History has always been among my favorite subjects. The stories are fascinating. The good, the bad, the complexity, and the simplicity of human nature are all on display. This has come at a cost of some cherished narratives, I suppose. Turns out Americans aren’t always the good guys, and like as not, we’re not exceptional.
For a guy like me, one book more isn’t going to make much difference. Another book will be yet another voice in the cacophony. But, when we are talking about the educational system, it’s a different story. A lot of the people consuming these texts are going to get maybe one or two passes at most periods in history. The narratives in those texts are going to be locked in. That’s why you have such political concern over history texts. Tom LoBianco has another installment in Gov. Daniels’ dabbling with the history curriculum. We know that he vehemently disapproved of Howard Zinn’s take on history. Now we learn that he was embracing the history stylings of Bill Bennett.
Emails obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request show Bill Bennett had much more favor among Daniels and his advisers. In January 2010, when Daniels discovered the board of education had changed the state’s textbook rules to allow Bennett’s book, he quickly asked how soon his advisers could get copies of “The Last Best Hope” in classrooms.
“This is excellent to hear … now someone make my day and tell me that his book is becoming the textbook of choice in our state and I’ll buy beers for everyone,” he wrote in a Jan. 27, 2010, email to then-schools chief Tony Bennett, Bennett’s former chief of staff, Todd Huston, and David Shane, a longtime Daniels colleague, Republican donor and school board member.
I suppose, in addition to ideology, there is also more than a small element of directing public funds to favored recipients; but, in the case of history, the cherished narratives are more interesting to me. I sympathize with the desire to teach our kids a cartoon version of history where we are always the good guys and the good guys always win. But that potentially leads to some harsh disillusionment later. And for those who aren’t white guys, I imagine there is some confusion about the scope of “we.”
Somewhat related to this discussion, Dan Carlin’s most recent podcast, entitled The American Peril, looks at the late 19th / early 20th century as a way of examining a dichotomy in the American psyche. On one hand, you have the usual sort of venal impulse toward material goods and power; on the other hand, you have the impulse to honor the mythology surrounding the country’s Founding. This has created problems on a number of occasions; one of which was our experience in the Phillipines.
I don’t know about you, but my history classes mostly skipped directly over America’s involvement in the Philipines. I had never heard use of the term “Philippine-American War.” There was a passing reference to the U.S. destroying the Spanish presence there in conjunction with our invasion of Cuba following the explosion of the Maine. But, then, very little. Turns out, we had to use some very brutal tactics in service of the side of the American psyche that craved material goods and imperialism; tactics that did not comport well with our national mythology at all.
I don’t know, but I suspect that Zinn’s writings have a good bit more on this subject than do Bennett’s. And I further suspect that a kid with knowledge of this stuff who grows up to be an adult is less likely to want to engage in military adventures like the one in Iraq than a kid who only knows about the splendid little war in Cuba and Teddy Roosevelt’s charge up San Juan Hill.
I sympathize with this, too, since I think that a positive, inclusive civic mythology can be a good thing, and it can pressure us to try and live up to the myths. (For further discussion, see The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and “Lisa the Iconoclast.”) But that doesn’t mean it should be confused with history.
A Cromulent History of America
The American people really embiggened their role on the world stage.
“Embiggened”? I get your meaning, but really? Embiggened?
We were riffing on the Simpsons. The episode “Lisa the Iconoclast” involved the town’s reverence for Jebediah Springfield and the mythology surrounding him. Lisa finds out the truth about him but, ultimately, decides not to spoil things for the townspeople by making them confront the true history. “Cromulent” and “embiggens” are words associated with Jebediah.
Oh, sorry, I am ignorant of The Simpsons. But there is some glimmer of hope for me, as I am slightly familiar with South Park.
What say we get our vocab back to normalcy? ;-)
In the context of education below the collegiate level, I certainly would favor a reading list that included William Bennett’s “America: The Last Best Hope” over Howard Zinn’s book. At the collegiate level, a brief survey course might better serve students by contrasting the two books, instead of relying upon one, or the other, alone.
That said, I very much doubt that former Governor Daniels would wish to encourage critical thought about history (or anything else), no matter what his press aides suggest he (now) say publicly on the matter.
That could be a great course, reading the two and comparing them for their factual content and emphasized areas. It would really contrast with the Bennett-Daniels emphasis on teaching people what to think (education as propaganda) and help teach students learn how to think. Somehow, I don’t think Daniels would like that course either. I also don’t believe that he would be a fan of this blog. Even though there are some different opinions expressed, they all don’t say “Yay, Mitch!”
Recently I really enjoyed Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast on the Spanish-American War and the following nightmare in the Philippines. Worth the time to listen, IMHO: http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-49—The-American-Peril/%20Spanish-American-Philippine-Insurrection
The Mexican War and the Spanish-American War were both wars of expansion that receive short discussion in high school history.
Sometimes the good guys win. But usually it is the guy with the most divisions.
I don’t know, a cartoon history can be quite good:
http://www.larrygonick.com/titles/history/cartoon-history-of-the-united-states/
“Sometimes the good guys win. But usually it is the guy with the most divisions. ”
And all too often the same guy rewrites the history books.
The winner gets the pen of history. The losers get the archeologist’s spade.
Very well-written, Doug. I happen to have a degree in History, and it pains me greatly that history is sometimes more of a course, especially in middle school and high school, designed to teach nationalism and by extension patriotism rather than the historical record. It is something I’ve been screaming about for the better part of the forty years since I graduated from college, and now a leader of a college, Mitch Daniels, confirms my worst fears. America is a wonderful country, and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, but we’ve had our share of warts along the way, and ignoring those warts won’t make them go away. Bill Bennett, while a smart and sincere man, would have our children taught this mashup of nationalism/ patriotism, no matter where research and fact actually leads. Zinn’s reading of history might be a bit radical for most Hoosiers accustomed to the thoughts that our founding fathers were omnipotent Christians, rather than Enlightenment-influenced real men who swore and farted and, well, you get the idea. A good dose of Zinn is what most Hoosiers need, in my opinion, and a pink slip for Daniels is what Hoosiers should demand.
Well stated, Retired1. They swore, farted, and also drank a lot. But they came up with a radical document with a radical source of governance. And except for the Civil War, it has held diverse and intensely individualistic peoples together fairly well.
Hah. I was just coming to chime in about the drinking! One of my favorite passages from a Civil War history book I had in school “Ordeal by Fire” had a chapter or two on antebellum America where they mentioned just how hard those guys drank. John Adams would customarily have a gill of hard cider *before breakfast*
Ah yes, Mel Daniels, one of the untruther members of the Bush administration who by 100% (perhaps intentionally) underestimated the cost of Washington/US invading Iraq, quite the historian, lol. I wonder if he has yet read Philip Giraldi’s article at antiwar.com yesterday:
Homeland Security Made in Israel”.
corr: Mitch Daniels