Cross-posted to Cliopatria
Jeez, where to begin?
The article makes much of the apparent failure of the American Historical Review to publish much concerning military history. But it overlooks the fact the 2004 annual meeting of the American Historical Association had as its theme “Thoughts on War in a Democratic Age.” And while there is truth in the fact that the American Historical Review seldom publishes military history, no one has checked independently to see if 1) military historians are actually submitting articles for consideration by the journal; and 2) the submissions meet the high standards expected from any flagship professional journal.
A contraindication may be had by noting that the Journal of American History, generally considered to be as “leftist” as the AHR, has in fact commissioned an article on the current state of the field of American military history. Wayne E. Lee, a rising star at the University of North Carolina, is currently completing that study.
Noticing that miitary historians were no longer even trying the organize sessions dealing with their field, ther program committee for the 1996 Organization of American Historians annual meeting used its clout to insist upon a “presidential session” that shwcased military history. I suspect the 1997 program may have done the same. In any event, at the request of a committee member, I organized a session for the 1996 OAH — the subject was race and war in the American experiences; panelists included the late Craig M. Cameron of Old Dominion University,myself, Brian M. Linn of Texas A&M, and, as our commentator, Tami Davis Biddle, then of Duke University. Our moderator was John Shy of the University of Michigan.
The 1997 OAH panel took the form of a round table on the future of teaching military history in civilian academe. In this case, I can’t recall who else was on the panel — maybe I can look it up — but I recall that Richard H. Kohn presided over it.
No doubt about it, some in academia indeed view military history with jaundiced eye, just as others are impatient with women’s history or unwilling to provide enough faculty positions to cover adequately the non-North American, non-European regions of the world. And it must also be acknowledged, candidly, that military historians have not always been good ambassadors for their field. But the situation is nowhere near as bleak as the article portrays.
The business about the “problem” of the infiltration of social history into military history, for its part, is by far the weakest part of the article. Edward M. Coffman, the Wisconsin professor emeritus the author praises in the second paragraph, was in fact a social historian of the American army. Coffman wrote two classic works on the subject — The Old Army: A Portrait of the American Army in Peacetime, 1784-1898, and The Regulars: The American Army, 1898-1941 — and trained a generation of fine military historians, many of whom employ the same approach; e.g., Joseph T. Glatthaar’s Forged in Battle: The Civil War Alliance of Black Soldiers and White Officers.
The article quotes John A. Lynn on his belief that once he retires from the University of Illinois, he will probably not be replaced. But it overlooks the fact that in 1997, Lynn wrote a classic article for the Journal of Military History in which he argued that gender history and the new cultural history provide powerful tools by which to get at a core concern of military history: the experience of combat.
I could go on — and I think I will. But first, time for a steaming cup of coffee.
5 Comments
Mark,
I would also add that together with N.C. State, Duke and UNC created the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, which hosts great talks and seminars throughout the year and brings prominent military historians together with the local community. All three schools allow their students to enroll in courses at the others, which allowed me to take the core military history courses at Duke and Chapel Hill. All of this under the stewardship of Dick Kohn, of course. I agree with you that it’s no surprise that National Review didn’t contact Prof. Kohn. I’m sure he wouldn’t be caught dead reading that rag anyway. Slanted drivel.
Yes, I’ve heard great things about TASS, and it sounds like a model of how collaborative military history should be done.
I’m getting genuinely curious about what prompted Mr. Miller’s piece. A number of military historian contributed quotations. Did they know what overall effect the author was going for? Is it possible that one or more of them even encouraged him to do a story on the rough time military history allegedly receives from the “tenured radicals.” If so, I think it was naive on their part to do so. Playing into a culture of complaint is hardly constructive. Conservatives get impatient when liberals, feminists, and black activists complain, etc. Why should military historians receive a pass? On the contrary, why should a conservative magazine not reject the politics of victimization and inquire pointedly of military historians what positive steps they have taken, or are taking, to protect or advance the field? The only answer, to which I keep returning, is that the demise of academic military history would simply provide the Right with an additional talking point.
Can you imagine the salutary effect if NRO had taken the opposite tack, and promoted the growth of military history despite the slings and arrows of those within the academy who dislike the field? Can you imagine if those who commented for the piece had adopted a forward-looking, determined posture rather than the defeatism that is generally evident. Is this just a case of selective quotation, or does it accurately reflect what they chose to tell him? If the latter, I’m disappointed. We’re in the business of studying men of blood and iron. You’d think of little of their fortitude would rub off on us.
I thought the American Historical Review thing was an odd point to make in a way too. It seems to me it rather neglects the fact that there exist various specialist journals that I’d have thought would be first port of call for most military historians anyway.
Now, maybe there’s a debate to be had over whether it’s a good thing (and why) military writers tend to gather their work in highly specialised publications that will probably be read only by other specialists. But it seems to me that you can’t just plonk the AHR on the table and flatly claim bias.
Mark, — Thanks alot for these posts. For those of us who deal with these kinds of criticisms which warn us against the evil liberal-social historians you’ve made it very easy to respond. The miracle of the link.
Good series of posts. Much to think on.
You wrote: “A number of military historian contributed quotations. Did they know what overall effect the author was going for?”
You could always ask them that question as you know Prof. Lynn and Prof. Murray quite well. I am somewhat curious myself what they think of the article. Media outlets (both right and left) have an unsavory history of taking long interviews with people and extracting only brief quotes that reinforce the point the article was trying to make. Sometimes when that quote is even opposite to what the interviewee was trying to communicate.