Historian Gordon Wood writes in 1993, Jefferson scarcely seems to exist as a real diachronic person. Almost from the beginning he has been a symbol, a touchstone, of we as a people are, some invented, manipulated, rancid into something we Americans like or dislike, fear or yearn for, inwardly ourselves - whether it is populism or elitism, agrarianism or racism, atheism or liberalism. In verbalise this, Wood strikes on one of the main problems in historical writing, the tendency to use history to further ones own ideas. almost historiographers do not do this consciously, but any historian has an agenda which, consciously or not, he slips into his work. Because of this, nearly every piece of objective history becomes an outlet for one persons political, ethical, or religious point of view. The various interpretations of Thomas Jefferson are ideal examples of this historiographical agenda-pushing. Thomas Jefferson has ceased to be a real man to Americans, if he ever was. He has become instead a unreal entity: the author of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of our nation. Jefferson has become larger than life, a giant among men, in our nations collective memory. In truth, Jefferson was ripe one man with many qualities, both good and crappy.
He had both solemn and ignoble intentions, made good and bad decisions, had practical and utopian dreams for the new republic. Unfortunately, few historians are adapted to express Jefferson in these terms. They take the good or the bad, the noble or the ignoble, the practical or the idealistic, rarely both. They present Jefferson as a liberal, moral, inspired leader, or as a power-hungry, half-baked elitist. This sort of historical writing perpetuates the nations view of Jefferson as a caricature, a symbol, rather than a man. Many historians ascribe these same(p) qualities to...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment