Re: Proyect v Woods

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know some very right-wing historians who occasionally turn-up real
insights. I agree totally with Stewart below, in fact, I consider
pre-judging a work by the politics of the author is not a good guide to
much at all.

After-all Hegel's politics are well known, his contribution still stands
well above many philosophers who's politics are far more defensible (I
still have nightmares of Althusser's mangling of Historical Materialism).

As I said in a previous post I am having great difficulties understanding
what this debate is actually about, the political accusations do not help,
in fact only further cloud the issue. Please take head of Stewart in this.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia

At 10:53  18/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
>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