The reason I'm asking these seemingly bizarre questions is that my current reading matter is the Killing of History by Australian academic Keith Windschuttle.
The author is angry that history departments down under have been taken over by practitioners of "cultural relativism", "semiotics", "structuralism", "post-structuralism", "discourse theory", "postmodernism", "hermeneutics" and much more of the same. For them, we can't possibly "know" anything. Any opinion is as good as any other. "Reality" is merely an assumption, probably of exploitative white males. Perhaps because Mr Windschuttle is an academic he refrains from what most Ozzies and other decent folk would say: these characters are raving nutcases. And they inhabit most of the humanities departments in the whole of the Anglosphere, not just in history and not just in Australia. None of these charlatans would survive for a moment if they didn't have the taxpayer financing their nefarious activities. I doubt if they'd make it as sellers of the Big Issue. And this ladies and gentlemen is why any attempt by our government to promote "Britishness" is doomed to fail. Our educational establishment is under the control of the same lunatics. For them, all cultures are equal. Except ours; it is uniquely evil.Don't we live in interesting times?
2 comments:
Comments made on previous template:
ThunderDragon
I'm a postgraduate History student, and I have no idea what the difference between all the stupid "types" of history that are promoted by various theories and philosophies.
In fact, history no longer seems to be about the classic narratives, but the fringes race, class and gender now seem to be the main forces pushing it along - and it is wrong.
Too many historians focus so much on one area (be it time, place or approach) that the grand narratives will die out. And that is what we need to fight. Those microhistories mean nothing without a grand narrative in which to set them. The sooner that this is realised by professional historians and generally, the better.
4 February 2007, 23:32:04 GMT
– Like – Reply
james higham
Sigh. The days of PC relativism in everything and now they've dirtied history. I'd like to think they'll pay for this but they won't.
3 February 2007, 13:13:58 GMT
– Like – Reply
Donald Maclean
Well, any group that can take Fukuyama seriously...
30 January 2007, 21:45:44 GMT
– Like – Reply
David Farrer
Extraordinary!
30 January 2007, 18:31:26 GMT
– Like – Reply
Deacon Barry
Talking of interesting times, did you know your blog is part of a world record? I only found out this weekend that back in November, a blogger called Tino Buntic posted a 2000 word post in which every word is a link. One of them is to me, and one of them is to you. If you're interested, the link is http://tinobuntic.blogspot.com/2006/11/2000-anchor-text-links-in-single-blog.html
I don't know if any other Scottish blogs are linked to, because only blogs that you've previously visited are highlighted.
29 January 2007, 20:36:09 GMT
– Like – Reply
Comments made on previous template:
dearieme
Windschuttle's "Fabrication of Australian History" is a tremendous read. He demonstrates that his intellectual foes are not all just chumps: many are liars and frauds.
27 January 2007, 14:44:16 GMT
– Like – Reply
Philo Sophist
In most respects I am quite sympathetic to what you say, and generally have little time for such people as you refer to.
However these sort of conceptual disciplines and theories of knowledge are what contemporary academia is all about. You say "Any opinion is as good as any other", but you cannot prove an opinion right or wrong, you must do a Socrates and interrogate people arguments to find if they are logically coherent.
Now you might just end up with something like this:
I believe A is morally right because it says so in the Bible/Quoran.
That is pretty much a dead end, but you can use the Bible/Quoran to further interrogate such people. For example the Bible say ‘Thou shall not kill’ (thou shall not murder is probably a more accurate interpretation), and you can then ask why – in the American states which have the death penalty – they have capital punishment.
"How do I know that this "Gladstone" character actually existed? For that matter, was there really a Palmerston, a Disraeli or even a Queen Victoria? And this "London" place - is it real? I think I've been there, but what does that prove?"
Descartes got there first! Cogito, ergo sum, but I think you will find it is pretty pointless waking up in the morning and wondering whether the world is real or not. Nevertheless knowledge has limits, and it is important to recognise that fact.
"Perhaps because Mr Windschuttle is an academic he refrains from what most Ozzies and other decent folk would say: these characters are raving nutcases."
Yes but that can be nothing more than common prejudice, and it is the job of academics to challenge existing assumptions and beliefs no matter how much it might annoy people.
The fact is ideas about white supremacy and the inferiority of Orientals was once the received wisdom, and people who challenged those assumptions were also once regarded as "raving nutcases". Referring to Orientalists, Macaulay’s Minute on Indian education said:
"I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia."
And many at the time would have agreed with him.
26 January 2007, 20:35:27 GMT
Post a Comment