When was the last time that historians have ever actually dragged anyone?

Erm....please explain what you mean.

a bit vague, OP.
maybe a little context?

What?

By Smoke Dogg Go To PostI don't think there's enough minority representation in the field of history, cuz I can't think of a single example of the last time historians dragged anyone. It's surely been a while, hasn't it?

Okay not only does your sentence structure not make sense but I have no idea what you're talking about.

In reference to your sentence structure not making sense: if you can think of the last time historians have dragged someone then you can think of a single instance where it has happened. I think what you meant was "I can't think of a single example where historians have dragged someone in the last 10 years" or something.

ALSO WHAT THE HELL IS DRAGGING?

At what level? Masters? PhDs? Last month, an idigenous Australian completed a PhD in archaeology for the first time ever.

And what do you mean by 'dragged'?

Alex Blumberg, do you understand this OP?

Hi, historian-in-training here. The answer to your question depends on who's looking at when.

"Mainstream" historiography leans on von Ranke's dictum that projecting one's own values onto the past obscures the way values change over time, so it tends to be relatively unemotional. Fields like cliometrics and cognitive historiography tend to be more removed from the personal to begin with.

Feminist and gender historians, on the other hand, don't give a fuck what some dead white cis-male said and drag people all the time.

Marxist historians have been all drag all day since day one.

Then you get stuff like subaltern studies, post-colonial studies, etc. that are very directly critical, and the kind of thing you're looking for. They deal directly with racial and economic exploitation.

It is hard to retell history without a viewpoint

Ooooh, drag him cuz.

By livefromkyoto Go To Post"Mainstream" historiography leans on von Ranke's dictum that projecting one's own values onto the past obscures the way values change over time, so it tends to be relatively unemotional.

but that doesn’t preclude the historian from having certain normative commitments, however implicit, right? The allergy to anachronism is ubiquitous in the discipline, but it’s often coupled with a mission to uncover some previously overlooked aspect of lived historical experience -to tell someone’s story that has hitherto been unjustly untold- and I struggle to find how that’s unemotional.

Just leafing through the most recent AHR (to take the most general example), you’d find a profound influence from the social and cultural turns of the past ~40 years, so much so that I’d take fem, gender, subaltern, and postcolonial histories to be far more indicative of mainstream historiography than cliometrics or cognitive historiography. (The general impression I got from your post was the converse; it’s a little unclear. I have a suspicion that we actually agree more I’m letting on here. If that’s the case, then I gladly apologize.)

If anything, I’ve found that historians are far more willing than other academics to admit that the view from nowhere doesn’t really exist, and are relatively undecided on whether it should even be a regulative ideal.

Draxx them sklounst

Tom Paine is still cool
Everyone else sucks

By noonecares Go To Postbut that doesn’t preclude the historian from having certain normative commitments, however implicit, right?

Of course. Anyone who isn't terrible knows you're always filtering history through your own chronotopy. It's really an attempt to minimize that.

The allergy to anachronism is ubiquitous in the discipline, but it’s often coupled with a mission to uncover some previously overlooked aspect of lived historical experience -to tell someone’s story that has hitherto been unjustly untold- and I struggle to find how that’s unemotional.

Scale and paradigm matter a lot. You'll pretty much always be looking at individual actors in some way, but that way may be small. If you're writing an economic or geographic history (ie., history as determined by environment) your lens is going to be a lot further out than someone writing a microhistory .

Just leafing through the most recent AHR (to take the most general example), you’d find a profound influence from the social and cultural turns of the past ~40 years, so much so that I’d take fem, gender, subaltern, and postcolonial histories to be far more indicative of mainstream historiography than cliometrics or cognitive historiography. (The general impression I got from your post was the converse; it’s a little unclear. I have a suspicion that we actually agree more I’m letting on here. If that’s the case, then I gladly apologize.)

Sure, once all the major stuff had basically been narrativized, departments had to continue justify themselves as intellectual producers so critical theory became a dominant mode to claim discursive relevance. (Though I think subaltern has lost a bit of the shine it had a decade or two back, anyone closer to that field can feel free to correct me). The mainstream historiography I mentioned tends to figure into popular history more than academic stuff.

I stuck cliometrics (which I don't even know to what degree is still a going concern) and cognitive historiography (which is barely a thing yet) on the end of that paragraph just because they also tend to fall into the camp of not-likely-to-drag-anyone.

If anything, I’ve found that historians are far more willing than other academics to admit that the view from nowhere doesn’t really exist, and are relatively undecided on whether it should even be a regulative ideal.

Sure. Every historian is also a philosopher by necessity, and will have a certain methodological framework which will shape their investigation. Though I do think an initial claim to some sort of objectivity has to be a regulatory ethos, in the sense that if you're going to criticize someone for not living up to an ethical ideal, you need to consider them in their time or it's going to be dubious.

Beating up some 13th century earl for not living up to the standards of 3rd wave feminism kind of undermines the work it took for feminist scholars to generate those ideas in the first place, and obscures the degree to which nobody had access to those concepts until they did so. Thought and culture evolve, and you have to be really careful about what you can claim as a transchronal universal, and how.

From what I have read more historians have started to shit on Jefferson, this might just be in response to Hamilton though.
-In line with that I have also seen more opinions stating that Virginia was pro revolution to preserve slavery, after the Governor offered to free any slave who would fight against any rebellion.

Drag? Alright you guys can get a room.

Christopher Columbus isn't revered any longer as a explorer as people begin to admit you can't find a continent if people already lived there and be considered a hero after you raped and pillaged. I legit expect his holiday to officially become "indigenous peoples" day regardless of the strength of Italian American lobbyist in the next 20 years. Which is good.

By Kabro Go To Posta bit vague, OP.
maybe a little context?

Take, for example, Henry Kissinger. That motherfucker must be related to EviLore cuz he gets around to all the dignitaries yet everyone knows he's the biggest shitheel in the room. I still see pictures of this motherfucker barely able to sit up straight in the Oval Office and yet the adverse effects of him having his thumb on so many poor foreign policy decisions has not merely affected countries but entire continents and oceans... and nobody fucking drags him... he will just sneak by as some groupie in the annals of history.

Historian here.

We do little else in my experience.

By Khal Drongo Go To PostHistorian here.

We do little else in my experience.

right?