Abstract
Abstract: This article revisits the debate over presentism in historical writing touched off by American Historical Association President James Sweet in an August 2022 column for the Association’s newsletter. Sweet’s statement, expressing concern that historians motivated by today’s political concerns sometimes distort historical evidence, sparked a flurry of responses, mostly from detractors in public and supporters in private. Leaders in the profession and writers in the popular press articulated in response a mainstream compromise position: present-day concerns are an entirely legitimate point of departure for historians but must be held in check by respect for research integrity. This article challenges the rhetorical binary between presentism and strict empiricism, arguing that framing the issue in this way downplays the most important characteristic of ‘good history’, interpretive originality. Neither political passion nor scrupulous research suffice to produce great works of history which typically originate in creatively counter-intuitive thinking.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
