>This is always a big problem for conservatives, because the work of the historian is exactly to discuss new views and interpretations of history. Doing otherwi

>This is always a big problem for conservatives, because the work of the historian is exactly to discuss new views and interpretations of history. Doing otherwise would be scholastic work, not critical thinking. For this reason, most historical research ends up being an analysis from a point of view that is complementary or even antagonistic to conservatism. This is true in the sense of what the study of history has unfortunately become in recent decades at universities, but untrue in the sense of what the study of history has meant and been over the centuries. Not to mention the sort of lamely attempted indoctrination I experienced, such as the professor who flatly told us all that we should vote for Gary Hart. It was 1984. The course was on 19th century Russian history. We learnt far more about Lenin's and Stalin's mothers than we did about, oh, say, Russia's territorial ambitions and their reactions to the shifting alliances in Europe at the time. So, you can say that I'm just a crusty conservative because I had to do a lot of extra reading to get the big picture of what was actually happening in Russia at the time and I found the information the professor shared with us from her thesis to be as interesting as watching paint dry. I'm ok with being labeled if that's what it takes to make the point that not all history done these days is particularly helpful for understanding the things that affected tens of millions of people.