Medievalists.net: Medieval Histories – On balancing along the precipice between Medieval Living History and the Medieval Studies of Academia
Relevant to what was written in this post.
Could a case be made that both academic history and the author's "living history" are dead? Living history encompasses re-enacments and events "recreating" the times. But have Europeans been cut off from their roots as distinct peoples? How can one talk about living history when the elites are opposed to national identities (at the level of the nation-state - but there is also opposition to distinct European peoples within those nation-states having their own separate identities, much less some measure of political independence). How much do inhabitants in modern nation states, having adapted to their political economies, life in the megacities, and the loss of extended kin and social networks, have in common with their ancestors? What heritage (or culture) have they received, beyond language and some cultural practices?
And despite the failings of leaders or peoples, the Christian character of the peoples of that time should be admitted. But how many secular academics and historians gloss over this, rejecting Belloc's dictum about Europe and the Faith? Despite their interest in medieval history, how many academics have their position primarily for the sake of earning a wage, using it to criticize the backwardness of the middle ages and to celebrate the modern? (The author of the paper at least recognizes this lacuna in re-enactments.)
How many Europeans look to medieval history to celebrate their heritage, identity, and oneness with those who came before them? How many of them can place their family history within the broader history of their people?
No comments:
Post a Comment