What’s his deal and is he worth reading?
>>23620387He’s a Jew but I have two of his books, one of which I’m going to read right after the next one I’m on. Picrel. From what I know he’s a snarky liberal but I’m sure he might have bits of insight here and there. Always read with a critical eye.
>>23620521Jews have always had the insight and been the forefathers of revolutions because of their Old Testament blood, rootlessness, cultural alienation; it gives them a critical eye and the ability to evaluate and act due to living in a society yet detached from it
>>23620387Bump
>>23621709>>23620387As far as I understand, only having read The American Political Tradition and seeing him referenced in Lasch and other historians, Hofstadter's important because he's one of the first that departed from the more nostalgic view of American history (like the one we learn in grade school). Instead, Hofstadter put in extensive legwork to actually take a critical look at people like Hamilton, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, and try and match their words (and thoughts) to their actions, in order to better judge exactly what these guys thought was important and how well they lived up to those ideals. The consensus historian label is retarded and only exists in contradistinction to the more historical materialist historiography like Beard.
>>23620387Yes, he is from the holy trinity of Gödel, Escher and ... Oh wait he is the other guy, never mind.Also: what has the Sartre to do with this?
>>23620550I guess that makes sense
>>23623194It seems him and Beard were both pessimists, no? And how does Bailyn figure into this in regards to American historiography?
>>23623801I am not very familiar with Beard at all past the stuff everybody knows about him -- for him, history is the story of people trying to make money. In that way I could see how he could easy be interpreted as a pessimist (but again, haven't read enough about him). But his lasting contribution was more that he opened up discussion about historiography anyway. I'd say Hofstadter was more a realist than a pessimist; he had no issue giving credit where it was due. But he also pointed out flaws in judgment and character of some American heroes that had until that point been almost universally celebrated. That might be what causes some to label him a pessimist. Bailyn followed in the footsteps of Hofstadter (as most interesting American historians since the 1950s have) in method and historiography, and his major contribution was piecing together the philosophy and worldview of the founding generation: who they read, what they thought, and how they interpreted the actions of the British government prior to the Revolutionary War. I haven't read too much about him either but from my limited information he struck me as more interested in the history of ideas than in individuals. His major contribution was piecing together and fleshing out the intellectual connection between the revolutionary generation and the "country parties" of Britain that opposed the colossal expansion of the British government in the 1720s and 1730s. That opposition didn't go anywhere in Britain, but the mindset would have a huge impact on how the colonial Americans interpreted the offenses the Crown would start to stack on in the 1750s and 1760s.
Bump
>>23624123>history of ideas than in individualsWho, Bailyn? I don’t get that from him at all.
