And frankly, I disagree that people can get a good grasp of history without great men, great deeds.  If you choose to add the story of regular people, regular deeds that's fine, but I fail to see how you can truly grasp what happens without understanding the role of the big players.  You can certainly learn a lot from the experience of the average Civil War soldier, but skipping the role of Abraham Lincoln, R.E. Lee, and U.S. Grant is not my idea of teaching the history properly.

 

As someone writing and publishing “microhistory” I take a different view. Context is important to events on the micro scale. Obviously a village did not have electricity in 1850 but to have to mention Abraham Lincoln in every history of town life is nonsense. I am able to craft the story of a cooper, blacksmith, banker or peddler quite well without the “big players” and I have plenty of interesting material. The influence of Lincoln cannot be understated but everyone grasps history in different ways. To discuss the Great Depression at this level one would have to give context to FDR and the WPA etc. but that is still something done in an introductory paragraph.

 

I think that it is fascinating to examine in great detail the lives of “the boring masses” that are not as boring as viewing history from the elite perspective implies. Having written on sex scandals of the 1860s, prohibition and morality I discovered I did not have to mention Lincoln, Grant or anyone else. When I write about epidemics I don’t have to bring in any elites – but I do have to tie it to events occurring elsewhere, events that could be tied to governance or wealth.

 

There were extraordinary people out there who are never mentioned in any book. They are free for the taking if you are willing to look. Boring? hardly. I think most historians don’t do their homework in enough depth to make it interesting.

 

Ray Cunningham

Urbana Illinois