thought, which may mean forgoing a lot of other important and current topics
worthy of attention. Scrutinizing historians' political involvement instead of
their evidence can lead us to their weaknesses -- they're trained to evaluate
events in the light of their outcomes, not in anticipation of them, after all --
rather than enabling us to gain from their contributions, which may be
incomplete but still invaluable.

Stuart
stuartwl@xxxxxxxxxx