LeFeber's Insight

In the previous post, I explored how humans are dynamic, and consequently, human history is dynamic. With this in mind, it makes sense how historians can examine the same event and come to completely different conclusions.

Historian Walter LaFeber explores this phenomenon by investigating the realist and revisionist views of the open-door policy in Liberty and Power: U.S. Diplomatic History, 1750-1945.

First up, the realist. The “realist” school of thought posits that “to survive in the modern world, Americans has to understand the realities of power (especially military power) and understand as well that the United States was not all that different from other nations” (377). Realist believe things go badly for American officials when they get caught up in the “’legalism and moralism’” of their times (377). He cites realist exemplar George F. Kennan’s American Diplomacy saying that realist would see the American support for an open-door policy in Asia as British manipulation of Americans. Kennan and other realist assert that American officials simply supported the policy because they believed it was the moral or most fair thing to do, even though it was most beneficial for Great Britain. As one can see, realism is marked by emphasis on “great man” history and how great individuals impacted the course of American development.

Conversely, the “revisionist” school of thought as seen in William Appleman Williams’s The Tragedy of American Diplomacy sees this same event as engineered by American leaders who “fully understood, and were determined to expand , their nation’s economic interest” (378). Instead of emphasizing military power, revisionist Williams emphasizes economic concern as the motivator for American policy.

 

Revisionist!

As you can see, both realist and revisionist historians examine the same events, yet they come to drastically different conclusions. This shows how a historian’s time, interests, and school of thought can affect how one views history. LaFeber’s valuable insight into history is a useful notion for any historian to remember, for it allows one to explore the dynamic nature of history. Which I am convinced is of paramount importance.