<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Each Generation Rewrites History According to its Needs
Review: "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.
Rating: 
Summary: A gritty and compelling set of essays
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A gritty and compelling set of essays
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Examines the historian's relationship to past and future
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: "Historical perspective' analyzed by a first class historian
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A massive disappointment
Review: Then again, this is Eric Foner and bait and switching should be expected. If you expect a study on how history changes and reinvents us, something that would have been useful in understanding the shared collective memory of -- let's say -- September 11, you'd best look elsewhere. Who Owns History is simply a collection of essays that promote Foner's leftist politics.
Rating:
Summary: The Importance of Historical Interpretation (4.5 stars)
Review: 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 is 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. For example, who produces history? Is history mainly produced by academic historians, eventually filtering into the public's consciousness? Or is historical understanding dominated by large institutions such as the mass media, think tanks, and the education industry, all of whom are inclined to slant history? 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." Is this due simply to ignorance or poor scholarship? Or is historical distortion a sinister effort by various social and economic elites to dominate and manipulate those of lesser social standing? 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 performed, 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, let alone 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 competing as a factor 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. The author's finding of the radicalism and turmoil of the 1960s as a real counterpoint to theories of consensus may assign greater import to that period than would others. Consensus theories are not easily dismissed when examining the absence of socialism. Also, 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 involving two parties are historical interpretations that purport to explain the absence of class-based activism. "Who Owns History?" is an excellent look at historical interpretation and the ramifications thereof.
Rating:
Summary: Not Mr. Foner
Review: To take just one example of the dilemma that Mr. Foner must confront as the Left loses control of history and of our institutions, let's look briefly at his essay
"Blacks and the U.S. Constitution". Here he argues against the idea that judges should be bound by the text of the Constitution, arguing instead that it should
be an "active advocate for the rights of disadvantaged Americans" as it basically was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Unfortunately, he contradicts himself so baldly as
to render his point incoherent. Here he is rejecting adherence to the text : In an age of semiotics and deconstruction, not to mention intense debate among historians about the prevailing ideas of the revolutionary era,
there is something refreshingly naive, almost quaint, in the idea that any text, including the Constitution, possesses a single, easily ascertainable,
objective meaning. On its face this is fairly unobjectionable. Were we still in an age when deconstruction and other Leftist philosophies, that seek to deny the plain meaning of
language and to expose the secret oppressive messages that straight white Christian males placed there, and were there a significant national debate over what
the ideas of the Revolution were, then it would indeed be possible to say that the meaning of the Constitution is unknowable. It is, of course, a considerable
impediment to Mr. Foner's argument that the basic concept of deconstruction is practically unknown outside of the humanities departments of elite universities
and that average Americans seem to feel that they pretty well understand the ideas of the Revolution, chief among which was that the laws that govern us
should be made by our elected representatives. But even more troublesome for Mr. Foner is his own admission a few pages later that : To those who came of age during the era of the Warren Court, it is easy to forget that the Supreme Court, expected by the founding fathers
to be the most conservative branch of the government, has amply fulfilled that role throughout most of our history. And today the Court
appears poised to revert to its traditional function. Lo and behold, here's the good professor himself informing us that, far from being quaint or naive, the Right's belief that the judiciary was intended to be a
fundamentally conservative institution is consistent with both the expectations of the founding fathers and with long-standing tradition. In fact, as these
contradictory statements reveal, the problem is not that history can't reveal to us the purposes of the drafters of the Constitution but that those purposes are at
odds with Mr. Foner's purposes and at odds with the liberal departure from tradition that characterized the past several decades. The question on the cover of the book may ask "Who Owns History?", but the question that drives these essays is much more "why don't we (The Left) own it
anymore?". But Mr. Foner doesn't really make an honest attempt to answer either question and so the utility of the book is fairly limited. What we get instead
is a rather disconnected series of essays which in sum seem to argue merely that those who are now retaking ownership of history shouldn't be allowed
to--whether they be non-communist historians in the former Soviet Union, black South Africans who are more interested in making social progress than in
rehashing the past, PBS filmmakers seeking to honor the nation's bloody struggle to end slavery, or judges who think they should be bound by the
Constitution. Ultimately, Mr. Foner's argument appears to be with American people themselves who "often 'forget' that our history is not a Whiggish
progress toward greater and greater freedom and equality but a far more complex story..." Or it may be that since so many Americans (and I) believe it to be
the case that our history does in fact demonstrate just such Whiggish progress, that Mr. Foner's argument is with history itself. GRADE : F
Rating:
Summary: A view of the relationship between history and historian
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
