The Politics of Mass Consumption

I really like Vinnie's point about the question of writing a good history in a period that you lived through. While from a certain angle it can certainly seem to be an advantage in the fact that there are first hand experiences the author can directly relate to. But on the other hand it can leave the author open to biting criticism, similar to the criticism Seutonius has recieved in his writing of The Twelve Caesars. (Minding of course the near two thousand year difference, and the slight difference in the writing of history in ancient Rome) But, anyways the criticism of his history is the fact that it was written in a time period where his views about these twelve Caesars could bring about serious consequences. What he wrote about was influenced by belief and knowledge that had not had the pleasure of historical distance to work itself towards some semblence of truth.
When one writes about a time period in which they lived there are unavoidable biases that exist. There are unavoidable biases in any history written, whether political, economical, racial, or just personal preference, they are impossible to avoid. But the historians hope is that when one writes about a time period in the past, the bias that would exist if they lived in that period disappears. It is to be the archive that speaks to the historian, and from that a "subjective" (Ha, as if that exists) history is supposed to come forth. With the pleasure of historical distance as I mentioned earlier this is much more defendable. Do I believe Cohen's history is poor? No, the book is very well written and provides an intensive look at this "consumer's republic" as she says. I just felt Vinnie's point was provocative and deserved attention.