The American Hysterical Association

Originally posted at The Festering Swamp on April 15, 2007

This is the first of twenty-seven blog entries that were initially posted at The Festering Swamp. There's not much to add to what I wrote over a year ago, except to say that my membership in the American Historical Association expired on January 31, 2008. I donated what would have been my renewal fee to the Republican National Committee instead. – Mike LaRoche

On January 7, 2007, the American Historical Association (AHA) Council accepted a resolution passed at the organization's annual meeting entitled "U. S. Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession." The writers of the resolution took particular issue with the global war on terror, the war in Iraq, and security measures taken by the government since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The hysterical anti-Bush/blame America first tone of the entire resolution is captured with this sentence:

Whereas during the war in Iraq and the so-called [emphasis mine] war on terror, the current Administration has violated the above-mentioned standards and principles through the following practices...

That's right; it's the "so-called" war on terror because all "thinking" people know:

1. Islamic terrorism is just part of an elaborate plot to enable George W. Bush to call off the 2008 election and declare himself Chimperor for Life, and
   
2. Fire cannot melt steel.
   

When the AHA accepted the resolution this past January, I mentioned my displeasure with the move in the comments section at Cathy's World, pledging to let my AHA membership expire at the end of the month. When the AHA Council decided to submit the resolution to the full membership for approval by March, I decided to renew my membership for another year so as to have a say in the matter.

I haven't written at length about my disgust over the resolution because I wanted to have time to think about how it conflicted with my values as an historian and educator and explain my disagreement rationally rather than emotionally. My underlying problem with the resolution and those who support it is that they, unwittingly or not, are blurring the line between history and mythology. As Wellesley College historian Paul A. Cohen explained in History in Three Keys, good historians have a primary objective of trying to construct as accurate a history of the past as possible with the best available information. Mythologizers, by contrast, draw upon history to serve the emotional, political, and psychological needs of the present. Historians deal in complexity, nuance, and ambiguity, realizing that an accurate understanding of the past does not solely rest upon a foundation of information, which can be distorted. Conversely, mythologizers adhere to one-dimensional constructs, distorting or oversimplifying information or omitting that which does not serve their intended purpose. They are also quick to level virtual accusations of heresy against those who depart from their preconceived historical constructs.

The resolution in question essentially asked professional historians to make the following choice: would it be best to examine the causes of Islamic terrorism and America's response to it from an objective standpoint once all information was readily available (which may not be until years or decades from now), or should we condemn the Bush Administration for restricting access to security-sensitive documents, despite the fact that such documents, if made available, might put peoples' lives in immediate danger? On March 12, 2007, AHA members irresponsibly chose the latter course, voting by a 76% to 24% margin to accept the resolution. Such is how academic respectability dies: to thunderous applause.