Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T14:29:52.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Useful History and Black Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Paul H. Mattingly*
Affiliation:
New York University

Extract

What kind of explanation does history promote? Does history give us an advantage in dealing with current as well as bygone problems? These two different questions assume very similar burdens when historians defend the “usefulness” of their writing and research. The demand that history be “useful” impinges especially hard on the profession today in the areas of educational and black history. The reasons are, or should be, obvious. What is less obvious at the moment is which of the many meanings of “useful” do historians find most compelling. In the past, the professional and educational role of the historian has been largely affected by the questions he poses to deal with in the “usefulness” of his discipline.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 History of Education Quarterly 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Hexter, J. H., “The Rhetoric of History,History and Theory, VI, No. 1 (1967), 313; H. Hexter., J. “The One That Got Away,” New York Review of Books, VIII, No. 2 (February 9, 1967), 24–28; Passmore, John, “Explanations in Everyday Life, in Science and in History,” History and Theory, II, No. 2 (1962), 105–23.Google Scholar

2. Ellison, Ralph, The Invisible Man (New York: Signet Books, 1952). All subsequent references pertain to this edition.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p. 270.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., p. 212.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., p. 478.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., p. 502.Google Scholar

7. Pocock, J. G. A., rev. essay of Hexter, J. H., “Reappraisals in History,History and Theory, III, No. 1 (1963), 121–35.Google Scholar