"It seems like a basic function of memory is that it is built to change," Bridge said. "It’s built to adapt to what is currently important to us." [Emphasis mine.]Particularly when you consider this observation from a recent National Association of Scholars study:
. . . the root of the problem is that colleges and universities have drifted from their main mission. They and particular programs within them, increasingly think of themselves as responsible for reforming American society . . .Yes, a lot of educators and "objective" historians are certainly on a mission, as they recently reminded us. But what's "currently important" is not necessarily true. As I've said before, modern historiography is obsessed with the latest fad, like so much of American pop-culture, it seems to have a rather juvenile mindset - Botox for the brain. Of course, the "brain study" would, if accurate, cut across all ideological perspectives but it seems to be particularly applicable these days.
So, do you believe that academia's obsessions with certain perspectives and "what is currently important" to them could be misleading and distorting their "memory" studies?