I have to say this man and his accomplishments were over-rated. I think of him as a very good popularizer of history, with a populist-left stance on most issues. That is about all an adumbrated schema like 'People's History' could ever do anyway.
One problem wih saying he changed history (in a double-meaning sense) is that currently we live not in an era of history but an era of current events. History used to be one of the grand narratives of bourgeois academia. It's still a subject of bourgeois academia, but the belief in grand narratives is shattered. However, historical scholasticism has very little appeal to mass audiences, no matter what the approach. It's now just a minor part (except for the occasional best-selling author) of the academic discourse machine gone mad known as 'American academia (and think tanks). Some of the best work that was done in the 20th century on the 'underside' to American history wasn't done by historians but by sociologists and journalists. CJ ^^^^^^^^^ CB: I can believe what you say is true. The US ruling class, whose ideas are rule the age, inculcate "presentism", political amnesia, political althsheimer's ( spelling ?) in US masses. Even thinking "historically" would be a radicalization of the US population. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
