By Andrew Nurse
“What Use is History?” This is the question asked by a 1958 article in The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Letter. I will confess that I have no particular soft spot for the Royal Bank (even though, I suppose, it technically owns the house in which I live), but I was intrigued that a bank’s newsletter addressed this issue. It is, I’d suggest, yet another sign that history — or, more precisely arguments for its relevance — never go out of vogue. Even more intriguing, however, were the answers. The article is marred by the language of the time that will periodically sound very odd to our ears. There is much, too, in this short piece (four pages) with which a great number of people — particularly practicing historians — will disagree. Yet, there is also a surprising breadth of vision and, more importantly, an effort to catalogue precisely why history is not simply interesting but important to public culture.
I was drawn to this piece because I have a friend who teaches a course called “The Use and Abuse of the Past” and I thought it might make a good reading for course. It might. But, as I looked over it, it struck me as an interesting place to begin a wider discussion of active history, its meanings and implications. I’m going to venture into what are for me uncharted waters and so I’ll encourage you to offer comments, corrections, additions, subtractions, and anything else you have to offer in the comments below. My subject is a big one: what use is Active History? This RBC newsletter article helps us a bit because it can highlight the differences and similarities between the way we see history and its uses today and the way the anonymous author saw the same matters in 1958. Continue reading