BLOG # 8: Colony and Empire
Last week after class, I joked with Dr. Petrik that two consistent threads in each of my eleven history classes have been the inclusion of a Marxist author and a mention of Henry Adams. Well, true to form, Henry Adams popped up on page 91 in Robbins’s book.
I just read Dan’s first blog-of-the-week and left the first comment-of-the-week. If Dan and I are representative, it looks like finally our class might have a good book to flog. Since most of our other books have been well liked, this possible change in attitude might result in some extra liveliness this week on the blog circuit and in class discussion.
Robbins uses the construct of capitalism on which to hang his argument. In his view, the history of the west cannot be understood without inquiring into its economy (and its relationship to politics), power structure, dependency vs. power dichotomy, and the influences of outside capital. Last week, Elliott West used the construct of ecology on which to hang his argument, and with better results. Why? Because of STYLE (remember our little discussion?).
For a small book, Robbins was surprisingly hard to read. The book did not flow easily, and Robbins lurched from topic to topic. His early inclusion of so much on Canada and Mexico (and his later comparisons about the South) reminded me of what I disliked in Roaring Camp: insertions that disrupted flow and seemed out of place, if Robbins’s subtitle could be taken seriously. His discussions of Sam Houser and Jerome Hill felt almost the same; they reminded me of Calloway taking a turn in style and plot in the last chapter of his book. I understand Robbins's reason for their inclusion, however, and did learn something from them—but I’m talking about style now. Incongruity is fun in literature, but not as much fun in history. And are all Marxist histories so deadly serious and plodding? These are traits I have noticed in previous ones, too (but I hate to generalize—just adding fodder to provoke lively discourse).
The look at posh residences like Aspen and Jackson Hole was particularly interesting. These former rough and tumble places have been translated by capital into class-delineated fake versions of the West. I loved this sentence: “The glamour and glitz associated with affluent, postmodern Aspen are symbols of historical deception” (p. 101-102). If any of you also subscribe to Architectural Digest, then the oft-highlighted massive fortress-like “Western-style” enclaves of the rich and famous are familiar to you. If you have taken Dr. Pitcaithley’s “Historic Preservation”, however, you have to ask yourself where community belongs in this equation.
Robbins deals mostly with the northern West. I’m anxious to hear Dr. P’s personal takes on his Montana inclusions. I liked his multiple discussions re the Frederick Jackson Turner thesis and myths. I realize that we’ve possibly over-discussed this by now and we have all gotten the point, but I still enjoy tossing the topic about in my mind. I also liked that Robbins spent a lot of time discussing cities. Although the greatest western population and power were in urban areas, “yet the most persisting themes in western literature are centered primarily on symbols and images of rural, backcountry life” (p. 167). Having been called to defend literature at various times and in various classes, let me now say that the previous sentence is one reason I chose to pursue an M.A. in History, not English. OK, I just passed 600 words; history has taught me that if I write any more, no one will read and comment. I will add more thoughts in comments.
I just read Dan’s first blog-of-the-week and left the first comment-of-the-week. If Dan and I are representative, it looks like finally our class might have a good book to flog. Since most of our other books have been well liked, this possible change in attitude might result in some extra liveliness this week on the blog circuit and in class discussion.
Robbins uses the construct of capitalism on which to hang his argument. In his view, the history of the west cannot be understood without inquiring into its economy (and its relationship to politics), power structure, dependency vs. power dichotomy, and the influences of outside capital. Last week, Elliott West used the construct of ecology on which to hang his argument, and with better results. Why? Because of STYLE (remember our little discussion?).
For a small book, Robbins was surprisingly hard to read. The book did not flow easily, and Robbins lurched from topic to topic. His early inclusion of so much on Canada and Mexico (and his later comparisons about the South) reminded me of what I disliked in Roaring Camp: insertions that disrupted flow and seemed out of place, if Robbins’s subtitle could be taken seriously. His discussions of Sam Houser and Jerome Hill felt almost the same; they reminded me of Calloway taking a turn in style and plot in the last chapter of his book. I understand Robbins's reason for their inclusion, however, and did learn something from them—but I’m talking about style now. Incongruity is fun in literature, but not as much fun in history. And are all Marxist histories so deadly serious and plodding? These are traits I have noticed in previous ones, too (but I hate to generalize—just adding fodder to provoke lively discourse).
The look at posh residences like Aspen and Jackson Hole was particularly interesting. These former rough and tumble places have been translated by capital into class-delineated fake versions of the West. I loved this sentence: “The glamour and glitz associated with affluent, postmodern Aspen are symbols of historical deception” (p. 101-102). If any of you also subscribe to Architectural Digest, then the oft-highlighted massive fortress-like “Western-style” enclaves of the rich and famous are familiar to you. If you have taken Dr. Pitcaithley’s “Historic Preservation”, however, you have to ask yourself where community belongs in this equation.
Robbins deals mostly with the northern West. I’m anxious to hear Dr. P’s personal takes on his Montana inclusions. I liked his multiple discussions re the Frederick Jackson Turner thesis and myths. I realize that we’ve possibly over-discussed this by now and we have all gotten the point, but I still enjoy tossing the topic about in my mind. I also liked that Robbins spent a lot of time discussing cities. Although the greatest western population and power were in urban areas, “yet the most persisting themes in western literature are centered primarily on symbols and images of rural, backcountry life” (p. 167). Having been called to defend literature at various times and in various classes, let me now say that the previous sentence is one reason I chose to pursue an M.A. in History, not English. OK, I just passed 600 words; history has taught me that if I write any more, no one will read and comment. I will add more thoughts in comments.
posted by Audrey Haugan | 1:15 PM
3 Comments:
Audrey,
I agree with your feelings about Robbins being plodding and serious. I'm afraid writers of his type cannot help themselves. It reminds me of Soviet area studies which I majored in for my first master's degree. Those folks took themselves sooooo seriously.
I must admit, however, that I do find his ideas compelling. I really believe that all the other historical themes we have been exposed to are framed by economics and the politics which serve those economic relations. Robbins, however, like many writers of his ilk, treats capitalist political economy as some sort of plot. I wrote about the success of the market from the perspective of human nature -- it just works so well to provide people what they need to earn a livelihood. Nothing extraordinary or ultraserious about that.
He did meander, too. I kep waiting for him to tie his chapters back to his thesis. I suppose he did, but the journey was very circuitous.
Ray
I enjoyed the "flog blog." Here are a couple of thoughts to toss into the mix.
I agree that the choice of capitalism on which to hang his argument is as valid as any other (water, indigenous peoples, environment, etc.), but why must it be exclusionary? Robbins is downright rude in making the point that he is trying to sell -- "its capitalism, dammit -- and doesn't seem interested in adding to the current discourse.
I suppose that is a byproduct of his political leanings. A bit off topic, but I bet a barful of marxist historians would be a real hoot... all dour looks, peptic ulcers and vitriol. Ever seen a marxist smile for the camera? Bet it looked more like a wince, as if someone was lancing a boil on his foot.
Okay, back on topic. I also don't understand the trend to lash together related articles and speeches and artificially construct a book. Either modify the thoughts of the individual articles to flow as a single work, or publish a book of independent works. This halfway approach just seems cumbersome.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Post a Comment
<< Home