During my morning news browse yesterday, I came across an article on CNN linked as “Lawmakers call for history lessons” and titled “Schools directed to expand history curriculums” At last, I thought, politicians will be getting behind more history in high schools. But the full url is more revealing:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/28/ethnic.courses.ap/index.html
Ethnic courses? The story concerns the creation of an "Amistad Commission" in New York State to direct schools to "teach students more about the struggles and triumphs of different races and ethnic groups". Oh. Make that "Uh-Oh". New York State is one of the big three movers and shakers in curriculum. They, along with California and Texas, have the highest populations and hence, are responsible for the bulk of textbooks orders. Textbook companies create whatever their most important clients demand.
The movement for inclusion is nothing new. In fact, it is part of a wider trend in history that has increasingly focused on the "common man" and social history. Even military history has tended in this direction with its growing literature of journals, letters, and first person narratives. Stephen Ambrose (Citizen Soldiers), John Keegan (The Face of Battle), Ronald Spector (At War at Sea), Mark Bowdan (Blackhawk Down) and Victor Davis Hanson (Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience) have all done fascinating and/or important work in this area.
The AP US History Exam has evolved over the years to reflect this change. Originally, the exam was almost solely political and diplomatic history. Now the exam breaks down as follows (from AP Central): "Political institutions and behavior and public policy account for approximately 35 percent of the questions, and social and cultural developments account for approximately another 40 percent. The remaining questions are divided between the areas of diplomacy and international relations (15 percent) and economic developments (10 percent)."
I have found the overall trend to be a major improvement in the depth of our historical understanding. It is difficult to understand why Lee was so successful if you know nothing of the fiber of the tens of thousands who served under him. Unfortunately, the trend has had some unintended and disturbing consequences. Special interest groups representing historically oppressed or abused groups have pushed for inclusion in these new social histories. In and of itself, this inclusion has been a positive thing. The addition of the history of slavery, the honest discussion of American Indian culture, the study of the growth of the idea of freedom, the exploration of the evolving role of the woman in society and the family, the understanding of the roles of family and community, the drama of the Civil Rights movement, and so many other topics have made American History a much richer and pertinent subject.
The inclusion has led to confusion between true achievement and trivia. A couple of my colleagues and I were discussing this at lunch on Wednesday. I proposed the idea that being the first to do something does not make for historical significance. I used as my example Crispus Attucks. For those you who don’t know Crispus, he was killed during the Boston Massacre. He has recently been added to history textbooks as the first black man to be killed during the American Revolution. In other words, his achievements were: being black and getting killed. There is little historical significance in this. Sure, I can discuss the roles and rights of free blacks in colonial society, but I can do this without the death of Mr. Attucks, about whom all I can really say is that he died and was black.
His inclusion has, necessarily, led to the excising of other individuals from textbooks. Generally, these people removed are white, male, and are of European descent. This has not gone on without raucous political debate. Sergeant Alvin York is no longer included in US History texts. The story of Alvin York is inspiring, thought provoking, and eminently teachable. I can discuss conscientious objectors, the role of religion in war, just war, heroism, poor white southerners, and a host of other issues through Sergeant York. Alas, he is dead to history.
The phenomenon of including the “firsts” in history books as significant has reached an extreme. Books include sidebars on the first black to do this, the first woman to this, the first Hispanic to this, and etc. Some of these are vital to understanding American history. The story of Jackie Robinson is, like Alvin York’s, inspiring, thought provoking, and eminently teachable. It is also historically significant. Being the first to do something can only be significant if there were considerable social, political, or historical forces making it difficult to accomplish that first. Otherwise it is mere trivia. The accomplishment itself must also be historically significant. Being the first three fingered, Hispanic, female to do twenty handstands in a hot air balloon over New York City does not meet the criteria. It is mere trivia.
The trivialization of the accomplishments of minorities or oppressed groups has actually served to undermine the importance of true accomplishment. Dontrelle Willis, the ace pitcher of the Florida Marlins, recently won twenty games. In baseball, this is a significant statistical accomplishment achieved by few players. It is a true achievement and a testimony to his natural abilities, hard work, and dedication to the game. The press would have you think other wise. His write up on Wikipedia mirrors the main stream media accounts of his accomplishments: “He became just the 13th African-American pitcher to win 20 games in a season, joining the "Black Aces." He was also the first African-American pitcher to win 20 games since Dave Stewart won 22 in 1990." Doesn’t this trivilize his accomplishment? Were there any social forces working against his winning twenty games because he was black?
CNN.com gives us this recent teaser for a story about the death of a Civil Rights pioneer and a true heroine of the movement as "First black woman on federal bench dies". The actual title and subtitle of the article is much more significant: "Civil rights champion Constance Baker Motley dies at 84: Justice pivotal force in landmark cases, worked tirelessly for cause". Which is more important, the trivia or the actual achievements? Which should I teach?
The discussion I was having with my colleagues closed with me proposing, without really thinking about it, that, “True achievement cannot be something that anyone could have done. Neil Armstrong being the first man to land on the moon is trivia. Any other astronaut could have done it. There was another astronaut behind him, waiting to do it. There was another one orbiting, wishing to do it. True achievement has to be something that only that person could do at that moment.”
Later, I understood my proposition's weaknesses. I think a superior understanding would be to say that true achievement cannot be simply being the first to do something. True achievement must be something that is either immensely difficult to do the first time and be worth doing, or it must be excellence in doing something that is difficult to do well and be worth doing. Jackie Robinson’s achievement meets both of these criteria. Crispus Attucks meets neither. Dontrelle Willis’ achievement meets the second and has nothing do with his race. Neil Armstrong’s meets the first one. Constance Motley’s probably meets the first, but her qualifications for the second are much more significant.
Recently, California has mandated a Cesar Chavez day for their public schools. This past summer, Philadelphia city schools added a graduation requirement: one year of black history. Soon, American history classes will consist of little but special days, weeks, months, and years, each assigned to the most powerful special interest groups. The state of history education in the United States is rotten.
My apologies if you have read this far. I have tried to supress my political rantings. When was the last time I posted on China? I like to try, even if it means failing.
Peace
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment