 |
|
|
 |
|
"History is bunk--unless, that is, it's written from my point of view," Henry Ford probably should have said.
The Texas State Board of Education--comprised of nine Republicans and five Democrats--recently adopted a social studies and history curriculum that reflects a certain political and religious point of view, a point of view that will also be reflected in state-issued textbooks. Among its features:
A questioning of the rationale for the separation of church and state (students will be required to compare and contrast judicial language with the wording of the First Amendment)
A retaining of the traditional words to delineate historical periods--BC and AD rather than BCE and CE.
The excision of Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher
The effect of global organizations such as the United Nations in undermining United States sovereignty
A study of Judeo-Christian influences on the Founding Fathers
The requirement that the U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than as a "democratic" one
The requirement to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.
Are these curriculum changes "bad"? From the standpoint of specific decisions, maybe yes, maybe no, depending upon your political and religious point of view. (Personally, I'd say "yes.") But from the standpoint of process, absolutely not.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says that school officials "should keep politics out" of curriculum debates and San Antonio Democratic representative Mike Villareal says, "They have ignored historians and teachers, allowing ideological activists to push the culture war further into our classrooms. They fail to understand that we don't want liberal textbooks or conservative textbooks. We want excellent textbooks written by historians instead of activists."
That may sound both objective and unobjectionable, but it is becoming more and more recognized that such objectivity is not really possible. The objectivity ship has sailed. Activist historians, like activist judges, are essentially those with whose interpretation you disagree. The Middle Ages once were considered the Dark Ages. Now? Not so much. Historians show a new respect for the period. Columbus was once an intrepid explorer who "discovered" the new world and made possible the great Age of Expansion. Now he's often seen as one of the first of a horde of Europeans who were to wreck indigenous civilizations and exploit their people. And decades ago, figures like Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan went from being "captains of industry" to "robber barons."
As a generation of deconstructionist literary critics has shown, there is politics in every action, bias in every point of view. They have made a convincing case that the establishment of standards and value in Western society has long been the province of white males and have advocated many changes in perspective, which have led to curriculum revisions.
As one result, there is often now a greater emphasis on the plight of minorities and on the legislative actions undertaken to help their causes. In Tucson, AZ, Mexican-American/Raza studies have taken hold. State Superintendent of Education Tom Horne adamantly opposes the curriculum changes, but the entrenched Tucson school board is equally adamant about its intent to preserve its program. Both sides make it clear by their actions--though certainly not by their rhetoric--that the view of history taught in the schools must constantly be revised according to the prevailing zeitgeist.
On the subject of revisionism, historian David Williams says: "...scholarly voices called for a more comprehensive treatment of American history, stressing that the mass of Americans, not simply the power elites, made history, yet it was mainly white males of the power elite who had the means to attend college, become professional historians, and shape a view of history that served their own race, class, or gender interests at the expense of those not so fortunate and quite literally to paper over aspects of history they found uncomfortable." (from Wikipedia)
On the subject of revisionism, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., says:
"But others, especially in the United States, represent what American historians call 'revisionism'--that is, a readiness to challenge official explanations. No one should be surprised by this phenomenon. Every war in American history has been followed in due course by skeptical reassessments of supposedly sacred assumptions...for revisionism is an essential part of the process by which history, through the posing of new problems and the investigation of new possibilities, enlarges its perspectives and enriches its insights." (from Wikipedia)
On the subject of revisionism, philosopher Karl Popper says: "...each generation has a right to look upon and re-interpret history in its own way....After all, we study history because we are interested in it, and perhaps because we wish to learn something about our problems. But history can serve neither of these purposes if, under the influence of an inapplicable idea of objectivity, we hesitate to present historical problems from our point of view. And we should not think that our point of view, if consciously and critically applied to the problem, will be inferior to that of a writer who naively believes...that he has reached a level of objectivity permitting him to present 'the events of the past as they actually did happen.'" (from Wikipedia)
History, particularly its meaning and relevance, is determined by those in power to perpetuate the beliefs of, and advance the purposes of, those in power. Want to make Americans aware of America's imperialism, its abuse of minorities, its destruction of the environment? Want to make Americans aware of the glory of the old, pre-Civil War South? Want to find Christianity in the Constitution? Go for it. If you want your version of the "truth" to prevail, get yourself and your cohorts into positions of influence and employ all of your rhetorical skills to persuade others that your view is best.
|
|
|