Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

FWIW ... on #SHEAR2020

1. I don't think the idea of the plenary was a bad one, detracted from the identity of the people on the panel. What Andrew Jackson means today to people is an interesting issue. That's about historical memory.

2. I say that because all too often people talk about historical figures as if they know something about them and that other people do, too, so that's why you bring them up.

Most Americans actually know very little about Andrew Jackson. Surprise!

So to see the man on the $20 bill brought up in ways that are superficial, etc., doesn't surprise me. Historians know a lot about Jackson and why he's problematic.

3. That said, a panel about Jackson as a symbol that is drawn from scholars who strudy "the real" Jackson may have problems. It becomes "corrective" history: Jackson wasn't so simple, someone got this wrong, etc.

What do people from other fields think about the manipulation of the Jackson image today? What, for example, is Trump celebrating? How is it different from his being enamored with Confederates?

So the concept is interesting, but the execution of it was lacking from the outset, and I'd envision a much different set of panelists.

Instead, we had a panel featuring the commentary of someone whose views people find problematic, questionable, and objectionable.

Given that person's track record (and I'm familiar with him, dating back to the 1980s), what did y'all expect? Dan Feller's made a career of this.

So I'm not sure what was going on here, or what was intended.

Somewhere in here was an interesting idea about the image of early republic figures in the current political climate, but it got waylaid.

Political debate often resorts to the use and misuse of historical memory to advance an arguement that seems informed by "history."

It would have been interesting to hear a discussion about that.

* detached. Grrr.

* argument. Grrr again.