Insightful read. Paul Johnson was an incredible, prolific writer by any stretch (he more or less opened me up to reading more works of history) but I had no idea how prolific.
Compared to, and unlike the few left wing historians I've read (Howard Zinn, Mike Davis) Johnson makes a full-hearted attempt to see his subjects from every angle, good features, warts and all. I think there's wholeness, and intellectual honesty in his writing even if it comes with a heavy conservative tint.
Would not say they same for the revisionist, agenda-driven left (for example, the 1618 project). Unlike the odd Paul Johnsons, they run practically every college history department.
The only person now who comes close to Johnson's knowledge, brilliance, and comprehensive understanding or complex subjects is Victor Davis Hanson.
I think that’s the benefit of being aware of where a writer is coming from, worldview wise. It gives you another angle to evaluate their arguments and claims. And then some historians are more biased than others. When Richard Cohen asked Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm about whether it was possible to be objective, he said, “Of course not. But I try to follow the rules.” That is to say, he makes an effort to represent the evidence accurately, fully, etc. Not everyone does.
I found this really interesting. In my youth I became so bored with having to learn about events that seemed remote and ridiculous, about kings and queens always going to war, I took a course in social and economic history. I loved it, not just because it was about 'ordinary' people, but because it was about what was happening and its wider ramifications. It was a different kind of history of the same periods as the normal history courses. At university I took a course called The History of Economic Thought, which proved to be fascinating. In Economics, we were taught that in 1776 Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, but not why or why then. In the History of Economic Thought course we looked at what else was going on, what influenced what, and so on. For example, until around 1776 people thought the wealth of the world was fixed, so the only way to get more was to go to war on another country and grab their stuff. So based on that logic, going to war all the time wasn't so ridiculous.
I've never read What is History, despite having a copy for years, but Carr's daughter has written a book called What is History Now? (https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-History-Now-Suzannah-Lipscomb/dp/147462247X/r), which again I haven't read but which is an example of what has come to be called Alternative History (not to be confused with Alternate History), ie looking at historical periods and events from a feminist/black/disabled/gender etc perspective.
I also heard once that in the Hindu culture history is more about the deeds and writings of holy people than dates. I don't know if that's true, but even the idea is suggestive of the fact that there is more than one way of interpreting the past.
Insightful read. Paul Johnson was an incredible, prolific writer by any stretch (he more or less opened me up to reading more works of history) but I had no idea how prolific.
Compared to, and unlike the few left wing historians I've read (Howard Zinn, Mike Davis) Johnson makes a full-hearted attempt to see his subjects from every angle, good features, warts and all. I think there's wholeness, and intellectual honesty in his writing even if it comes with a heavy conservative tint.
Would not say they same for the revisionist, agenda-driven left (for example, the 1618 project). Unlike the odd Paul Johnsons, they run practically every college history department.
The only person now who comes close to Johnson's knowledge, brilliance, and comprehensive understanding or complex subjects is Victor Davis Hanson.
Great article!
I think that’s the benefit of being aware of where a writer is coming from, worldview wise. It gives you another angle to evaluate their arguments and claims. And then some historians are more biased than others. When Richard Cohen asked Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm about whether it was possible to be objective, he said, “Of course not. But I try to follow the rules.” That is to say, he makes an effort to represent the evidence accurately, fully, etc. Not everyone does.
I found this really interesting. In my youth I became so bored with having to learn about events that seemed remote and ridiculous, about kings and queens always going to war, I took a course in social and economic history. I loved it, not just because it was about 'ordinary' people, but because it was about what was happening and its wider ramifications. It was a different kind of history of the same periods as the normal history courses. At university I took a course called The History of Economic Thought, which proved to be fascinating. In Economics, we were taught that in 1776 Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, but not why or why then. In the History of Economic Thought course we looked at what else was going on, what influenced what, and so on. For example, until around 1776 people thought the wealth of the world was fixed, so the only way to get more was to go to war on another country and grab their stuff. So based on that logic, going to war all the time wasn't so ridiculous.
I've never read What is History, despite having a copy for years, but Carr's daughter has written a book called What is History Now? (https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-History-Now-Suzannah-Lipscomb/dp/147462247X/r), which again I haven't read but which is an example of what has come to be called Alternative History (not to be confused with Alternate History), ie looking at historical periods and events from a feminist/black/disabled/gender etc perspective.
I also heard once that in the Hindu culture history is more about the deeds and writings of holy people than dates. I don't know if that's true, but even the idea is suggestive of the fact that there is more than one way of interpreting the past.
Terry, I just read Carr’s book last year. I found it interesting. Thanks for the tip on his daughter’s book!
One thing great about history as a discipline is how vast and varied it is. There’s an angle for everyone.