Posted under American history & Gender & women's history
From ”The Kennedys: A Fumbled Handoff of the Torch,” by Sam Tanenhaus:
In 1963, shortly after her husband was murdered, Mrs. Kennedy granted an interview with Mr. White, who had covered the Kennedy election and then written his classic account, “The Making of the President, 1960.”
“Once, the more I read of history the more bitter I got,” Mrs. Kennedy reflected. Her husband, who in childhood had devoured romantic history books, viewed it very differently. “For Jack, history was full of heroes. And if it made him this way — if it made him see the heroes — maybe other boys will see.”
“Maybe other boys will see?” That seems to sum it all up, doesn’t it? History is about heroes, heroes are men, and heroes are meant to inspire boys. This is not a criticism of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis–she experienced reading history as alienating or even embittering, rather than inspiring, and that’s the fault of historians. I think her comments about the gendering of history are accurate even today, 45 years later.
This is why I’m interested in women’s biography right now–for a long time I’ve worried that my biography of Esther Wheelwright won’t be perceived as theoretically sophisticated enough, or cool enough. But women’s history is still such a relatively new field, with many discoveries to be made. Discovering new women’s biographies may in fact be a much more radical undertaking than it appears to be on the surface. I’ve argued all along that what may seem to be the most traditional and staid of all historical genres might in fact be dramatically subversive both for history and biography when a little girl and/or a woman is at the center of inquiry.
Biography insists that its subject is of paramount importance to history. Biography is powerful: Cataloging the lives of the saints worked pretty well in popularizing Roman Catholicism and moving it from the margins to the center of European history and culture. If more women’s biographies are written, read, and incorporated into school curricula, then the argument about who and what is important in history will be won. We don’t have to write “sheroic” history–that is too flat and old-hat for me, not to mention an approach that usually privileges the overly privileged and stories that conform to the old Whig trajectory. We must simply write about women’s lives unapologetically, and with specificity, nuance, and telling detail that puts them at the center of history rather than at the margins.
History isn’t therapy–or at least, it doesn’t function very efficiently as therapy. It is, however, ideology, and from my perspective, women’s history hasn’t begun to make a dent on what most people see as “History.”

Happy 400th birthday, Québec
What, you say? Historiann lives in the High Plains desert? What the hell is she doing with a veritable fruit orchard in her garden? Trees are integral to the history of (the pseudonymous) Potterville, which started out in 1870 as a Utopian experiment called the Union Colony, and was organized around the principles of teetotalism, anti-capitalist communitarianism, and bringing trees to the Great American Desert. Well, one of out three goals outlasted the first decade, and it makes for a spectacular show of blossoms in late April and early May.
I’ve heard it suggested by local house museum docents that Meeker’s death was an indirect result of his sumptuous budget for trees. Before coming to Colorado, Meeker was the agricultural editor of the New York Tribune, and the newspaper’s publisher, Horace Greeley, encouraged him to ”go west, young man,” and provided a great deal of financial backing for the fledgling Union Colony. When Greeley died and his estate called in the loans, Meeker didn’t have the money, and legend suggests that it had gone to his profligate tree budget. (I can’t verify that yet, however.) So, in 1878 he took a job as an Indian agent on the Western slope at the White River Indian Agency, where he annoyed the Utes so much with his utopian reformist zeal (especially his insistence that they adopt his farming techniques) that the following year they rose up and killed him and took his wife Arvilla and youngest daughter Josephine captive, along with the other U.S. women and children in the settlement. Their captivity was short lived–only 23 days–but Josephine had time enough to stitch together a fitted, fashionable dress made of Indian blankets, which is on permanent display at the local museum. It was rumored that when released, she was pregnant by a Ute man, a rumor that gained credence when she was sent to Washington, D.C. to work for a Colorado congressman. However, she died of pneumonia shortly thereafter, before any putative child would have been born. (Source for the verified information in this paragraph is
Rumors of pregnancy resulting from captivity are an occasionally recurring theme in the history of North American Indian captivity. There was a suggestion that 170 years earlier and 2,400 miles away, Esther Wheelwright conceived a child in captivity. (I haven’t written about Wheelwright here for a while–to recap, 
