Blog #2

The key categories that Citino draws in his review of military history through the decades are categorized into three major groups which are, “war and society’ ( scholars, still often referred to as the “new military history.” (Citino p.1070) culture is the next one and traditional historians is the last group. The authors objective is to reshape how we look at old traditional military history, by observing more gender, class, race, culture and social history. Citino gives a first example of this by using an article from 1997 titled”The Embattled Future of Academic Military History.” (Citino p.1087)  which argued that, “military history was in crisis within the academy, that trends in historical scholarship (interest in race, class, gender, and the new cultural history) were moving away from research into war, and that ‘the flow of historical fashion is very much against us and promises to remain so for the foreseeable future.” (Citino p.1087) The article then proceeds to conclude with a solution that if military historians grasped the ideas that both “gender studies (particularly ‘comparative masculinities’) and the new cultural history.” (Citino p.1087) military history could then begin to correct itself. The author then proceeds to break down examples from other authors work on military historiography. Such as, The Roman republic, Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Citino then concludes with a final advice to future/current military historians stating, “try something genuinely daring, even countercultural, in terms of today’s academy. Read some military history” (Citino p.1090) My personal thoughts on this author are somewhat agreeable to me. I personally just believe sometimes war is an act on politics and the ones carrying out the order are not always at fault, rather the one giving the command is. This is greatly covered in many war novels describing how much men hate war and that comparing masculinity is not always the case. Especially, looking into future draft services that would be applied to men in the Vietnam War, where men did not want to serve but were forced to by the given action of congress. In the end it was the one in charge who saw an advantage of resources or power not gender. Other than that, I agree that we should reshape our views on cultures and other new interpretations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *