Worst Professor Ever

We have no way of knowing what lies in store for us. All we can do is use the information at hand to make the best decision possible.

–Secretary William Cleary, The Wedding Crashers

I am getting really cranky about this new phenomenon where people act like they’re doing history when they’re not — and yes, journalists and pundits, this means YOU.

First there was The AP’s attempt to report on the “impact” of the “historic” number of female justices on the Supreme Court. Then Quayle Jr. calling Obama the worst president in history. Simply not possible, because Obama won’t be “in history” for at least fifty years. I’d probably go a hundred, maybe two hundred, just to be safe.

Some ground rules: 1) being irritated or excited about something right now doesn’t make it historically significant, and 2) calling something “historic” is no excuse for random speculation.

Dear Newt, please stop reminding people you have a PhD.

Then there’s Newt Gingrich. Apart from the lecherous sociopath stuff, he’s a terrible historian, specializing in sloppy parallels between completely different socioeconomic systems (like the U.S. and China) to back up his confident assertions of what will happen. This is prognostication, even worse “history” than speculation.

I know the History Channel likes to promote the idea that history is happening “before our eyes” but that’s just not how it works. Knowing your history — no, I should say, knowing how to do it well — makes you a great critical thinker  with mad analytical skills and profound insight into human nature.  But it should also give you a good sense of your limits. To wit: even in a world full of Tweets and IM and online chat, there are certain important things that you just can’t know  right away — like the broad impact of supposedly “historic” decisions.

I guess calling something “historic” is supposed to convince you that it’s important enough to show up in future textbooks. But how about a scenario where a textbook 200 years from now contains the following analysis: “Barack Obama was the first African-American president of the United States. And that didn’t make nearly as much difference as anyone thought it would at the time.” Or “In 2010, there was finally a Supreme Court that was sort of representative of the U.S. And yet nothing very exciting happened as a result.” What? While we’re indulging in speculation, shouldn’t we consider all the possibilities?

But people using the word “historic” don’t want you, the listener, to think about that particular possibility because it’s the complete opposite of the malarkey they’re selling. And sadly, with media literacy at an all time low in America right now, the “historic” ploy works like a charm. Even more sadly, trained historians often play right along, acting as though important historical events were predestined or willingly participating in the insta-comment media culture.

As a counterpoint, I’d like to leave you with this hastily-compiled List of Stuff That No One Called At The Time. Just a little reminder that one of the coolest things about doing history is recognizing the “Huh?” moments — the things that nobody predicted or thought much of at the time, but then, with a little perspective, turned out to be important and influential events. I guess you could even call them “historic.”

Cleopatra:  the “breaking news” on this one was her death and how awesome the Romans were. Who knew she would win that PR battle?

Constantine: he converted to Christianity when the empire was 90% pagan. There weren’t any headlines, but if there had been, they probably would have read “WTF?”

Queen Elizabeth: Another female ruler who shouldn’t have happened, another religious decision to uphold. Who knew how that one was going to turn out?

How about you, readers? Any favorite historical events/persons that no one could have predicted would be such a big deal?