Customer Reviews

Who Owns History?: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World

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

 

 

What constitutes history and how it should be told has become an increasingly significant question over the years. How events are portrayed in history texts often is more the result of the social climate at the time or the purpose of the writer than actual fact.

Part of the problem with history is that as new facts are discovered and new perspectives proposed history is rewritten. Different groups offer a different perspective to the traditional perspective. So, we now have black history, women's history, etc. However, these same historians must deal with a fickle public whose primary interest in history has traditionally been that it be told with a particular purpose in mind. When the Constitution states that everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we are taught that it means literally everyone. However, history has at times excluded American Indians, Black Americans and others. Particular areas of the United States have excluded the Irish, the Catholic, the Polish, the Japanese or any number of other groups.

This book contains nine essays by Eric Foner, a professor of history at Columbia University, that were prepared for various conferences and book introductions. In these essays Foner examines how the historian interacts with the history and their surroundings and how that interaction determines their perspective on history. It includes essay on Mr. Foner's personal life as a historian and the things that influence his perspective. Others include essays on modern Russia and post-apartheid South Africa and how they are rethinking their past in view of the current changes. Probably the most interesting essays are in Mr. Foner's area of specialization - slavery, the Civil War and post-Reconstruction America.

An especially interesting read for those who are not familiar with the controversies of traditional history, it is a good read, logically argued and recommended for early college level students or higher. For most of the essays the writing is slightly above the level of the average high school student.

There may be those who simplistically view history as no more than gathering and presenting "facts" about the past, but noted historian Eric Foner would respond that history involves the interpretation of facts and is subject to change. But history is not pure subjectivity; historical truth is a "reasonable approximation of the past." Despite the title of the book, the author does not directly address the issue of "ownership" of history. There is the question of who produces history. Is history mainly produced by academic historians, which slowly filters into the public's consciousness? Or is historical understanding dominated by large institutions such as the mass media, think tanks, and the education industry, many of whom are inclined to promote an historical agenda? The author acknowledges that "for years historians have been aware that historical traditions are invented and manipulated. In addition, "forgetting some aspects of the past is as much a part of historical understanding as remembering others." This may be due simply to ignorance or poor scholarship. Or more disturbingly, historical distortion may be a sinister effort by various social and economic elites to dominate and manipulate social understandings.

The United States is a nation founded on the ideals of liberty, political equality and democracy. We are not a traditional society where unquestioned myths passed down from generation to generation are the glue of society. Openness and informed debate about all matters, including those historical, are essential in a society based on rational decision making. Not understanding our principles, how we have lived up to them, and where we need to go is not an option. Yet, it is clear that the injection of bogus historical views into our national understandings has plagued our society in the past and continues to do so today.

Three essays deal with the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. A determined Southern elite and a complicit Supreme Court essentially negated the citizenship rights that blacks had achieved in landmark legislation after the Civil War. But that history is often buried or distorted. Prominent Northern historians of the times validated the Jim Crow era by suggesting that blacks lacked the capacity for self-government. The focus on nationalism, or the right of white Anglo-Saxon America to become an imperial power at the end of the 19th century, further obscured the suppression of rights for some American citizens.

It is this decades-long willful amnesia of the Reconstruction era that has permitted the Supreme Court in the modern era to see unfairness in racial preferences while ignoring the history of racial injustice. Conveniently, judicial decisions are now supposedly rendered on the basis of "original intent" or "strict construction." However, the author notes that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment was purposely "broad and indeterminate" to give maximum leeway to the judiciary in the implementation of the amendment. The narrow legal judgments of today in this area actually ignore original intent in their rush to yield to political exigencies.

In one of these essays, the author critically examines Ken Burns' nine-part PBS series on the Civil War. The author finds that "Burns recapitulates the very historical understanding of the war `invented' in the 1890s as part of the glorification of the national state and the nationwide triumph of white supremacy." For Burns the Civil War was a "family quarrel among whites, whose fundamental accomplishment was the preservation of the Union." The abolition of slavery is scarcely mentioned, not to mention the failure of Reconstruction to secure civil rights for former slaves. In the final segment Burns focuses on the friendly reunion in 1913 of white veterans of Gettysburg. In a devastating comment, the author notes that in that same year President Wilson segregated federal office buildings in Washington D.C. As the author says, "Accurately remembered, the events of Reconstruction place the issue of racial justice on the agenda of modern life - but not if the history of that era and the costs paid on the road to reunion are ignored, misrepresented, or wished away."

In another essay, the author examines the impact that globalization is having on the definition of the long-cherished American ideal of freedom. Transnational institutions and corporations through their think tanks and control of the media have redefined freedom as participation in a global free-marketplace. Gone are the "elements of freedom such as self-government, economic autonomy, and social justice" that were a part of the republican tradition in America. Strong national governments attempting to regulate economic matters are portrayed as impediments in a global economy. The author admits that freedom is constantly subject to redefinition, but freedom defined as merely competing in global production ignores American traditions of freedom. It may not be an overstatement to contend that "the relationship between globalization and freedom may be the most pressing political and social problem of the 21st century."

In other interesting essays, the career of historian Richard Hofstadter is examined and the oft-asked question concerning the absence of socialism in American is reviewed. Hofstadter gets tagged as a "consensus" historian because he noted that the "virtues of individual liberty, private property, and capitalist enterprise" were broadly agreed upon by most Americans. The author notes that Hofstadter did not celebrate this uniformity, finding it to be a "form of intellectual and political bankruptcy," which echoes the findings of Tocqueville one hundred years earlier. Yet consensus theories do have resiliency. The absence of class-based activism and turns to socialism are partly answered by the existence in varying degrees of republicanism or "producerism," the absorption or cooptation of protest, the substitution of consumption as empowerment, the divisions and stratifications of the working class, and winner-take-all elections.

Clearly the concept of history is hardly as straightforward as may be thought at first glance. "Who Owns History?" is an excellent attempt at getting a handle on historical interpretation and the ramifications thereof.

Foner is not one to beat around the bush. He tackles pressing social and political issues head on. In this remarkable collection of essays, he has taken aim at several key issues which define contemporary society. The most compelling essay is probably "Blacks and the U.S. Constitution," in which he examines the motivations behind the conservative desire to read the Constitution in terms of its "original intent."

As Foner notes, this is more a political than a historical argument. By narrowing the interpretation of the Constitution to its "original intent," conservatives hope to avoid addressing the more thorny issues which the later amendments attempt to address. He views the current decisions by the Supreme Court as part of an overall drive toward "Redemption," similar to the period of readjustment, in which states nullified much of the Civil Rights legislation which was enacted by the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. This eventually led to the notorious era of Jim Crow.

Foner views history as a continuum, not a set of isolated events, which can be referred to to bolster one's political arguments, whether they be conservative or liberal. Like his mentor, Richard Hofstadter, Foner rebels against consensus opinion, asking readers to form minds of their own. The essays are gritty and compelling and serve as a reminder of the intellectual prowess of one of the foremost historians of our time.

How we document and memorialize the past receives attention in a survey that questions the nature of historical scholarship in modern times. This considers the processes and nature of historical scholarship, using addresses and essays to examine the historian's relationship to past and future events.

History has many complexities. American history has even more complexities. Eric Foner examines history under a microscope with WHO OWNS HISTORY? RETHINKING THE PAST IN A CHANGING WORLD by presenting nine essays that present issues and subject matters that have had a professional and personal affect on his life. The first section of the book presents a short vignette of his life as well as the life of one of his mentor's, Richard Hofstadter. The second section takes on a global perspective by reassessing the aftermath of the Cold War in Russia and post-Apartheid South Africa, the culture wars in the US, and the concluding chapters reflect on what has been near and dear to his heart in terms of scholarly work - Reconstruction era and Slavery. He includes a compelling essay on the significance of Blacks and the US Constitution, which ties in with his critique on Ken Burn's incomplete adaptation of the Civil War.

Foner tells it like it is while at the same time allowing the reader to ponder and question his criticism. He leaves the door open for further discussion without sounding too preachy. As the subtitle reiterates, Rethinking the Past in a Changing World, is about digging much deeper beyond the surface and asking questions that go beyond well told stories of the past, and asking, what about? Of course history cannot be without the well told stories, but he turns another notch to the historical narrative by including histories that simply haven't been given their due, such as contributions African-Americans have had during Reconstruction or recent histories, such as what impact or little impact did the ending of the Cold War have on Russians.

Foner does not answer the question to WHO OWNS HISTORY, but it is indeed up to the historian or the avid reader of history to go on a scavenger hunt to research and understand a particular event in history. He suggests, in similar terms, that no one person or people have possession of the subject matter, but rather it is a collective and shared entity.

I had the pleasure of reading Foner's 'Reconstruction' almost contemporaneously with this book, although this is a much more delightful read. Foner's history of Reconstruction is the best on the subject I have read, and the most authoritive. And this book looks at the role that politics and society have not just in making history, but in reshaping it, burying it, reviving it, reliving it, and oftimes ignoring it or running from it. Certainly Foner's expertise on the Reconstruction period provides a crucible for him to look at how historical events can be interpreted, misinterpreted, and twisted from various political and ideological perspectives.

We are watching the Civil War reopen again with the rebel flag wagging in the South again, and the title of Foner's book hits that situation right between the eyes.

"Who Owns History?" is a great question, and the book provides a thought provoking answer.

Of course, in true professorial style, the answer is just more questions, and different perspectives. But interesting ones.

The viewpoint on this book is very uneven and the author's political bias is apparent in most of the chapters. I also thought the language and wording was somewhat difficult. However, this is also a very thought provoking book. I have to say that even though I am not from the same political spectrum as Foner, I agreed with him on many things, especially his thoughts on globalization.

Who owns history. The people who decide history, the winners in political contests, etc. This is not always fair, but because history goes through constant re-evaluation, this will change over time. Good thing, since some things do ultimately change for the better.

This is an OK read. This is a thought provoking read about the author's personal views on how history is formed and evolves over time.

The book from Eric Foner was used in my Historical Methods class. I really enjoyed reading it. It was a good read and make me think. The book was a well - written book giving his views on racial differences and how they are handled in our society.

"Who Owns History" is a interesting and informative collection of essays by Columbia History professor, Eric Foner, that never quite answer the question posed by the book's title. In the book's preface, Foner points out that history has been and always will be rewritten by different generations of people to answer questions posed by the issues of their times. This is especially true when present problems closely resemble those of a past era. During the Civil Rights struggle in the 1950s and 60s for example, new historical interpretations of the Reconstruction era began to emerge, largely because the political and ethical issues practically mirrored each other. Foner launches into the book by stating that History is simultaneously owned by everyone and by no one. But while the chapters that follow are interesting and worth reading in their own right, they never really examine the ideological struggle between various interests to control historical discourse. Some of the more interesting essays are described in the sections below.

SOCIALISM
In his essay entitled "Why Is There No Socialism", Foner examines issues such as the diverse background of the working class that ostensibly contributed to racial, social, and political conflicts, the narrowness of the American electoral system, government oppression. Foner concludes that while all of these factors played an important role in preventing the rise of socialism in America, none of them were the deciding factor. In comparing the development of class consciousness in Europe and America, Foner argues that the comparative basis of the question itself may be flawed since it is possible after all, that socialism has been on the decline in Europe. Foner concludes that time will tell whether the United States is behind Europe in the development of socialism or ahead of Europe in recognizing its decline.

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
In his essay, "Who Is An American", Foner examines how the definition of American citizenship has evolved throughout the nation's history. American citizenship wasn't clearly delineated, according to Foner, until shortly after the Civil War. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to all people born in the United States (except native Americans) and defined the rights of citizenship regardless of ethnicity. The subsequent failure of Reconstruction, however, reinforce the racial concept of citizenship among White leaders, particularly in the South who successfully overturned many of the rights spelled out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. During the great migrations at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the power elite came to identify citizenship with wages. Those who made money were Americans, and those who were willing to work for slave wages (Eastern Europeans, Irish, Italians, and other "undesirables" according to the attitude of the times) were not. Subsequent historical events including the Cold War, the expanding economy, and the Civil Rights Movement added a civic definition to what constituted American citizenship. An American was defined as any freedom loving individual willing to work and to defend democracy. Foner concludes that citizenship is not a Whiggish progress toward greater and greater freedom, but a more complex and dynamic one in which gains are made and lost depending on historical circumstances.

BLACKS AND THE US CONSTITUTION
Foner's essay "Blacks and the US Constitution details how an increasingly conservative Supreme Court has gradually rolled back many of the civil rights gains made by blacks particularly in areas like equal treatment in the workplace. Ironically, many of the conservative Supreme Court justices do this for the sake of preserving the "original intent" of the founding fathers with respect to the Constitution, while ignoring the fact that they deliberately structured the language of the sacred parchment to enable modification as unforeseen critical circumstances arose. Foner indicates that to restrict civil rights and other forms of egalitarian legislation in fact has little to do with the "original intent" of the founding fathers so much as the ideological intent of conservative judges.

"Who Owns History" will appeal to anyone who is interested in how historical interpretations change according to the requirements of different generations. It will also interest anyone with an interest in progressive issues such as labor, race relations, and the development of different ideologies. This book will probably not appeal to those who believe that history should be taught as a uniform and immutable set of ideas used to guide students to a "correct" understanding of their country and its values.

This is another book that I bought thinking I would enjoy a lot more than I actually did. I suppose, in point of fact, that I have enjoyed it in the sense that it's been fun arguing points with the author as I read the book, but the author's point of view, overall, is so far from mine that I can't really say I enjoyed the finished product as much as I'd hoped.

To start, it's important to not that this is an essay collection, something I was unaware of when I bought the book. The cover and the opening of the book don't really say anything about this. Followers of my reviews will know that essay collections are almost always problematic for me, because you almost inevitably get something you like, and something you don't. The results are almost always uneven at best, contradictory at worst. The essays in this book were written by one person--historian Eric Foner--and since he's a professional he at least does us the service of not disagreeing with himself. Foner wrote these essays during the 80s and 90s, and introduces each of them with several paragraphs which provide context and background.

The supposed theme of the book is the place of history in the world, and by extrapolation of the historian in society. As a result, the first two essays are essentially biographical. The first is an autobiography, the second recounts briefly the career of the author's mentor and teacher, Richard Hofstadter. The autobiographical piece sets the tone for the whole book when, in the early going, the author recounts a conversation he had with fellow 19th-century historian Gabor Boritt. Boritt grew up in Communist Hungary, and came to the U.S. as a polital refugee while a teenager. In Foner's recounting of their conversation, Boritt tells Foner that he grew up in a country where you couldn't trust anything the government told you. Foner replies that he grew up in the same place--though he grew up in New York City. This is by way of explaining that he mistrusted the government because both is father and uncle lost their jobs teaching at Columbia University during a Red Scare just after World War II (but prior to McCarthy). In spite of this, the autobiographical piece is probably the best in the book, and the Hofstadter bio is interesting also, if only for its focus on this man and his work in an obscure portion of American history.

Part Two of the book attempts to discuss freedom in various parts of the world. There are four essays here, two dealing with the United States, and one each with Russia and South Africa. The first essay is one of the American ones, and tries to survey the course of American freedom. Its essentially forgetable. The second essay, the Russian one, has some interesting observations about life in contemporary Russia, and their view of history, both Soviet and American. The third essay, the South African one, has a similar focus except of course that it's interested in events in that country rather than Russia. These two essays, tracing the attitudes of people in these countries to their history, and to the governments that ruled there a generation ago, are the most historically informative of the whole collection, and you could almost wish the whole book had been built around them. The fourth essay, easily the worst in the book, dwells way too long on the fascinating (to the author, anyway) question of why there's no true Socialist party in the United States. The author takes for granted, as a matter of course, the concept that socialism would be a significant benefit to "workers" in the United States, and is merely preoccupied with how they could have been tricked into not supporting it.

The last part of the book is titled "The Enduring Civil War", so of course it has almost nothing to do with that conflict. The first essay in it deals with the concept of how being an American has been defined during our nation's history. Of course, at various times blacks, Asians, Indians, and others weren't considered Americans, and therefore weren't citizens. The author makes much of this, and is careful to let you know how racist white Americans were at various times in our history. In one passage, he speaks with a straight face first of whites stealing land from Indians, and then (in the same sentence) condemns whites for "stealing" land from Mexicans, as if that were equally a crime. Apparently the Mexicans devised a way to get the land from the Indians without violating their rights, something the whites didn't bother with. Either that, or it's wrong to steal from a thief, just like it's wrong to steal from a victim. The next essay is a brief survey of the Constitution, amendments, and court decisions that deal with race. By now we're clear that the author is very radically liberal, so he's predictably negative about the Rehnquist court (the essay was written in the late 80s) and denounces several decisions for not supporting Affirmative Action and other, like-minded programs. When he swiftly runs out of coherent arguments in favor of his position, he resorts to guilt by association, taking quotes out of context, focusing on particular phrases, so that he can equate Robert Bork with Roger Taney (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the worst rulings the high court ever handed down) and Sandra Day O'Connor with Andrew Johnston, who he portrays as an unrecontstructed racist. The last essay was originally part of a book criticising Ken Burns' documentary on the Civil War. Various academics thought that a documentary on the Civil War shouldn't have had anything to say about the war itself, but instead should have focused on women, blacks, the poor, the causes, and the aftermath, to the exclusion of everything else. Foner, who built his reputation writing a history of the Reconstruction era (his bibliography actually includes three books dealing with the subject) spends most of the essay criticising Burns for focusing in the war, and not spending enough time talking about its aftermath. Foner in some ways has a point: the aftermath of the war does have something to do with it, and should have been/be included in a documentary about it. Burns, however, is more concerned with the veterans and the way they dealt with each other after the war, discussing the reunions at Gettysburg and elsewhere. Foner is palpably hostile to this, feeling that reconciliation among whites after the war is secondary to the plight of blacks. What he of course misses is that the plight of blacks after the war wasn't on the same level as when they were slaves, and Jim Crow aside, without the Civil War there wouldn't have been a Civil Rights movement in the 60s.

Foner's openly a socialist, tells you in his autobiographical essay that he flirted with Communism, and at one point mentions the Soviet Union as a "true Socialist state". His view of American history is openly hostile to capitalism, and views the American version of democracy very suspiciously, to say the least. Within that context, the book does perform a service: it provides a reasonably well-written survey of liberal academic thought regarding freedom, rights, and race relations in the United States, and the history thereof. If you didn't know anything about history before you picked up this book, you'd get a pretty distorted, negative view of the United States. If you understand enough about history to be able to disagree with the author, then this isn't a bad book.