HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.Ambrose Bierce
We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events.Gerda Lerner
When I was in graduate school, I was an historian. My “area” was early modern Europe, specifically the cultural wars within a largely Christan Italy that led to Anti-Semitism, the witch trials, the persecution of sodomites, and, after the fall of Constantinople, the terror of the “Turk.”
History, for me, cannot be redemptive. That is, I can’t reach into the past and resurrect someone–even if I somehow prove that an injustice was done to this particular person, my actions are not redemptive. That person is long-dead. I’ve done nothing to save them, and, perhaps worse for me, as an historian, I’ve imposed my interpretation of their lives onto them.
History is always an act of interpretation. There’s an African proverb that says: Until the lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter.
While my political understanding of the world would make me one of those who would attempt to write the history of the lion, I recognize my part in imposing my interpretation onto events that I was no part of.
Everything I’ve said so far presupposes the free access to documents–the “facts” if you will–that allow acts of interpretation to take place. Based on that, we teach our children history in their school curriculum.
In the US, there is a constant emphasis on particular stories–Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Revolution, the Pioneers, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Now. And there’s usually one way of teaching it. How all of these events somehow present a forward march that got us to this place where we are a glorious nation.
Just as curriculum fights are breaking out over the teaching of evolution and which books children should be allowed to read, as an historian, I’ve witnessed numerous fights, some large and some small, about the way history gets taught. I’ve never forgotten an experience in Seattle where a friend was teaching history in a Seattle high school and decided, as part of the series on Viet Nam, to show the movie Platoon. Because of its “R” rating, permission from parents was needed. One mother called my friend and yelled at her, demanded to know why she was showing such a thing. My friend responded that she was trying to teach the kids how to think critically about American history. The parent yelled that she “didn’t want my kid thinking critically about American history.”
It goes without saying that critical thinking is not about criticism, although that may certainly arise. It’s about not accepting a story at face value and looking for the various shades and layers of meaning within it.
My oldest daughter, in 7th grade, was essentially taught a “critical” approach to American history. On Columbus Day, she asked me why we were celebrating a holiday in honour of a man who had enslaved Indians. We wound up having a fantastic discussion about looking at someone’s actions in all their complexity–the good and the bad, the brave and the cruel.
Many, many people in this country are afraid of such teachings. Today, I read an article in the
Guardian that shows that these fights are taking all over the world. Some excerpts:
Mr Collins revealed that he had asked the historian Andrew Roberts to draw up a list of key facts about British history that all children would have to learn by the time they left school. There were too many “yawning gaps” in teenagers’ basic historical knowledge, he warned. The Daily Telegraph concurred and was quick to offer its readers a guide to the British past, complete with headings such as “The Anglo-Saxons: The Germans become English” and “The Globe Goes Pink – The Victorians”.
By happy coincidence, at the same time as Mr Collins was drawing up his Whiggish chronology, the Japanese ministry of education was sending its own official version of the past to the printers. And it was the resulting textbooks – with their studious omission of Japan’s wartime atrocities – that sparked rioting in Beijing and the ongoing diplomatic showdown with China.
Meanwhile, in India, schools and universities were just emerging from five years of equally virulent historical propaganda. From the moment of its election in 1999, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) had attempted a wholesale “saffronisation” of the country’s past. For a political movement which had connived at the Gujarat massacres saw little wrong in removing credible scholarship from the teaching of history. Armed thugs attacked university lecturers, prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned foreign authors not “to play with our national pride”, and references to India’s multi-ethnic, multireligious past were systematically excised from school curriculums. On its return to power in 2004, one of the first acts of the Congress party was to sack the official in charge of the BJP’s textbooks.
For in US classrooms a highly prescriptive syllabus, of the type Collins proposed, offers students an uncritical, uplifting story of the triumph of American liberty. Citizenship and history are seamlessly meshed into a simple-minded morality play designed to nurture blind patriotism. The textbook titles tend to give the game away: The American Way, Land of Promise, Rise of the American Nation, and The Challenge of Freedom are among the more subtle choices. And, as James W Loewen has pointed out, the consequence of this unerringly patriotic tale of US heroes and epochs is that African-American, Native-American and Latino students all tend to perform exceptionally poorly at high-school history.
The Brits have attempted to discard their old “whiggish” history in favour of one that incorporates the “sweep” of British history, including the contributions of its fairly new ethnic minorities, and how its role as imperialist nation has had an impact on the world. A history that while not perfect, at least attempts to pay attention to the complexity of the things that Britain has done–the good and the bad.
For even if we might not fully value our approach to history education, other countries certainly do. The Council of Europe is currently nurturing history teaching in post-Soviet and eastern European nations. In countries where nationalism and ethnic strife is ever present, the developing British tradition of non-prescriptive, critical enquiry is regarded as especially valuable. For the terrible consequences of state-sanctioned national narratives – with their attendant myths of victimhood, ethnic cohesion or divine mission – were there for all to see on the streets of Srebrenica.
Many have advocated that the British curriculum return to its legacy of royalty and heroism. Tristram Hunt, the author of the article, offers this caveat, which seems relevant this week as we struggle with issues of inclusiveness:
But before we return to King Alfred, Lord Clive and Horatio Nelson we should remember that the teaching of drum-and-trumpet stories of Britain’s past changed for a reason. We are no longer the mono-ethnic, male-dominated, hierarchical world of 50 years ago. As society changes, so does its relationship with the past. Whitehall-woven grand narratives of our struggle for freedom will neither engage more students in the studying of history nor serve our public sphere well. As a man with time on his hands, Tim Collins can now bury himself in the great works of history – and discover that chronology and criticism go best hand in hand.
How do we teach history in this country? And for me, more importantly, how do we say “no” to schoolboards across the country that, emboldened by communities that wish to return the Bible to the curriculum and ban the teaching of evolution?
Lorraine
a very timely and a propos post. So far No Child Left Behind does NOT icnlude social studies in its testing regimen. Thus there may be a prior question of if we will even teach history — some elementary schools are all but dropping it because the tests fro which they will be held accountable do not include history.
That said, let me offer my perspective as a social studies teacher, who has taught American History, Wolrd History, Social Issues, Government, and Comparative Religion. One thing we should be able to learn from studying history is how we interpret: upon what sources are we willing to rely, and why? What happens when our only sources have a polemic point of view? How can we uss material from different fields to cross check the assumptions we make about material? What weight should be given to official documents versus privae documents, maerial culture, archaeological material, etc?
I am not formally an historian — I started college as a history major with a conenctration in US history, finished with a degree in music, but with extensive course work in history, political science and philosophy. Over my now 59+ years of life I have read extesnievely and sometimes even systematically in a variety of history and related fields.
In my teaching, I try to rpesent my students with the processes of hsitory and of knowledge — this, btw, is applicable in government as well. This for example how one can get an entirely different viewpoint of the intent odf our system of government by reading Madison’s secret jrounal on the Convention, and the various disputations between federalists and anti-Federalists — it quickly beocmes clear that many who insist on an originalist itnerpretation fo the Constitution afre leliberately ignoring much of the historical evidence in order to reach their conclusions.
Ask students about diaries, how much of their diaries and journals are “cleaned up” or report things as they wish they ahd been, rather than as they actually were? Then ask them how they would approach various historical documents, and what questions they might ask?
Look at the many historic examples of justification of slaughter of the other — we have far too many examples in our own history, wheter hanign fo Mary Dyer a Quaker by the Puritans, the slaughter of various native groups, the Mountain Meadows massacre which is one of the blots on Mormon history that is not often taught, our treatment of Africans, etc, for us to be too condemnatory of other societies that also are not honest about their history.
One thing we can learn from hsitory is the misuse of history. Wecan also learn how often groups attempts to destroy the history of their opponents in roder to be ale to control the discussion. This can take the form of detroying the national Library of Sarajevo, of forcing groups to give up their ethnic names and languages when they are conquered — a phenomenon common but not exclusive to the Balkans — after all, Jews were forced to take official last names rather than the normal pattern of patronymics (eg, Ben Fathersname) by Austrians (which is why so many Jews of Polish background have German last names, like my own Bernstein) and we also did it to Native Americans.
A nation which refuses to honestly look at its own historic misdeeds is a nation that does not beloieve in history, merely in propaganda. And a nation that does not teach its children true history cannot be shocked when upon later exploration those children now adults become disillusioned — Loewen’s title makes lcear the kind of reaction one might well expect.
I have no ultiamt answer to the question you raise. I know that in my own teaching — and excursions into the blogosphere — I try to insist upon presenting a complete picture. History can in part provide answers, but it should also present us with questions and challenges. If we know that the internment of Japanese during WW II served nor real purpose in preventing sabotage (as J Edgar Hoover argued in opposing the internment, which in part was insisted upon by Earl Warren in his fole in California government), why are we insisting on a similar policy now with respect to many of Mulsim background?
I do not have answers. I know that I am challenged to challenge — that is, my task to to challenge my students to go beyond the mere memorization of important names and dates of battles. I present them with tasks that require them to think from different perspectives. Sometimes I will ask them to imagine what piece of information might change how they view an historic event, and then ask how they might go about uncovering that information.
I don’t know if this is the kind of response you sought. It is what I had to offer.
the “Devil’s Dictionary” deserves a big hug and kiss…(I’ll send a coupon.) I need to grab me a copy of it, used to have it but it got lost in my many moves…now what’s this about education?
a small anecdote from Wry:
Whilst a graduate student in Asian Religion at the U of Hawaii, one of our professors, a certain George Tanaka (hello Prof. Tanaka, still out there?) who was a second or third generation Japanese American (I believe), started off almost every Japanese religion class with a vitriolic rant about how horrible the Japanese were during WWII, cataloguing all of the atrocities that they committed, especially in China, and rave until he was almost foaming. He was especially incensed that these truths about the war weren’t being taught to Japanese schoolchildren…well, that was about 20 years ago and as you see we still have the same issues between Japan and China…
I’d say history can teach us two things:
1.) People are the same everywhere, and don’t learn from either their own mistakes or those of others.
2.) If you have freedom of the press, at least you can read about other peoples’ version of the story.
My favorite history quote is about the History Channel: “World War Two Happened.”
Really interesting, Lorraine.
I don’t mean this to be as trivial or sentimental as it may sound, but it occurs to me that we have been getting the lion’s. . .and tiger’s and mouse’s and duck’s. . .version of things for years. . .from Disney. The cartoons for little kids seem to take a softer, more sympathetic “other” point of view quite often. Bambi’s pov instead of the hunter’s, the mouse’s pov instead of the cat’s. The cat’s instead of the dog’s, etc. It’s little kids who are still emotionally open, able to cry over fallen sparrows, etc.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this, or if it relates to your diary in any meaningful way. I guess I’m just thinking that very early in life we do, most of us, seem to have some natural sympathy for other the history of “the other.” That sympathy, so easy to encourage, is also so easy to stamp out.
Frankly I don’t see anything all that glorious about the United States’ history at all. Even it’s much-heralded beginning isn’t all that glorious when you realize the majority of the citizens couldn’t even vote for their own “democratic” government for another 150 years.
And speaking of the “lions”, just about every neighbor of the United States has felt its onerous presence, starting with the sovereign native tribes to Canada and Mexico, then Latin America and up to and including the entire world now (yes even in Mongolia as I was sad to learn this week).
I am American and I love many people and aspects of my country. But as for my country’s “history”, especially that of its government, I find it more or less despicable and anything but glorious. And in the unlikely event I have a child here, there is no way on earth I will register it as an American citizen.
I realize that’s shocking for some, but so be it.
Pax
I agree with you Soj. My daughter and I have conversations all the time about what Americans have done, from Columbus to the colonists to the new foundling country where the powers that be moved in took over, occupied this land and drove the origional natives off.
My family was a part of this, fleeing Europe, coming here and settling a new land, they moved inland from Philadelphia and settled in Western Pa. in what were traditional summer hunting grounds of Natives mostly from Ohio. It also happened to be a very large salt lick area from which the name of the town was drawn, Salisbury. Origionally it was called simply Saltlick. Some of them received/purchased land grants after their years as indentured servants was fullfilled. I am sure they were darned happy to have the chance to have a life and care for their families, but they also infringed upon the native landscape in a very big way. The natives took exception to that. One of my ancestors was scalped and survived and others were taken as captives to escape years later.
IN their minds they were doing what they had to do for survival, they had to farm to survive and that required more and more land.
Seems like I have been writing this genealogy diary I am planning all day. Every conversation I have seems to lead to this.
Lorraine excellent diary and this discussion, could/should go on for days.
I’ve been off-line for most of the day–still trying to solve my housing problems. As of today, I’m back in the renter’s market. 🙁
Anyway, the teaching of history is many things–in a way, it’s how we become citizens, by learning what it is we value from the past, what actions or attributes we think are valuable. It’s why I think it winds up being so damn political.
More later. I should respond to each of you individually, which I will.
Lorraine, as a History major myself with intent to become a professor, I’m very conflicted on this one. I certainly recognize your point about the necessity of critical thinking in history, but of late the so-called “revisionist” historians have been rampant throughout the profession, destroying all the conventions that historians have long held sacred.
There’s a place for this, but it’s not at the helm of the historical profession. As Peter Novick brilliantly argues in his seminal book That Noble Dream, history can never be totally objective or separated from modern trends and events. History is thus a curious hybrid between art and science, one whose techniques are as scientific as possible but whose aims are those of art — to inform our modern world about itself through the prism of the past.
History, therefore, has to mean something in order to be worth our time. And destroying the old narratives that warm people’s hearts without putting up new coherent stories in their place is not, I believe, a worthwhile use of the historian’s art.
That doesn’t mean that I think we shouldn’t question our historical assumptions — instead, I think we should understand history’s power to make people believe in beauty, and take care not to sacrifice that while we examine the facts of the narrative.
As always, beautifully written. Thanks for this.
I read that book, too. One of the books that was required reading in my grad program, but I’m enough of a po-mo, post-stucturalist, post-colonialist that I’m not thrilled about the old narratives. Ironically, I left history specifically because I wanted to tell stories–which is why i returned to my first love of fiction.
We should have a discussion about this sometime. Lots to talk about…
You have my e-mail (on my profile). Or we could put up another thread on the subject. A very interesting topic.
I was just posting something relevant to this in another discussion … we need to look back, to learn our way forward. So much of history is judgemental in one way or another, an many times righly so, other times it is horribly exclusive. In our history, individual, societal and human, we need to be seekers, not of truth, but of understanding and of humility in the face of human frailities of all kinds.