Should a historian of a given group say ‘we’ when describing acts of his group that took place over, say, 100 years ago? (i.e., before he or she or any of the living people in his group were born, and there are no people of that group that are still living.) Or should he maintain an academic distance?
For example: ‘We used guerilla tactics, while the British were using European battlefield formations.’, or ‘We obtained iron for our arrowheads from barrel hoops brought by the settlers.’ vs. ‘The Revolutionary soldiers used guerilla tactics, while the British were using European battlefield formations.’, or ‘The Native Americans obtained iron for their arrowheads from barrel hoops brought by the settlers.’
I wouldn’t take the author seriously and would think that the piece were more of an agenda-driven opinion piece than a serious work if the author consistently used “we” and “our” as you demonstrate.
I’d like to say that I’ll cut someone some slack if the group being defined is smaller and the opportunity for group recognition is stronger–like Military Group X counting to their credit good stuff done under that name during WWI or something, or College Y taking credit because “we invented the aluminum can” or we count among our alumni Great American Writer Z(who didn’t actually graduate) .
But the more I think about it, the more your examples remind me of an 18 year old (give or take slightly) tour guide at a cavern I went to a couple years ago. In 1820 Farmer X found the opening in the ground, and later “we” gave tours, and “we” added the lights and “we” . . . No. You are not part of that we–all you know is a little canned spiel, and how to manouver the tour boats and the people on the tours. Stop saying WE and call the company by name or a form of the name.
If you’re a tour guide, you’re a representative of the company; so I think ‘we’ would be appropriate in that case.
But what about a member of a tribe who is acting as an expert on a TV show? Is he acting as a representative of the tribe, so ‘we’ is appropriate? Or is he acting as an historian who should maintain a certain distance?
Sorry, if you appear to be eighteen, you do not get to be part of historical events. Or maybe his canned spiel would have bugged me for the “we” bit even if he hadn’t appeared to be eighteen. I don’t remember the details enough to be persuasive.
Member of a tribe, acting as expert, on TV show–saying “we” doesn’t give your opinions any extra gravitas, but I think I’m ok with it in principle. Better if it’s about stuff which is specific to that tribe, as opposed to generic Native Americans, but . . .
Let’s face it–the being part of the TV show is what makes it entertainment as well as education and thus the representing the tribe and so “we” is appropriate in my book.
So it might have bugged you if the tour guide was 60 and was describing events of nearly 200 years ago and he said ‘we’; but not the indian, even though the events are similarly removed? Or going to your aluminum can example, who could say ‘We invented the pull-tab.’? An American? A citizen of Dayton, Ohio? Or, since Ermal Fraze was born in Indiana, a citizen of that state?
When I see this in my research (I study nuns and a few of the historians I read are, not surprisingly, themselves nuns, especially those in the past generation of nun-historians) I sort of mentally pull back and group the work with the past generation, no matter when it was written. Particularly if the author is a member of the order she’s writing about. The book or article can still be good, but I definitely notice it.
I think I’d cut the sixty year old tour guide more slack than the eighteen year old one. Just 'cause I’d have respected him more to begin with.
I’m not real happy with any of your sample people claiming that ‘we’ invented the pull-tab, but I’m not sure why. Perhaps they are all group members of groups which are too large and ill-defined. And there’s no choice in any of it.
(Although how that works with the indian expert on TV, who presumably didn’t choose to be born Indian, and who I’m willing to cut some slack, I’m not sure.
Aha! I respect the tribal ties more than I do other sorts of casual membership ties. I just do. Not sure why, but I know that I do.)