When I took a US history class in college, I remember reading tons of firsthand sources, letters and the like from the different time periods. We had a separate textbook of just these firsthand sources. So I find it odd that the new president of Harvard, a war historian, seems to be arguing that we should dissuade people from relying on firsthand sources in order to understand the war in Iraq. Why would a war historian not want people to pay attention to blogs and emails and YouTube videos from soldiers and Marines who are currently fighting this war? Surely this war historian doesn't think that letters from the Civil War are just propaganda and "war porn" that need to be downplayed, so it's ridiculous to ignore modern firsthand sources of war. Apparently she's just against the idea because war historians like herself haven't had time to cherrypick these sources and weed out the ones that make Americans feel that fighting the War on Terrorism is a good thing. Nothing like a war historian with an agenda to brighten my day.

MORE:

Read this analysis by Sean Lawson.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.