[dan-robertson]

Through the history of the study of history there have been several ways of doing history (ie historiographies). One is Marxist historiography, trying to find the class struggle in everything. Another is whiggish historiography, named after the Whig history of Britain which viewed history as an inevitable progression towards constitutional monarchy, but which more generally refers to seeing history as intentionally leading to the present day.

I don’t really buy either

[TheMblabla]

[flagged]

[dan-robertson]

I definitely didn’t mean to suggest that that those are the only possibilities. Only that they are relatively common examples of (what I would consider) bad ways of looking at history, and that I disagree with your claim that history is all about class struggle.

[kwhitefoot]

He said "One .. Another .." not "One .. and the other .."

If you have another (or more) in mind it would have been more enlightening to the rest of us if you had named them.

[_ktx2]

> To only present 'Marxism' and 'Whiggism' as the schools of thought is very silly and a very unflattering explanation of historiography. Neither are really studied in academia anymore and you should read more if you think they are.

And yet your first comment is asserting that Marxist historiography is the definition of the study of history:

> The study of history is the study of struggle between classes.

[TheMblabla]

Haha yeah good point. My bad

[Der_Einzige]

Marxism is everywhere in the american university system. If you've taken classes in the sociology, comparative literature, philosophy, anthropology, or any of the -studies fields (e.g. gender studies) chances are that you've been taught by many openly marxist professors.

Marxism for the american academy refers to the liberal strand of it (e.g. the kind that John Bellamy Foster advocates for) rather than the authoritarian flavors.

The left-wing bias in parts of the academy is real.