Another book I almost forgot, Arthur Marwick’s The Nature of History. In his chapter “Controversy and History” he writes:
There is a form of historiographical discourse (particularly prevalent in the United States) where the historical writing on any issue is divided up into different schools (Conservative, Progressive, Revisionist, ect) each said to present a distinct view on the issue. To concentrate on the differences of interpretation which historians present is to miss the main purpose of historical study: deepened understanding of the past. (328)
…by bringing competing hypotheses into open confrontation with each other, by forcing re-examination of methodology and sources, by forcing authors to consider new approaches and new evidence, it ultimately advances the cause of historical understanding. (329)
The different schools of history writing need to be presented, with care, and in doing so they can only help to expand and “deepen” our understanding of history. Indeed. Perhaps I overstepped by saying Zinn should not be used in a serious way, he should be used, but in an objective and fair manner. But that’s the problem, who determines what is objective and what is fair?
