I’ve been thinking a lot about politics and history since a debate on here yesterday about Allen Guelzo’s forthcoming Lee bio.

Some folks argued that historians can set aside their political views while writing about history.

But can they, really? (thread)

This is not to suggest that all history books are written with a political purpose in mind - i.e, to sway people’s opinions in an election.

Or that every history book has a point to make about politics or public policy.

But to say that historians can set aside our political views while we do the work we do seems to suggest that we occupy some sort of scholarly original position of objectivity and fair-mindedness.

That when we sit down at our desks and laptops, we switch into that original position mode and everything else about us that makes us who we are, that drove us to this topic we’re writing about, falls away.

And that’s what I think is impossible.

Every historian carries with them influences, characteristics, and beliefs - including political beliefs, which are, at their core, beliefs about what and who matters most in society.

How can these *not* shape our choice of topic, our approaches, and the arguments we make?

To suggest that they do not—or that we can ignore a historian’s politics—and just assess their work as it is (whatever that means), ignores the importance of all of the structural power dynamics of our society that undergird the production of historical work itself.

I'm going to do more thinking about this, because I think it is really important - and it's something historians should be talking more about in an open and honest way.

And of course, as always, I would love to hear your thoughts!