For those intellectual historians who study religion, the new issue of the online Journal of Southern Religion is now up. Among the articles of relevance to intellectual historians, check out:
Hard, Hard Religion: The Invisible Institution of the New South by John Hayes.
A special forum between Curtis J. Evans and David Sehat (yours truly) over Booker T. Washington, historicism, and the question of moral culpability in historical inquiry.
And a group review by Edward J. Blum, Rebecca A. Goetz, and Randal Maurice Jelks of Colin Kidd’s important new book, The Forging of the Races.
The entire issue is worthy of reading. Check it out here.
-DS
One Thought on this Post
S-USIH Comment Policy
We ask that those who participate in the discussions generated in the Comments section do so with the same decorum as they would in any other academic setting or context. Since the USIH bloggers write under our real names, we would prefer that our commenters also identify themselves by their real name. As our primary goal is to stimulate and engage in fruitful and productive discussion, ad hominem attacks (personal or professional), unnecessary insults, and/or mean-spiritedness have no place in the USIH Blog’s Comments section. Therefore, we reserve the right to remove any comments that contain any of the above and/or are not intended to further the discussion of the topic of the post. We welcome suggestions for corrections to any of our posts. As the official blog of the Society of US Intellectual History, we hope to foster a diverse community of scholars and readers who engage with one another in discussions of US intellectual history, broadly understood.
David neglected to mention that the original piece on which the forum is based was written by him, and published in the Journal of Southern History. (A link to the original piece is provided on the site of the forum.) I just read all three pieces and, to those interested in U.S. intellectual history, I’d like to second his recommendation. David’s article focuses on Booker T. Washington’s criticisms of African-American religion, which serve as the jumping off point for the later debate over “historicism and moral culpability in historical inquiry.”
All three contributions are great examples of U.S. intellectual history. The fact that neither of the two journals involved are specifically dedicated to that subject is heartening to me, signifying a greater interest in, or acceptance of, our subfield.
Most importantly, the whole exchange is eloquent, well-informed and fascinating. I do not know enough about Washington to offer any opinion on the subject of the debate, but did enjoy reading it and wanted to recommend this exchange to our readers.
Mike