Whose History?

I found Townsend's work on the foundation of the "historical enterprise" and its dissolution through professionalization to be a compelling work. Almost immediately after picking up the piece I realized just how little I knew about the discipline, at least in America. I had no idea the field of history had such a turbulent past and the extent of the American Historical Association’s sponsorship. Being somebody who used to work in a Public History institution, I quickly understood what Townsend meant by contrasting our experience with the "historical enterprise" at the turn of the century. How things have changed to such a degree through the professionalization process.

While reading Townsend, something really started to take hold in my mind. When he mentioned the effects of the First World War on the field, it really highlighted a question in my mind. “Whose history is it?” and by that I mean who dictates how history is disseminated and those who do the disseminating? Who belongs to the narrative and who defines the narrative? This is a key concept in Townsend that I found fascinating because our answers today, and perhaps since around the Second World War, differ greatly from those who were part of the early 20^th century “historical enterprise.”

I believe that Townsend and I would agree on “what is history?” and the necessity of all aspects of its narrative.  He takes a stance that affirms the importance of those in academia, but also reinforces the impact and necessity of other such faculty of history. This ranges from public school teachers, public historians, and those in historical societies. Perhaps professionalization and specialization of the field has created an enterprise of its own that is less susceptible to the bias of the collective society, such as seen in WWII era propaganda. But while reading works such as Townsend one has to wonder, whose history is it?