The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 by Gabriel Kolko (review)

implication is that the historian can and should determine the "facts" of history apart from the elimate of opinion of his own generation. In short, Professor Craven seems to espouse that comforting and quite human dualism common among historians--that revious explanations of history have been "relative," but that p the historian in question ow can distinguish between the transitory and relative perspectives imposed by his era, and his own current explanations of history founded on lasting and non-relative "facts." Let the historian who has never held this appealing view east he first stone. The response of historians of the following generation to Professor Craven's views provides a crucial test of their intellectual understanding and tolerance. In like manner, it would seem to be a fundamental test for historians of Professor Craven's generation whether they can demonstrate intellectual understanding and tolerance toward those younger historians who are dissatisfied either with the conclusions or the research concepts and methods of their elders.