Historians as Judges

I have begun reading a book that has been sat on my shelf for some time now, the sort of book you are so used to seeing, you forget you haven’t read it . . .if you know what I mean?  The book is by James Donovan, and it is called “A Terrible glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn”.  For those who read my last blog you may wish to know that is structured chronologically around a narrative, it has good references and the Prologue tells you everything you need to know about the book in terms of style and content.

I must say I am rather enjoying it.  The topic is a side interest of mine, notably Native American histories and cultures, and the book is interesting as well as informative.  The reason I have decided to commit it to blog is because of the way he deals with an interesting problem for historians or commentators in general; the need to judge.

Academically speaking, imposing your own views and morals on an historical event or person is a big faux-pas.  But in the popular market it is almost expected.  We like to hear of villains and manipulators, good guys trod on by ‘the man’ (another elusive villain) and so on.  But this means ignoring evidence that contradicts this portrayal or morphing evidence to conform to your depiction – good reading, bad writing.

Within this sphere, it is popular to depict ‘General’ (not his real rank, but what everyone calls him) Custer as deranged, evil, even suffering with some form of psychosis – all using selective evidence and a big dollop of artistic licence.  Conversely it was once popular to portray him as a hero making a suicidal stand for the nation he loved as the evil ‘injuns’ massacred him and his men with a force 4 times the size.  Both flawed, both ridiculous, both very popular in their times.

What I like about Donovan’s book is that there is an absence of judgement (so far, I haven’t finished it yet) about individuals.  Custer was arrogant and thought highly of himself, but he was also a clever man, a natural leader, quick thinker and in love with his wife (even though he was unfaithful as a younger man).  On the other side the Lakotah (or Sioux to any western fans) were trying to maintain their hunting grounds, sacred lands and traditions . . . the lands of which they had taken by force from weaker tribes.  In other words, there is no side that comes out smelling of roses nor is there a natural ‘bad’ side either.

There is one school of thought that believes an historian’s job is to be like a judge and right the historical wrongs.  Whether one believes this or not, it must be accepted that the limitation of historical evidence makes that a very hard job indeed!  It is difficult though, as many topics historians write about are emotive in nature and raise issues people want answering but there is no answer.  Are we to judge earlier periods by our own standards?  Making the assumption that we are right and they were wrong?  Are we to judge them by their own standards?  Assuming we know enough about their thought structures to recreate and act upon them?

Custer was a man with many friends and as many enemies.  If his own time period could not decide on his motives and whether he was ‘good’ or ‘bad’, what possible chance have we got?

This entry was posted in Tangents and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *