Truth (or even a dissenting opinion, be it true or not) has been snuffed out by the "powers that be" throughout human history. It's happening in Zimbabwe right now. Galileo and Socrates both paid a huge price for what they believed and publicly stated.
But to step back just a bit from those iconic historical figures and narrow the scope of our discussion a bit, we're talking about writing history, and challenging accepted views of what happened in the past, not about theories that are perceived to be undermining the power of a government or a religion. The two may be analogous, but there are differences.
You said "Those that want to hold onto the old "truths" will vilify and ostracize those with the new ideas, painting them as dangerous, misguided, careless, unintelligent, uneducated, inexperienced, outsiders, unwelcome, prying, rabble-rousers trying to upset the comfortable order, people who have overstepped their social status." Now, taken as a whole, the consequences you're describing fall considerably short of what happened to Galileo or Socrates. That said, it seems like what you're really saying is that those who accept a certain notion of history mightn't accept a change to that orthodoxy with open arms.
Obviously personal verbal attacks are well short of forced suicide or execution, but I think you may have missed my entire point. I am not really talking about the actual physical or even verbal persecution, but rather the rhetorical use and value of ridiculing, demonizing, and ostracizing those who challenge the beloved status quo.
Think of how Whigham is portrayed on this website, for example. Whigham claimed that Macdonald designed Merion. Not only that but he was there. Not only that but he extremely knowledgeable on the topic of golf courses and design. Not only that but he was a well respected and well known journalist and editor. So what is the response? Portray him as an idiot, a sycophant, a servile sissy. In humor? In part, maybe. But the comments have a rhetorical purpose and impact. I guarantee you that are many readers of this website who now completely discount his statement, because he was nothing but CBM's lackey.
In response one might say "well, duh!" The notion that people might resist changing their beliefs, that they might not have open minds, and that they might defensively turn on the messenger bringing these beliefs to them strikes me as pretty obvious.
You write like this behavior is justified. It is not. Studying history is supposed to be about learning and analyzing what actually happened. It is not supposed to be about protecting the status quo or vilifying those who might. Objectivity might just be a goal, but even so we ought to be very suspicious of those who completely cast all objectivity to scatter in the wind. At the very least, when one resorts to this type of behavior it usually indicates that there are cracks in the status quo. Same goes for the rest of the shenanigans that I outlined above. All these are used to avoid a frank and honest discussion of the actual facts.
But all the still, I understand why they behave the way the behave. But this is all the more reason to question their analysis and tactics. They are motivated by an overwhelming instinct to protect their own, and that bias will undoubtedly skew their research and analysis. At least this is the case when "fact and analysis" are replaced by name calling, demonization, hyperbole and hysterics. This was my point. When these behaviors come out, it is a pretty good indication that all reasonable analysis has been discarded and replaced with a circle the wagons, fight to the death, truth be damned mentality.
Look, everyone has an agenda. To me the whole notion of objectivity in writing is more of an ideal to be aspired to than something that is actually done. But if someone decides what it is they want to prove before even beginning their research, isn't it just possible that this notion gets built in to the filtering process when doing the research, and that the facts that are found might just arrange themselves to prove that point? The historian has to be self-aware enough to understand their own biases and the way that those biases might negatively impact the soundness of their research and the validity of their theories.
In my opinion you are overly concerned with how the "challenger's" biases might impact the soundness of their research and theories, but not nearly concerned enough with how the "champion's" bias impact the soundness of their research and the validity of their theories. The champions of the status quo already have the deck stacked in their favor and the community on their side. This is the status quo. So I don't understand why you are so ready to criticize a "challenger's" motives, but explain away some pretty atrocious behavior on the part of the "champion." Facts are facts. Sound analysis is sound analysis. All the rest is just noise meant to distract from the truth.
Again, thank for your response.
Best,
DM
_______________________________
Bradley Anderson:
Thanks for the article above. Is it a round-about way of answering that you did not read or consider the analysis of the Shakespeare scholars but criticized them nonetheless because you just know they must be wrong?
I find the essay a strange choice for a discussion about historical revisionism, but perhaps an appropriate one for reasons I doubt you intended. In my limited understanding, C.S. Lewis spent much of his efforts defending the notion of Christ as a Diety, and as one in the same as God. The "revisionists" were ones who had great respect for Jesus but did not view him as God. Contrary to his implication in the essay this debate was not started by misguided modern scholars trying to rewrite history, but has been ongoing since the time of Christ.
Also, while Lewis tried to apply what he viewed as historically accurate accounts from scripture to prove his point, I hope we can agree that at some point one must move away from rational analysis in such discussions. I don't think we ought to do that with the Merion debate.
All that being said, I do think that Lewis may nonetheless provide some insight into this debate.
If I recall correctly from many years ago. One of Lewis' main arguments was that Jesus either claimed he was God or was treated as God and did not deny it. Therefor Jesus had to be either crazy, lying, or God ("lunatic, liar, or lord" or something like that.) For Lewis, these were the only choices we had when trying to understand Jesus; accept him as God, condemn him as a liar, or dismiss him as a lunatic.
One problem with Lewis line of reasoning as I understand the argument, is that it is not entirely clear that Jesus thought he was God, or that it was even suggested until later. Another problem is that Lewis' presents his three as the only choices, but there are other possibilities. Jesus as lesser diety for example. Jesus as a man who God chose as conduit, for another.
While the circumstance pales in comparison by almost any standard, there are some similarities in our situation. Hugh Wilson never claimed to have designed Merion, and I don't think anyone else who was there claimed that the Committee layed out the course WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF M&W.
Yet you and others insist that looking into M&W's role in the design is "chronological elitism," or substituting our views for theres, or calling the men of Merion liars, or calling Wilson an idiot, incompetent, incapable, etc.
First, as I said above, the facts do not suggest what many think they suggest. Second, there are many other options than just the ones presented by you and others. For example, as I state in my essay, Wilson was a great man, and competent, and his greatest quality may have been that he was an avid learner and not afraid to seek out the best advice available. So he he went to M&W who guided him through the rest of the design process, and then he built a pretty terrific golf course.
Does this mean that the Men of Merion are liars or that I am practicing "chronological elitism?" No. My version is entirely consistent with the record. Does it mean that Wilson was incompetent, an idiot, etc? Of course not.
So I guess in the end I disagree with the Lewis approach. His choices are not the only ones. It may sometimes work if we really know for sure that those that were there were thinking (as in the case of his discussion of Lewis' own motives,) But when we don't know for sure it is just a way of cutting off legitimate research and analysis.