Correspondence |
||
|
|
||
|
|
Celebrate a Diverse, Flexible OAH To the Editor: Painter is deeply concerned with a $179,000 OAH deficit for 2005-06 and a $44,000 deficit for 2006-07. She notes that both shortfalls were covered by OAH reserve funds and that they were unrelated to the shift of the 2000 annual meeting from the racially discriminatory Adam's Mark Hotel in St. Louis or the change in the 2005 meeting site from the San Francisco Hilton, which was plagued by labor difficulties. Painter maintains that the St. Louis costs were covered by member contributions and by the OAH General Reserve Fund, while San Francisco costs were mostly covered by the General Reserve Fund. But she does not acknowledge that because they reduced reserves, the necessary and admirable OAH stands in 2000 and 2005 obviously constricted its financial capacity to cope with subsequent shortfalls. We might reference these subsequent shortfalls as part of the "normal" operations of an increasingly vibrant organization that requires more revenue and is on the way to securing it. "Normal" OAH operations include the publication of the journal, the newsletter, and the magazine for teachers, the staging of an annual and diverse regional meetings, plus extensive advocacy efforts that advance the interests of historians. They also include major outreach efforts to comparatively new constituencies like K-12 teachers, community college faculty, independent writers and researchers, and people in other callings who enjoy American history. Recent and rather creative fundraising efforts have also become part of "normal" operations. While these new fundraising ventures require a significant outlay of time and seed money, they are mandatory for a vibrant organization. Moreover, they are already providing indications of significant results. Nell Painter states that she supports these extensions of OAH efforts. But in the face of 2005-2007 deficits, she argues that the OAH should essentially return to "the basic fundamentals"--the Journal of American History and the annual meeting: "those two, I think, need to come first." Whatever else the OAH does, however desirable, becomes construed as less than essential. Painter's logic here is problematic. As historians know all too well, there can be no return to "basic fundamentals" or to any presumed "golden age" based on purportedly core practices after significant changes have occurred. Neither organizations nor societies behave that way. The Mississippi Valley Historical Association/OAH that Painter and I joined many decades ago did center on the journal and the annual meeting. But those two "fundamentals" were inseparable from a culture that we cannot and would not want to restore. It sometimes had the semblance of a club of privileged white male and predominantly Protestant historians at elite research universities. They were usually averse to a professional organization taking stands on major public issues, too often secured jobs for their graduate students over drinks at the annual meeting, did not foresee what we now call the "internationalization of American history," and had minimal interest in public history or popular culture. Many also regarded JAH articles as the optimal words in historical scholarship, and only a few (like Hofstadter and Elkins) drew heavily and systematically from literature in other fields and nations. While that constricted "world" had exciting and creative aspects, which we forget at our peril, it is hardly one that we can reembrace. The "fundamentals" of the journal and the annual meeting have become less fundamental while the culture that now surrounds the two has become far better suited to our current needs and values. Let me briefly elaborate. The OAH of recent years is decidedly more inclusive and flexible and vibrant than it has ever been. To underscore the obvious, we welcome all who enjoy American history regardless of their race, religion, nationality, or gender. Formal historical training and specialization, while important, seem less compelling to us than they once had been, while the actual substance of what a person of any background or discipline produces and teaches appears to be more relevant. Indeed, we have become so heterogeneous in our backgrounds, skills, and interests that "one size" clearly cannot "fit all." Neither the journal and the annual meeting nor any other purported "fundamentals" of old can accommodate the increasingly protean, constantly changing organization that the OAH has become. Some prioritize the newsletter or the magazine for teachers, others gravitate to the regional and less costly OAH sponsored meetings and events, some underscore JAH book reviews or select articles, and others are refreshed by the OAH spirit of activism on public issues. Contrasting priorities abound. As we enter our second century, we should celebrate this diversity in a spirit of tolerance and eschew any retreat to purported "fundamentals." Short-term deficits like those of the last two fiscal years may be inherent in the structure of such a vibrant and changing OAH, but several of the new fundraising initiatives should be responsive if given time. As well, a membership quite happy with the lively state of the OAH will consider it in their estate plans and their charitable contributions. Indeed, we member-donors will be far more responsive to a flexible and exploratory OAH than one purporting to retreat to the "fundamentals." --Lawrence J. Friedman
Objection to Byrd's Award To The Editor: --Michael S. Mayer |
|