| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 108.1

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 226 words from this article are provided below; about 587 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 108.1 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Methods/Theory

Ellen Fitzpatrick. History's Memory: Writing America's Past, 1880–1980. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2002. Pp. xi, 318. $39.95.

Ellen Fitzpatrick asks if the historiography of the 1960s—the scholarship produced by the generation of young historians who entered the profession in the 1960s and 1970s—has been as "new" as both its practitioners and its critics have made it out to be. And the answer she provides is, essentially, "no." 1

Fitzpatrick observes that when we speak of the historical studies of the 1960s and 1970s as "the new history," we presume that a dramatic transformation took place in the discipline involving theory, method, perspective, subject, and commitment. When we talk of the "old history," we usually have in mind a history of "consensus," written from the vantage of the governing classes, narrowly focused on politics, and intended for a scholarly audience. When we refer to the "new history," we think of historians revealing conflict, writing "from the bottom up," harnessing social-scientific approaches and sensibilities, attending to relations of class, race, and gender, redeeming the experience and agency of the exploited and oppressed, and seeking to connect their work to the struggles and issues of the day. The image of the new historian is that of a pioneer, a populist, and a radical, opening up new territory, standing with the people, overturning tradition. . . .

There are about 587 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.