(There are 2 messages below. -ed.)

1.
Submitted by: Jerry Z. Muller
mullerj@cua.edu

I happen to have the Program of the AHA's 1998 meeting in my study, and
decided to take a moment to submit Dr. Weitz's claims to a reality check.
Of the 158 official sessions at the convention, the "Topical Index" lists
five in the category of "diplomatic/Foreign policy." These turned out to
include a session on "GI Sexual Behavior and US Foreign Relations in the
Post-World War II Era" (e.g. "Race, Gender, and 'Foreign Affairs':
African American Soldiers in Occupied Germany); another on "Between Local
and Global: Cities, Peoples, and Grassroots Internationalism, 1865-1990";
"Course Portfolios: Documenting the Scholarship of Teaching in History,"
a session listed because it included a paper on teaching American foreign
relations; and a session on "Psychic Trauma in World War II: Contrasting
the Soviet and American Cases." Under the index heading of "Political
History" there are nine sessions listed: of these, one is on "Women and
the New Religious Politics"; another on the political battles over the
creation of a "woman's garden" as a historic site in New Jersey; another
on "Thomas Jefferson and the Future of America"; another on abortion;
another on the politics of historical monuments;another on music and
politics in 19th Century Europe (including "Nationalism and Gender in
Post-Wagnerian Opera");and a session on abolitionism.
The facts therefore seem to bear out Christopher Jackson's contention
that military history and the history of inter-state relations
have been marginalized in the AHA. Much the same could be said of
business history, medieval history, and a number of other subfields.
Moreover, as the above list of sessions indicates, the sessions at the AHA
convention tend toward presentism and identity politics (the topical
index lists 18 sessions under "Identity") and are
disproportionately oriented to questions of race (14 sessions according
to the index), gender (15 sessions), and sexuality (8 sessions).
Historians who are dissatisfied with the presentist political agendas and
narrow
range of concerns which seem to predominate in the AHA may therefore be
interested in the Historical Society. These considerations, as well as
the problem of fragmentation within the profession, led me to become
involved in the new organization.

2.
Submitted by: Renate Bridenthal
rbriden1@juno.com

Dear Christopher Jackson,
        First, thank you for your compliment about my work.  Second, I am
truly sorry you've had such bad job experiences, although we both know
that has little to do with the AHA.  Each campus has its own unique
program that we may or may not fit into.
But third, and most important to the original query,  my experience
chairing the Program Committee for the 1996 convention in Atlanta was
that we received ONLY ONE proposal from military historians.  I believe I
remember correctly that we accepted it.  One of the panelists met with me
to complain that there weren't more, but when I asked him where the
military historians were to submit panels, he couldn't tell me, either.
>From which I urge you to consider:  1) not all Program Committees are
alike and 2) military historians need to find each other, perhaps on the
Internet, to create and submit more panels in future.
        A new History Association will be hard to establish.  It takes
lots of time and money to find staff and housing to run the kind of
operation the AHA does.  But who knows?  I can imagine certain kinds of
think tanks that would like to support the kind of people who signed up
in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
        The job situation is an entirely different matter and truly
appalling at present.  On a personal level, I wish you better luck in
future, Mr. Jackson.
        -Renate Bridenthal, History, Brooklyn College

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS