<p>I am taking three history courses right now, and I have come to realize that they all take a Marxist view of history. They sounded like interesting and fun classes when I registered for them, but over the course of the semester I have grown more and more frustrated with what I am being taught. I now know that they are trying to make us all Marxists. I get asked questions like "Explain the origins of corruption in the Church in the Late Middle Ages" or "How have workers been exploited at the point of corruption?" I strongly disagree with this Marxist approach and I hate the assumptions it implies. </p>
<p>I have several papers to write and exams coming up soon that will test how Marxist I have become (that's honestly how I feel). I wish I could offer a fiery critique of Marxist historiography in the next discussion section or in my papers, but that would make me an atheist at a Sunday Mass. </p>
<p>I don't understand how to be a Marxist historian and don't care to be one anyway. Are there any ideas how I can get by with little damage to my conscience or to my grade point average?</p>
<p>My stupidity in deciding to be a poli sci major in advanced Marxist history courses is going to cost me .15 points in my gpa and might prevent me from getting accepted by a top five law school. I am not meaning to sound whiny, but I understand the arbitrariness and stubbornness in college history departments.</p>
<p>Happy Thanksgiving!</p>
<p>But the church did have corrupt practices. And workers were exploited.</p>
<p>You are confusing me. The examples don’t seem to scream “BE A HISTORICAL MATERIALIST” to me…</p>
<p>I missed the proof they “are trying to make us all Marxists.” This isn’t one of those threads set to get all complaining about those nasty liberal profs, is it? Think you need to study up on the Middle Ages, to understand.</p>
<p>Ah, so the rumors of college professors being left-wing are true?
Write what they want. OR, present your own true feelings. Professors, I would think, would like to see their students present and defend their points, even if it is opposite of the professors’. And if they don’t, go inquire why.</p>
<p>I might have sounded a little too brash in my original post. I am talking only about the Marxist approach to history, which is different from Marxist political ideology. I believe that leaders, politics, and war have influenced the course of history. Not the theory of an alleged class conflict.</p>
<p>Disregard my examples. Marx came relatively recently. What I disagree with are the assumptions. This kind of history is assuming that history has been unjust, history has favored one class of people over another, and that by presupposing these ideas in the study of history we can overturn the supposed unjustness in modern society.</p>
<p>Anyway, if my post was just about how to get by in a course that makes my head boil - any advice?</p>
<p>But, there was what we would now call injustice. In fact, the cards were stacked and, in many cases, the only checks and balances were…the willingness of the people to accept status quo, for various reasons. “Buy in,” as it were. Accept and perpetuate. Until…</p>
<p>Could you defend that that historical period was, in fact, just? Can you see that, by observing how things did play out- that change only began when the people got some sort of voice- then you expand your perspective in an intellectual way, not necessarily political? It can stop short of political (I personally think it should.)</p>
<p>Thus, the tie in to modern. There’s little evidence in history of leadership granting comforts, privileges and even a sustainable level of life, out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s complicated. And rich. </p>
<p>My advice is to google what began to happen after what we call the late Middle Ages. It helps to see how how each era is characterized and how experts view the significance of changes, from era to era. Nothing to be lost and everything to be gained. Especially if you’d like law school, which can require the ability to interpret from many perspectives. Good luck.</p>
<p>Interesting. I just have to respond. </p>
<p>I think that Marxist historiography discounts the value of history. It looks at events in the past in the context of today and labels them “unjust.” Different contexts = different standards. What we determine is “unjust” today could have been justified by the standards of these time periods. Marxist historians are doing little favor to the current “masses,” which they supposedly defend in their revisionist histories, when they don’t consider the circumstances of the times in which previous “masses” lived. I believe that they basically generalize the “people” today, the “people” in history, and their historical contexts.There is no likelihood for change today when they generalize and look at history from one perspective because it’s mired in great error.</p>
<p>I like to focus on the “how” and not necessarily the “why” when it comes to history or politics. History, like politics, is an art. The stories should be told and analyzed in the appropriate historical context instead of being manipulated as part of a larger argument to advocate a cause for today. This means we must look at who is making the decisions in history, what huge events are shaping them, i.e. war, and even if the “people” are shaping them or responding to them, they are still using political means. Thus, history begins and ends with politics. </p>
<p>This could be the political junkie in me speaking, but that’s why I am a political science major rather than a history major. This view probably won’t be shared by the very kind, thoughtful “nasty liberal profs.” in my history courses, which is the main reason why I created this thread. Should I just swallow my pride and become a historical Marxist for the next three weeks, or should I kritik this outlook and risk damaging my gpa?</p>
<p>Personally, I’d say, one can try to explain in the context of those times. The problem in analyzing history is that, while the goal is to interpret in the context, it’s a moving target. Depending on the period of history, the latest translations or publications, the current times, etc, the interpretations of meaning and significance…are influenced by the context the researcher/author finds himself in. You end up with different views. No time period is exempt.</p>
<p>Politcs, in practice, also runs this risk of generalizing or inserting one’s own slant. Eg, treating subsets of an electorate as a characterizable mass-?</p>
<p>My advice is to treat this as a learning experience. Rather than doubt the points being made, because (if) a prof is framing it per his own views or politics, see how your understanding can be enhanced. If the prof, in essence, aks you to analyze from a particular perspective, try it. It’s not unlike questions, eg, that ask you to interpret from a particular economic viewpoint or “in light of” some authority’s proclamation. It’s an exercise in learning. I see education as a long walk, sometimes with detours. As I said before, the ability to follow various perspectves is a factor in studying law. Good luck.</p>
<p>You have a couple of choices: </p>
<p>(1) Write what you know they’re looking for. Some professors do in fact want you to mirror their own point of view.</p>
<p>(2) Be true to your own beliefs and write a well-researched, carefully-documented essay that presents your understanding of the facts as you read them.</p>
<p>Many, even most, profs will respect you for this. Example: I am a prof and I have in my class a student whose political views clash sharply with my own (I try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the discussion and clearly identify them as personal opinions when they sneak in). I respect this student and have given him high grades on his papers when they meet the assignment, and are carefully crafted.</p>
<p>It may well be that your history department has distinctly Marxist leanings; some schools are known for hiring people with specific political ideologies. That’s why one of my friends ended up majoring in classical piano performance - his political views didn’t matter one way or the other!</p>
<p>If anyone cares to know, I have recently embraced my inner fake Marxism. I just wrote a paper critiquing a new Marxist theory, but instead of blasting Marxist historiography, I said the new theory is not topical to historical materialism. So I basically pretend to be an ultra Marxist purist. I now see some of the logic behind Marxist historiography, but it’s still complete hogwash to me. I just now have an intellectual reason to hate Marxism.</p>