History and Identity

Today in class we talked with a Native American historian who is Native American - that is, s/he studies a people with whom s/he has a personal family history connection. We also read a very dense and scholarly work on Native American history (not by the historian we were talking to.) Some people in the class wondered if this biased the perspective - even though the content is completely scholarly and rigorous - especially since the author bookended the scholarly text with his/her own family history and connection to the story. The family connection was not in the actual body of the work - just in the prologue and epilogue. Then we talked about how some Native historians believe that only Native people should write Native history.

These sort of questions really get me going. Who should write histories of "oppressed" peoples? What sorts of problems emerge when writing from a dominant cultural background about an oppressed people? These are questions we really have to think about because we in academia are not past racism. We are not past sexism. We live in it every day, and it's no longer personal or even necessarily blatant group racism - i.e. the historical scholarship in the 1910s about slavery saying African Americans were just so inherently inferior, lazy, etc that slavery made the most sense. It's who gets book prizes. Who goes to graduate school. Who is still in power at conferences and heads of departments and all of that.

I don't think that everyone is (and by that I usually mean white men and women are) inherently racist and sexist and that this shows up in their historical work - but I'm afraid that's how my comments came across today. I mentioned that many white people, when confronted with racism, retreat to their most oppressed identity. I was really struck by this in my own life and how I saw it in others' lives. However, when we write history, we are encouraged to remove ourselves from the picture - lest we, like the above author, be criticized for bias. But we can't escape our own bias. We can't change what ethnicity we are, even if we'd love to go "Native" so to speak and get down there as if we were born Native. I feel like this is a disappointment to people. But we can't do it. What we have to do is realize our own identity and what it is that interests us about the subjects we study. This sounds so psychoanalytical, but I think it matters. I think we should all write prologues "giving away" our identities - not just those who have a family connection to the story. Not just "ethnic" historians, in both senses of the term, as they often coincide. It doesn't matter what you are writing about. If you are writing about white people, shouldn't you say that you are white just like the Native people note their connection? Why isn't that important to us white people? What does that say?

So what do we as white historians do? I think we need to understand that many people of color live in a white dominated American society and that because of our privilege, we can just ignore the fact that everyone must become fluent in our culture as well as their culture. Can I just go from my white-bread background, research slavery, and write about it without thinking about what a black person might think of this? I mean, you can - but I don't think it's responsible history. And reading sources isn't enough. I think we need to talk to each other about race, without getting defensive. And people might not be willing to share their culture, because well, they've been screwed over in the past. It is our responsibility to prove that we are trustworthy. That we will listen, not interrupt or debate, not invalidate their experience. And then, we can write history. And the same goes true the other way - but I think people of color have far more understanding of white culture than vice versa.

And if I am of a culture (say, me writing about white women), it is also my responsibility to realize what bias that has on my writing. To exclude my own personal feelings, emotions, etc from the scholarship that is not the prologue or the epilogue. Argue whatever the sources give you - which we all hope line up with our own social agendas, deep down, right? - be true to your sources, tell the history as best you can. But acknowledge why you write in the appropriate place.


****

Anyhow. In other news, I feel alternately better and worse about my classes and how I am doing in them. Oh well. I am not here to stroke my ego. I am here to learn, and every day I am learning something new. So I have an off day here or there - that's just how it is. I need to be reminded of this every day. I feel so unprepared for seminar.

I need to be reading, but instead I am going to prepare for my get-together tonight for the premier of The Office. I am going to attempt to make soft pretzels. Wish me luck.