Feb 18, 2005
Pozhalsta!
At first, I thought that Jonathan Dresner was being facetious when he waxed lyrical about wishing he studied American History because everything is in English. Then I saw Manan Ahmed had a response, and figured that Manan would read his beads. No such luck. Then I saw there were a number of comments and figured we would get some perspective on this announcement, but no, the fundamental statement stood unchallenged.
I have news for you, my friends. It is not true that all the material American Historians work with is in English, and to the extent it is true, it should not be. Even when we limit ourselves to the United States (and do not do comparative work) there are myriad areas of American History which require reading or interpreting of sources in other languages. To give some examples: historians dealing with immigration or with working-class populations (apart from African Americans) often find their best sources in the foreign-language press. Diplomatic Historians need to analyze dispatches sent by foreign representatives to their governments, and to read treaties drafted in the international language of diplomacy--French. Cultural historians study travel narratives written by visitors from other countries and newspapers recounting the activities of Americans abroad. Religious Historians find primary sources in Hebrew, Latin, and other languages. Historians of American Communism study Russian in order to read the old Soviet Archives. Also, there are areas of the United States—Puerto Rico for example—where government documents are in other languages than English. Colonial Historians, if they wish to consider Louisiana, rely on French and Spanish documents. As importantly, let us not forget students of Native American History who interpret oral traditions set forth in Indian languages.
Furthermore, even if all primary sources required for work in American History are in English, that does not absolve American Historians of the responsibility to read secondary works in their field published elsewhere, even if they are in other languages. (Shelley Fisher Fishkin, in her magisterial November 2004 Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, which will appear in the upcoming issue of AMERICAN QUARTERLY, reminded Americans of the dangers of professional ethnocentrism and listed a stunning array of work done in American Studies by historians and others outside the United States). While it is clearly unfair to expect Americanists to read a dozen languages, a reading knowledge of even one other language expands greatly a historian’s potential for understanding of a field. The German-language literature on African American History and culture is impressive. Some of the finest monographs I know on the History of American Indians were written by the French historians Elise Marienstras, Nelcya Delanoë, and Joëlle Rostkowski. Some of the finest works by the Italian historians Mario Einaudi to Raimondo Luraghi are unavailable in translation.
My own experience is perhaps unusual, but nonetheless indicative. As a historian of Japanese Americans, I find that, as one might expect, my current work involves the use of a number of Japanese-language primary sources. At the same time, I make significant use of primary sources in other languages. In order to discuss relations between Japanese Americans and Mexican Americans in 1940s California, I have made an extended study of the coverage of the wartime removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans in the Spanish-language newspaper LA OPINION. Part of my knowledge of Japanese immigration to the United States comes from the first serious book on the subject, Louis Aubert’s AMERICAINS ET JAPONAIS (1908), which was written in French. I have been reading up on the career of the expatriate Japanese American sculptor Shinkichi Tajiri, who lives in the Netherlands—the bulk of literature on his work is in Dutch. And as far as secondary material is concerned, well, I prefer to consult the best annotated bibliography of articles on Japanese Americans, the 1000-page German-language work by Hans-Dieter Öhlschleger and his colleagues, JAPANER IN DER NEUEN WELT (1997).
I have news for you, my friends. It is not true that all the material American Historians work with is in English, and to the extent it is true, it should not be. Even when we limit ourselves to the United States (and do not do comparative work) there are myriad areas of American History which require reading or interpreting of sources in other languages. To give some examples: historians dealing with immigration or with working-class populations (apart from African Americans) often find their best sources in the foreign-language press. Diplomatic Historians need to analyze dispatches sent by foreign representatives to their governments, and to read treaties drafted in the international language of diplomacy--French. Cultural historians study travel narratives written by visitors from other countries and newspapers recounting the activities of Americans abroad. Religious Historians find primary sources in Hebrew, Latin, and other languages. Historians of American Communism study Russian in order to read the old Soviet Archives. Also, there are areas of the United States—Puerto Rico for example—where government documents are in other languages than English. Colonial Historians, if they wish to consider Louisiana, rely on French and Spanish documents. As importantly, let us not forget students of Native American History who interpret oral traditions set forth in Indian languages.
Furthermore, even if all primary sources required for work in American History are in English, that does not absolve American Historians of the responsibility to read secondary works in their field published elsewhere, even if they are in other languages. (Shelley Fisher Fishkin, in her magisterial November 2004 Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, which will appear in the upcoming issue of AMERICAN QUARTERLY, reminded Americans of the dangers of professional ethnocentrism and listed a stunning array of work done in American Studies by historians and others outside the United States). While it is clearly unfair to expect Americanists to read a dozen languages, a reading knowledge of even one other language expands greatly a historian’s potential for understanding of a field. The German-language literature on African American History and culture is impressive. Some of the finest monographs I know on the History of American Indians were written by the French historians Elise Marienstras, Nelcya Delanoë, and Joëlle Rostkowski. Some of the finest works by the Italian historians Mario Einaudi to Raimondo Luraghi are unavailable in translation.
My own experience is perhaps unusual, but nonetheless indicative. As a historian of Japanese Americans, I find that, as one might expect, my current work involves the use of a number of Japanese-language primary sources. At the same time, I make significant use of primary sources in other languages. In order to discuss relations between Japanese Americans and Mexican Americans in 1940s California, I have made an extended study of the coverage of the wartime removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans in the Spanish-language newspaper LA OPINION. Part of my knowledge of Japanese immigration to the United States comes from the first serious book on the subject, Louis Aubert’s AMERICAINS ET JAPONAIS (1908), which was written in French. I have been reading up on the career of the expatriate Japanese American sculptor Shinkichi Tajiri, who lives in the Netherlands—the bulk of literature on his work is in Dutch. And as far as secondary material is concerned, well, I prefer to consult the best annotated bibliography of articles on Japanese Americans, the 1000-page German-language work by Hans-Dieter Öhlschleger and his colleagues, JAPANER IN DER NEUEN WELT (1997).