Customer Reviews

The KILLING OF HISTORY

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I am a college professor of the social sciences and have watched as "critical theory" has crept into the academy with alarm. I loved The Killing of History and stayed up at night reading it, and I strongly recommend it. Windschuttle focuses on the issues of the debate between old-school historians and post-modernists, although he does point out that the latter group tends to use a supercilious, derisively dismissive tone as their response when opposed (see the review below which refers to the author as a "hack," uses phrases like "so-called 'intellectuals'," and a snub about "if you subscribe to the Reader's Digest then this book is for you" as a perfect example of what he is talking about]. The specific examples he gives about the history of Mexico and Australia make this an interesting read in that vein as well.

If you ever wonder who killed truth and the whole nature of empirical history, even empirical science, Windshuttle has the answer and it is unequivocally the fault of the Post-Modernists.

If you ever wondered who exactly the PoMo crowd is, then Windshuttle will do his best to teach you, though he admits, even with the post-modern crowd, the hardest thing is arriving at a definition that everyone agrees upon: overly abstruse, opaque in their turgid writing style PoMo literary critics and social theorists have been creeping into the Queen of the Social Sciences --- History --- since Nietszche and Foucault.

Here in crisp, clean and logical style, Windshuttle makes a powerful polemic, wiping the slate clean and reclaiming traditional narrative, empirical history from literary critics and social theorists.

Some of the books highlights for me were:

1) The PoMo use of the the arguments of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, to reach a conclusion that purports, because science is relative then so is knowledge. Since these people are my heros I was very surprised to learn that their ideas could be used in a fashion they never intended. Windshuttle puts their ideas in their proper perspective.

2) That vast proliferation of any university course that has the word "studies" appended after it has always caused me concern; I have run into a lot of people, some from good universities, that have no idea about even simple ideas of science, morality and elementary history. But who lack elementary thinking skills (such as how to reason from a first premise, how to detect a fallacy or even understand the simple elements of science). In almost all of these cases, many of these people have graduated in one of the hodge-podge disciplines that seem to be proliferating in Universities --- disciplines that do not teach thoroughgoing knowledge in any discipline and therefore, more often than not, turn out graduates who have no credible thinking skills.

3) The fallacy of Great Theory History. Windshuttle reminds us by critiquing the Fukuyama "End of History" idea, that the goal of history is to make accurate descriptive statements about events in the past. That subscribing a single prime mover or explanation for diverse historical events --- whether they are the discourses of Marx and his economic determinism or the grand social theories of Victor Davis Hanson "Carnage & Culture" or Jared Daimond, "Guns, Germs and Steel" --- are merely poor attempts to pound history in the shape historians wants.

And that is one of the most stimulating and problematic elements of this book: I think that Windshuttle has as much problem with some people in his own discipline as he may have with others in the lighter "disciplines" of social theory.

Also, although I sympathise with Windshuttle and wince at the low number of people graduating from traditional historical disciplines and share his chagrin at the rise of Gender Studies, Cultural Studies, (and yes even Canadian Studies), I do not think that we are in danger of losing the "unappreciated" discipline or History. If I may use Canada as an example, in this least patriotic of societies, Canadians remain largely ignorant of their own history, moreover the ideas of the PoMoists fit in well with the state ideology of Multiculturalism (laudable but flawed). Recently however Canada has had an explosion of interest in her own history --- military and political, and history from the ground up (history of minorities and their contribution to the country) --- all of this has been at the cost of PoMo interpretations of the world, now seen as logically bankrupt. All of this research is traditional narrative research.

Also one look in any bookstore in either the US, Australia, the UK or Canada will yeild very few volumes of history written with a structuralist / post-modern slant, they are almost all traditional empirical narratives (and no one buys the books of literary critics).

So although the debate between social theorists, literary critics and traditional empirical history may continue in the academic world it is certainly not much of an issue to the reading public, who continue to demand narratives based upon the old fashioned method of looking at empirical data in the form of records, sifting through known facts and documents, and then adjusting conclusions and narratives to objectively fit the facts -- and making sure that we are aware of our biases and deal with them honestly. Such is the proper role of history and as such it is alive and well.

Keith Windschuttle's book The Killing of History is a brilliant response to the often monumentally silly social crusading that modern academia works so hard to pawn off as "scholarship" and "history". Windschuttle reveals Relativism and Deconstructionism for the arrogant, self serving pernicious evils that they are. He adroitly skewers the more well known purveyors of Deconstructionist History and persuasively relegates the work of the darlings of the Post-modern, (Focault, Derrida, Popper and so on), to its proper place in the lower regions of the ash-heap of bad ideas. Windschuttle's book is foremost a brilliant defense of the truth of the past. It is also a scathing indictment of the increasingly fashionable practice of passing off convenient fictions as legitimate forms of "history". Partents, teachers of History, and their students are facing a concerted effort by Relativists to destroy history as a coherent intellectual discipline by collapsing the distinction between fact and fiction. Given the historical truth of the first half of this century one cannot deny that the stakes in this particular game are incredibly high. To deny the truth of History is to ultimately doom our progeny to re-learn the most terrible lessons of the past and to make meaningless the sacrifices of literally millions who lost everthing for the sake of our future. Windschuttle writes that "The study of history is essentially a search for the truth. ... A work that does not aim at truth may be many things but not a work of history." Amen and bravo!

Don't let the title of the book fool you. While the title may seem to be something of an exaggeration, I think Windschuttle makes his case. He argues that relativism (the idea that there is no absolute, universal truth or knowledge) is making history, a discipline that seeks to discover the truth about the past, impossible.

He starts the book by showing where relativism came from. Primarily, relativism was thought up by a number of French intellectuals in the 1960's. These philosophers and theorists (e.g. Derrida, Foucault, etc) also drew some of their ideas from 19th century philosophers such as Nietzsche (who is frequently quoted as saying, "There are no facts but only interpretations.") and Heidegger. The theories that these thinkers came up with have several different names (e.g. structuralism, post-structuralism, post-modernism etc...) but they all have a common commitment to relativism. The fact that relativism is an incoherent, self-contradictory philosophy should be obvious to all after some reflection on the topic. I would recommend, "Relativism: Feet planted firmly in mid-air," by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl (which I have reviewed) for a book length treatment of why relativism is false. Windschuttle focuses on the cultural relativism (i.e. the idea that all cultures are equal and that there are no ideas or truths which transcend culture) whereas Beckwith and Koukl focus on moral relativism (i.e. the idea that there is no universal morality).

Windschuttle makes his case by examining a number of theorists and their writings about specific historical events. For example, Windschuttle discusses the death of James Cook in Hawaii, early Australian history, the Spanish conquest of Mexico, Columbus' discovery of America and the like. Windschuttle demonstrates that all these "historians" (who are often trained as literary critics or some other discipline) take their theory or ideology and force it upon the evidence to the point of fudging important details, ignoring the research of other historians and even in a few cases to the out-right fabrication of information.

Although parts of the book can be difficult to follow, Windschuttle endeavors to make his work understandable to most intelligent readers in contrast to many of the intellectuals now in favor who deliberately engage in obscurantist writing. The author also makes several interesting observations regarding the motives of many academics. For example, one of the reasons that cultural relativism is so popular is due to the fact that academics wish to seen on the side of oppressed native peoples and other disfavored people (Michael Focault's books are good example of this). Also, these academics could be accused of taking these positions simply because they wish to be seen to be fully politically correct.

At one point, Windschuttle says that writing history in this new politically motivated, theory-laden fashion is easier than traditional research. He says, "[t]ackling the main issues of human experience no longer requires the hard work of steeping yourself in the writings of all those practitioners of your discipline who have gone before you, and then putting the even harder slog of doing your own research. Instead all you need to do is take a small selection of of the more prominent and familiar authors, label in terms used by the currently fashionable theoretical guru, add some linguistic speculation about the textuality of everything, and then wait for the self-same guru or his acolytes to recognize your genius and lavish you with hyperbole." (page 118)

The last chapter of the book entitled, "The Return of Tribalism: Cultural relativism, structuralism, and the death of Cook," is one of the most interesting chapters of the book. In addition to showing in a final flourish that relativism is self-contradictory, the author shows further, that the Western tradition of the scientific method and Western historical discipline are the best way for indigenous people to understand their past. Further, the adoption of relativism resurrects tribalism (the idea that every society is completely different from all others) that has wrecked so much havoc in Rwanda, Bosnia and other parts of the world.

Roger Kimball wrote an especially fine review of Keith Windschuttle's excellent book in the New Criteron in September 1996; he began by asking "Where is Dr. Johnson when we need him?"

He meant Samuel Johnson, of course, of whom Boswell wrote, "Accustom your children constantly to this; if a thing happened at one window, and they, when relating it, say that it happened at another, do not let it pass, but instantly check them; you do not know where deviation from truth will end." On the other end of the spectrum, regarding historical facts lies Nietzsche, who argued, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

In the nine years since Kimball's excellent review ran, the general view of history and historical facts has only degenerated further. I have seen in countless critiques of my own work, for example, that recalling historical facts will only rekindle the hatreds of the past. Of course, the opposite is true: recalling the past, and the facts of history, is an important, indeed, critical antidote to hatreds, as they offer the only sure way of avoiding the errors of bygone eras.

If we refuse to acknowledge those errors, we are consigned to repeating them. And today, with so much emphasis placed on the importance of relative "narratives" and so little emphasis placed on facts, knowledge itself--and all the libraries that secure it--stands highly at risk.

This book is a fantastic and much needed treatment for the disease of relativism. Not only does it offer myriad details on the various schools of thought that have brought us to the current desperate pass, but it contains a stunning set of historical facts as well.

One learns for example a bit about the Aztecs' conquest by Cortes, the mutiny on the HMS Bounty in 1789, French deconstructionist Michel Focault, and the end of the cold war in 1989. Windschuttle uses those pieces of data to illustrate his points.

Today one risk one runs "in defending anything traditional is to be seen simply as a knee-jerk reactionary," he writes, "a middle aged academic defending the remnants of his own intellectual capital" while holding the fort against younger ideologues. But that reaction is a dead letter, as the vast majority of professors pushing "the new humanities" have entered their forties or fifties, and many of the Continental gurus that floated these history-bashing ideas are "already dead."

No, the truth and history are at stake. Windschuttle makes a great case for studying the "old-fashioned" facts. Let us hope that a majority in the professoriate soon see the light of his wisdom.

--Alyssa A. Lappen

Is history a scholarly topic? Well, it ought to be. There is much that we can learn about our world from history. If we know plenty of facts about events that happened in the past, we can reach conclusions about why they happened. We can deduce a few things that we otherwise could not have known. And we may even be able to make better predictions about the future.

As Windschuttle points out, history is more than mere science; it is also literature. And since stories can be told from many different points of view, there is always a risk of giving too much credence to historical theories that are at odds with the facts. In addition, history can have political uses, so there can be even greater incentive to be inaccurate.

Still, the author's main targets are a few relatively new literary and social theories that have served as a justification for some poor scholarship in the field of history. He includes cultural relativism, semiotics, structuralism, post-structuralism, anti-humanism, Marxism, postmodernism, radical skepticism, and hermeneutics. There's also a discussion of historical fiction and poetics. The unifying theme is the rejection of historical scholarship by these theories. As one of those who find history fascinating and useful, I have to side with Windschuttle here.

In this book, the author gives a number of specific examples of genuine historical work. Major topics include the European conquest of Mexico, the death of James Cook, the mutiny on the Bounty, and the European settlement of Australia.

Of course, the main question about the conquest of Mexico is how a small number of Spaniards managed to do it. And the author explains that answer is easy: the Aztecs were notorious for their cruelty and had made numerous enemies; the Spaniards allied themselves with these natives. In addition, the Spaniards had great military strength, as well as enormous knowledge of the tactics of siege warfare. While Aztec culture was not irrelevant to what happened, it was not the main reason why the Aztecs lost.

In the case of Cook, one simple question arises: was Cook regarded by the Hawaiians as a god (Lono) or simply a chief (to be treated with respect by non-chiefs)? Windschuttle shows that logic and facts point to the latter conclusion.

The author, quite properly, affirms the value of the "Western" scientific method. And he deplores the tribalism that would have us ignore it.

I have long been intrigued by the fact that some foes of genuine historical research, such as Ed Said, have been propagandists for causes that have much to fear from truth. In my opinion, such propagandists use "history" to make some truly outrageous and inconsistent arguments, such as that people who have been oppressed in the past ought to be oppressed in the future (or given breaks in the future), or that people who have lived on land in the past ought to be denied the right to live there in the future (or given special rights to it in the future). This book helped me see how some of the attacks on empirical reality fit into the realm of propaganda.

I found this book recently in a secondhand store, and couldn't put it down. This book has been reviewed extensively already so I just want to mention a couple of things.

First of all, it speaks volumes that books criticizing anti-realist approaches and philosophies are so frequently accused of being politically conservative, as this book has by a few reviewers here. (Last time I checked, not everything that every political liberal says is pure fantasy; more to the point, it is perfectly possible to feel inclined toward political liberalism while finding problematic the anti-realist/post-modern influence on historiography). While Windschuttle does speak favourably of the work of a few conservative thinkers, it strikes me as a real stretch to say that Windschuttle is here championing political conservatism. Rather, his book deals with the reality of the past and how we might best seek to apprehend it, and how certain philosophies inhibit that quest.

Two, while I find much to admire in the philosophy of Karl Popper (particularly in his political writings), I thought Windschuttle does well to raise questions about the eventual destination of Popper's epistemology. In short, inspired by David Stove's incisive critique, he argues that Popper, along with Kuhn, Feyerabend, and certain other modern philosophers of science, have done much to lay the groundwork for the kind of lunacy he describes elsewhere in the book. I thought this was particularly interesting and thought-provoking, as well as in many respects irrefutable.

Anyway, a very well-written book, and very enlightening.

This is a book for a GENERAL audience - the widest possible reading public - because it's nothing short of a backlash against political correctness. I truly believe that wildly revisionist histories at least make us THINK, and can even throw new light on old stories (however dim that light might be). But we also need books like this to skewer obscurantist writing and the semiotic worldview - and I'm still not absolutely sure what semiotics is, which is part of Windschuttle's point. This is a stern check to a pendulum that might otherwise fly off the pin. He doesn't dismiss our elegiac feelings for the pre-Columbian world, he redirects it to, for example, the tribes that suffered genocide under the Aztec sacrificial knife. Vanquished peoples are not necessarily noble.

This book can also be quite funny. One of Windschuttle's unfortunate targets, a certain Greg Dening, cites Captain Bligh's threat to make his crew "eat grass like cows." This author "explains" the crew's cultural misunderstanding of words that - let's face it - hardly require translation. One can almost hear the squeaky wheels of Monty Python's Trojan Bunny.

ONE CAUTION: Reviewer "Bruce h" writes, "The author also makes several interesting observations regarding the motives of many academics." My brother is a tenured professor and the No. 1 motive is - alas - employment. He was a Milton scholar but had to write his PhD thesis on black lesbian poetry to get a job. Even now, to get a paper published or delivered at a conference, it must have certain keywords (such as "semiotic") in it. It will take the courage and time to change the tenor of research in Humanities.

But you won't be bored by The Killing of History, or - God forbid - lost in the foreign language of postmodernism and hermeneutics!

One of the best books I've read on the subject. An example of historical research, analysis, and critique at its best. Describes origins, examples and dangers of methods of historical analysis currently in vogue in English, Austrailian, Canadian, and American universities. In each of five examples, the author first clearly describes a piece of historical research. This description is followed by the author's own, sometimes passionately stated, critique. Provides not only a clear description of the relationships between social philosophy, methodology and analysis but also, sadly, a clear description of what happens when these are inappropriately combined and applied. A must read for anyone interested in any of the social sciences, from contemporary philosophy to cultural anthropology.

From Herodotus and Thucycdies down to the present day, historians strive to record the truth about the past. But historiography today is in the clutches of literary and social theorists who have little respect for the scholarly disciplines of historians and deny the existence of objective truth while substituting radically chic theorizing for documentable knowledge about the past. The Killing Of History: How Literary Critics And Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past is a badly needed, long overdue expose of what has been happening in academia and the popular culture for the past several decades with the replacement of traditional history with politically oriented historical revisionism as illustrated by the European discovery of American and the Spanish conquest of Mexico; the British discovery and exploration of the Pacific islands; the foundation of European settlement in Australia (including British exploration, the convict system and relations with the Aborigines); the history of mental asylums and penal policy in Europe; the expansion of the aristocracy of Western Europe in the Middle Ages; the Battle of Quebec in 1759; and the fall of Communism in 1989. The Killing Of History should be required reading for every student, teacher, and writer of history.