Why is it so difficult to 'question' historical viewpoints?

We are often presented with 'authoritative' statements about historical events that may seem quite suspect, or, at least raise questions about the way in which they are being interpreted, but many of us are cautious about asking questions. This is particularly true when the 'authority' is from a group that has historically suffered oppression. Thus, when Nat Turner is presented to us as a liberator, we feel squeamish about asking whether he might not (also) have been a religious fanatic and a terrorist. When we are told matter-of-factly that all Native Americans lived 'peacefully, humbly' and 'close to the earth' we don't raise questions about slash and burn farming, intense inter-tribal warfare, or rigid class structures that some Native Americans practiced as a matter of course. When we hear it asserted that womens' political 'power' was minimal to non-existent before they achieved the franchise (or, Roe v Wade), we do not ask about the very significant role they played as petitioners to Congress in opposition of the Indian Removal Act, slavery, conditions in prisons, etc.



Are we simply victims of political correctness? Or, do we become genuinely confused in the face of the 'experts'? It would be good if we could openly address some of these issues within the confines of this group. We cannot expect our students to become serious historical inquirers if we shy away from asking hard questions ourselves--and perhaps examining our own underlying assumptions (we call this 'point of view' today; it used to be known as 'bias')





At any rate, we can look forward to a very interesting workshop on February 13, 2008 when the topic at hand will be 'historiography' (how one actually reads and writes good history from a critical perspective). In the last analysis, this is really about critical thinking skills--our own and those we hope to inculcate in our students.