Browse: Home / history / anna history rants

anna history rants

Why History?

By Anna on 27 May, 2010

I’ve written before that the history I do is explicitly political. It’s partly about a part of our past that is highly neglected, and partly about arguing, simply by doing it, that this history is important, that it has long-term consequences that we’re still feeling.

Posted in , , , , , ,

International Women’s Day: Subverting the Narrative

By Anna on 8 March, 2010

So, for International Women’s Day, I want to remind readers that there are certain stories that we tell about certain women, and that these stories have a purpose.

Perhaps we can subvert that.

Posted in , | Tagged , , ,

Erasing History

By Anna on 26 February, 2010

Yes, of course Darnton. You describe a life of abject misery and back-breaking labour, so obviously people faked being disabled all the time.

Posted in , | Tagged

Feminist Icons

By Anna on 14 January, 2010

This is, of course, completely untrue, but there was a concentrated effort to ensure that Keller’s accomplishments were ignored. “Radical Marxist” isn’t as nice a story as “deaf-blind woman overcomes”.

Posted in , , , , , | Tagged , , ,

Quotation: Why We Do Disability History

By Anna on 13 December, 2009

Obviously I have quoted this for truth because I’m an historian and I’m often questioned on why I consider the history I do to be both political and activist in nature. And, this is (in part) why.

Posted in , , | Tagged ,

Anna History Rants: Harlan Lane

By Anna on 9 December, 2009

But still. Lane didn’t write the first book about deafness from the POV of actual deaf people (Lane is Hearing – he cites Jack R Gannon’s book as the first history written by someone who was Deaf), but he wrote the one that launched a thousand ships, so to speak. He challenged, quite viciously, the idea that deafness was something to be “conquered”, and argued that a deaf-focused history was necessary.

Posted in | Tagged ,

Anna History Rants: Introduction

By Anna on 7 December, 2009

There’s a word to describe these sorts of histories: meliorist. Things Were Bad! Then! Something Awesome Happened! Then! Things Were Better! I think this is how history tends to be taught, because it’s very Feel Good. It’s also very plodding and doesn’t reflect the nuances of history. Was the CNIB a good thing? I don’t know, but I do know a lot of blind people in Canada hate it. (I need to do more research to understand why, because I don’t actually know.) Was the Halifax School for the Blind made of awesome? I don’t know, but I do know they did a lot of things in an attempt to be “good” and seem to have been founded by actual blind people. (A step above the folks who ultimately founded the School for the Deaf, for what that’s worth. I’m really excited to learn more of the history of the school.)

Posted in , | Tagged