A Historical Perspective : An Interview with Dr. Karim Tiro

Dr. Tiro is a Xavier professor and historian specializing in Early America and Native American studies. With this expertise, Dr. Tiro provided his perspective on Dr. Grabar’s presentation and Howard Zinn below:

What was your impression of Howard Zinn as a historian?

I have never read Zinn, so I can’t say anything about the quality of his work. From my experience, his influence on the historical profession was quite limited. Zinn was a political scientist and was more interested in seeking a broad popular following than addressing historians. However, he obviously continues to be a favorite target for those who object to the changes in the way history has been written and taught since the Vietnam Era.

What was your impression of Mary Grabar as a historian?

I have not read her book. In her presentation, Dr. Grabar approached Zinn’s writing on Columbus as the scholar of literature that she is—she did a close reading of Zinn’s text and connected it to his biography. I think her portrayal of Columbus’ initial report to the Spanish sovereigns was accurate, in that his first impressions of the Native people he encountered were favorable. I do think a historian would have addressed more directly the devastating impact of the Spanish colonization that Columbus initiated. Not doing so risks leaving an exaggerated impression of Columbus’ goodwill while minimizing the upheaval that began to unfold under his watch. I was also surprised when Dr. Grabar said she thought we should all be reading Samuel Eliot Morison. Morison was an excellent and influential historian, but his Columbus biographies were published in 1942 and 1955. We’ve learned a lot about the peoples of the Caribbean, Europe, and the late 15th century generally since then.

Can a historical narrative ever overcome political commitments?

Yes, although people don’t usually devote a lot of time to researching some aspect of the past if they don’t think there are some very important lessons for us today, and that motivation in itself can be considered ‘political.’ To return to the example of Columbus, the historian has to decide how tightly to train the spotlight on Columbus himself and how much to illuminate the human drama and suffering that took place in his wake. In other words, the ‘lighting’ itself inevitably involves making choices with political implications. The important thing is that the historian’s presentation should be even-handed, open-minded, and factually correct and complete. The critical engagement of the consumer has a very important role here, too. Readers should approach any historical narrative with a friendly antagonism, and strive to think about what might have gotten left out, assumptions that are going unstated, and the limitations of the sources the historian used. It turns out that producing balanced historical narratives that excel at explaining why the past unfolded as it did is a community effort.

A special thank you to Dr. Tiro for taking the time to answer these questions and for attending the Mary Grabar event!