Update: This college dropout noticed something about the following response to my post:
So this college dropout (aka "writer in question") has been taught something by someone with an M.A. in history; to wit: "Analytical history is dominantly about personal/political agendas and
leaves little room for examining historical claims based on analysis and
So "analytical history" leaves little room for analysis and is about "political agendas"? Shucks, if I had just stayed in college I would have been able to make sense of that statement.
Or, just perhaps, the remark was a Freudian slip. ☺
End of update.
Have you noticed how many yankee history bloggers focus on Southern themed topics when it comes to the War Between the States? From heritage, to what it means to be a Southerner, to the Confederate Battle Flag - they are absolutely obsessed. They seem to be more obsessed with Southern heritage than even those of us who actually claim that heritage. It's quite curious to observe. What's even more curious is their often clueless, narrow-minded perspective. Are they envious or what?
Professor David Blight has lamented, "Why doesn't the Confederacy just fade away?" I think part of the answer for the yankee historian is staring back at them in the mirror. I also think their obsession reveals much more about them than it does about their topic.