Burleigh,
Michael. Sacred Causes: The Clash of
Religion and Politics, from the Great War to the War on Terror. New York:
Harper Collins, 2007.
Michael Burleigh sets out to discuss the relationship between
religion and politics in modern Europe.
He provides a comprehensive look at how totalitarian regimes at both
ends of the political spectrum strove to become a state religion through
propaganda and ceremonial means that is critical to understanding how the
Bolsheviks, Nazis, and Italian Fascists moved to consolidate control of their
respective states by establishing state cults and attacking religious
institutions that stood in their way.
Part of his goal is to bolster the anti-Fascist credentials of the
Catholic Church in the face of a traditional narrative that Pope Pius XII aided
and abetted the Nazis during and after their rise to power. While Burleigh’s research in this area is
excellent, his level of invective against ideological or religious opponents is
problematic because it creates questions about his use of evidence.
One example of this is his use of Graham Greene to illustrate
anticlericalism in action in Mexico and Spain.
While dismissing Greene’s work as being all of a type that focused on
washed up characters in hot, humid, and dirty environments, he uses his work
describe how leftist movements launched systematic attacks on the Catholic
Church and its clergy. He attributes
these acts solely to the Republicans in Spain while glossing over Nationalist
atrocities against educators during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s. Despite criticizing the Nazis for attacks on
Catholics and Jews, in this case Franco’s Fascists get a pass for their
political violence.
Burleigh’s bias is evident in other subtle and not so subtle
ways. When discussing the Nazi cooption
of pagan ceremonies for their own purposes, he mentions the adoption of a Yule
Light during Christmas celebrations, he claims without providing support that
this imagery was more appropriate to Halloween.
He makes this claim without providing any supporting explanation or
evidence, ignoring the long tradition of Yule celebrations in pagan tradition
before the adoption of Christianity by Europeans. Burleigh also omits the clear connection
between the Yule logs of paganism and the European and North American Christian
Christmas tradition of the Christmas tree.
The misrepresentation calls into question Burleigh’s use of evidence.
Readers put on edge by Burleigh’s polemicism and sometimes unusual
use of evidence may be further put on edge if also know that Burleigh is both
on the advisory board of, and contributor to, the conservative British magazine
Standpoint, which claims as its
mission the celebration of western civilization at a time when it is under
threat from non-Western influences. Standpoint’s post-September 11th
goal to create a broad center-right coalition to defend Western ideals against
encroaching Islam in Europe (termed Eurabia by Burleigh) creates questions
about Burleigh’s accuracy related to issues of multiculturalism in Europe.
This raises a critical point for historians. While none of us are free from bias, and our
work is informed by political, religious, and cultural influences, Burleigh’s
obvious bias detracts from the legitimate aspects of his argument. This is a warning for academic historians not
to allow their ideological goals and objective to infiltrate their academic
writing to the extent that it causes criticism of the work. Even after a career as prestigious as Burliegh’s,
the appearance that his work is driven by his political goals rather than
historical accuracy causes readers to wonder how seriously they should take his
work.
No comments:
Post a Comment