The Conversation
I. The Historical Enterprise
Investigating the subtleties
HB: Itâs great to be chatting with you. Like many people, Iâve read several of your books, which brings me to my first point. There are those who regard history as some objective statement of universal truth, or at least as close as we can perhaps come to an objective statement of universal truth.
So itâs somewhat ironic to me that two of your recent books have been released with two completely different titles in two parts of the world where they speak the same language. I wonder if youâve received any flack for this, or if anyone has even noticed.
Of course, I appreciate that this isnât your responsibility, but I thought Iâd ask.
MM Well, I blame the publishers. Occasionally I get angry emails from people saying, âIâve just bought your book again, not realizing that it was the same one.â And I do not offer a refund. That is not my responsibility. Itâs a transatlantic thing. American publishers like to put their own titles on them.
HB: And not only do they come up with their own titles, but theyâre typically very aggressive onesâif you take their word for it, you always seem to be changing the world with what youâre doing.
MM: Thatâs right. Personally, I donât like the trend. As you say, I did a book on the Paris Peace Conference, which was subtitled, Six Months That Changed The World, and then I did another book on President Nixonâs trip to China, that was subtitled, Six Days That Changed The World.
HB: Right, so how much time is left now to change the world?
MM: Well, Iâm getting down to milliseconds. And there are not many instances where one can plausibly say that there were six milliseconds that changed the world, so Iâm hoping that we can find some other subtitle.
But itâs all about marketing, of course.
HB: Sure. Well, careening into a more serious vein, our topic for today is all about the purpose, the goals, the future, the limitation and the possibilities of history. Now that I reflect upon it, perhaps thatâs far too grandiose a title. And I know that, as a general rule, you are not somebody who looks for grandiose summations of history.
In your book, The Uses and Abuses of History, you are resolute in trying to eschew any fixed patterns in history, any preset orientations that people might like to impose on history. So, perhaps I should begin by simply asking you, as a professional historian, what the principal goals of history are for you? What do you feel you are doing, exactly, and why?
MM: I do it myself, because Iâm curious about the past. I always have been. So I find it very pleasurable to have a look at history.
I am very leery about saying that history is very useful. I donât think we do history because of its utilityâit doesnât give us a blueprint for the future, for example.
But I think history does do a couple things: it helps us to understand ourselves and know something about what produced usâthe forces, the factors, the geography, whatever you want to think aboutâthat produced us.
You canât think about Canadian history, for instance, without understanding that we were once part of a much bigger empire that has helped to shape Canada and its institutions. You canât think about Canadian history without the understanding that we live next door to one of the great powers of the world. Again, thatâs just part of what has helped us to become what we are.
And I think history also helps us understand other people and makes us appreciate the sorts of things that have shaped them. I mean, how can you understand the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians unless you understand the histories of both peoples? Their histories are clearly very important to both of them.
So I think history does give us some understanding. It may also give us some warnings: if we do certain things we may run into trouble. I donât think it will ever predict the future, of course.
But on the whole, I think we do it because of curiosity, really.
HB: But of course, there have been historians in the past who have been considerably bolder than what youâre enunciating now. I mean, there have been historians who have explicitly said things like, âI am writing this down as a guide to future generations. Iâm doing this, not only because I think itâs important to bear witness, but so that it can be useful to people in the future.â
So there is this clear avowal by some past historians, at least, of this deliberate, rather more grandiose, shall we say, goal.
MM: Well, I certainly believe that bearing witness to the past is very important. There are stories that have been hidden in the past that we need to know about. And nations sometimes have to confront very unpleasant things about themselves, and that act of confronting oneâs past is, I believe, a very important part of being a grown-up nation.
But the sort of history that says that there is a grand pattern in the world, or one which tries to weave together the story of the past to prove the rightness or wrongness of a particular position, or the rightness or wrongness of a particular nation doing somethingâthat sort of history is, I think, very bad.
So Iâd make a real distinction between, as you say, the history, that bears witnessâthat is, a record of what happened that you have to look at and be prepared to carefully examine the various ramifications of it from all anglesâand the idea that there is some sort of grand pattern to things.
In my view, this grand pattern is either so vacuous and general that it doesnât tell you much. I mean, Arnold Toynbee, who in some ways was a very interesting historian, wrote about civilizations growing and declining. Iâm not sure that tells us very muchâit just tells us that things have beginnings, middles and ends.
HB: Which most of us knew already.
MM: Thatâs right. I mean, that doesnât tell us the reasons why that happened; and history is often so specific that I believe that the reasons why something happened or didnât happen tend to depend on a particular situation.
The other sort of history I really dislike, and Iâve been reading a lot of nationalist history from the 19th century, is the history that says something like, âThe Britishâor the English, or the Germans, or the French, or whichever nationality is being mentioned at the timeâhave always been a noble and wonderful people...â
HB: âAnd preordained to rule...â
MM: Yes, preordained perhaps, or at any rate just better or kinder or smarter or what have you than anyone else.
I mean, one of the most influential of the German academic historians, was a man called Heinrich von Treitschke, who lived in the 19th century.
He influenced a whole generation, not just the German historians but also the German statesmen and the German generals. They all thought he was wonderful: they went to his lectures in Berlin, where he would hold forth on his ideas that the Germans had always been an energetic and vigorous people and always on the forefront of civilization.
And that sort of history, I think, is very badâbecause itâs wrong. There is no such thing as âa German nationâ or âa Canadian nationâ, or...