View the H-World Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-World's February 2013 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-World home page.
Southwestern Oklahoma State University firstname.lastname@example.org Neither world historians nor historians in general should allow moral judgments to distort the analysis of history. However, world history is unusual in that its past and present perspective is that of humanity at large and our conclusions apply to a universal community. World History must engage the morality of historical behavior, based on progressive understandings of human rights and applied to present circumstances. The potential value of world history as a field distinct from the other fields of history lies in this opportunity alone. Professor Spier writes that attaching judgment should be left to our audiences. Most of my own audience is students and I am part of that community. I see it as my responsibility as a professor of World History to work with students and others to negotiate the idea that human beings should be treated with respect. This can be done in the world history forum. I am not an aloof, disinterested observer of the community of humanity and neither should my students allow themselves such excuses. Historical peoples have believed many things that were not true. Historical laws and policies have been based on false "scientific" claims, for example. Our work as world historians is in part, to explain what societies believed, why they believed, the consequences of those beliefs; and to consider the accuracy and persistence of those beliefs and practices in the world today. But we do not deny the fallacy of false claims simply because we do not wish to offend. I don't agree with the logic behind Professor Fernlund's suggestion we can adopt human rights as a framework only for analysis of the world since 1948. A UN charter has no particular ontological authority and clearly there are many people in the world today who do not adhere to its principles, just as there were many before 1948 who did. We can apply modern principles of human rights to interpretations of the behavior of Nazis past or present, just as we can use the principles of modern astronomy to analyze ancient understandings of the physical universe. Of course we need to interpret historical behavior in historical context. But in world history we need to comprehend the meaning of historical behavior from a modern, universal, and moral perspective. Professor Haines suggests our interpretations are unavoidably simplistic and shaped by our own cultural perspectives. If we are not able to avoid some subjective influence, it seems to me this would be good reason to deliberate openly about the lessons (morals) to be learned from history. As far as the collapse of civilization, I would argue civilization is collapsing and thriving at the same time. That would have been true in 1918 and it is still true today.