An important implication of your excellent analysis is the consideration of how one uses history in reflecting aspirations for the future. If the past is one of heroes who always got things right then there is nothing to which we can aspire. And any attempt to deviate from that is an attack or effort to take us backwards. A strict focus on what we got wrong can be used as a way to argue we got nothing right and thus everything must be torn down.
I found common cause with those who want to celebrate what has been achieved while acknowledging past actions that have not meshed or ran counter to our stated principles and values. Going forward in the belief that we are flawed but committed to using lessons from the past to aspire for something better that does conform to our principles (even as they likely evolve) is difficult, but can be inspiring.
I recall early in my diplomatic career how government reps in other countries countered concerns we raised about their human rights abuses by critiquing Canadian history. It effectively blunted our arguments to a degree since our official line was to then defend our own record. Later on we simply acknowledged our imperfections which returned the focus to their situation, allowing for a much deeper discussion.
And thank you for your comment. An essay like that takes a heap of work and because it's not a partisan polemic it won't go viral and boost my subscription numbers. So it's nice to know it's reaching its intended audience.
I love these points you’re making about the construction and reconstruction of memory. That topic deserves a lot more focus from everyone for its impact on political imaginations. If you haven’t yet read Ian Hacking’s work in the same area, it was eye opening for me and highly recommend!
Yes. Unfortunately it's a little too meta for most people's tastes but I find the historiography, popular memory, and how history is used as fascinating as history itself.
This is fascinating, Dan. I think it must also reflect Canadian perceptions in terms of misperception of the “other side’s” point of view. To avoid the breakdown seen in the US do we need to create greater understanding of what we share and less of an “us vs them” polemic (while providing an accurate portrayal of history)?
I think they will cover the Red Scare but in a way that heroes like a young J Edgar Hoover stopped communism from gaining a foothold in Liberty loving America
Trump has displayed an acute dearth of historical knowledge from early on. I rest my case with,
“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
No doubt, the MAGA and woke extremes are both ridiculous and harmful. (Note: MAGA is not conservative and woke is not liberal.) I have bigger worries about the woke faction. They are vastly over represented in college faculties. They are the ones indoctrinating current and future generations. The Hamas support on campuses is a clear example of this.
An excellent essay, and a theme that I (a retired History/Politics/Economics teacher) have been banging on about for years.
But the fault also lies with those in charge of education and in particular the school curriculum.
When I began teaching in the UK in the late 60s/early 70s the History curriculum was decided by the the teachers with no real interference from the government. However as the school system in the UK at that time was very heavily influenced by the success (some would say!) of the private school curriculum, History as a subject was dominated by the very old fashioned - History of British Kings and Queens and the British Empire, but change was on the way.
"The Schools Council Project History 13-16 was set up in 1972 to undertake a radical re-think of the purpose and nature of school history. It sought to revitalize history teaching in schools and to halt the erosion of history’s position in the secondary curriculum."
This project was set up and run by professional history teachers, advised and helped by academic research in Universities and Education Colleges across the country and led to the introduction of what I would call 'real' history based on the evaluation of evidence from original sources. Absolutely fundamental to this approach was critical thinking and students making their own judgements based on the evidence before them.
Unfortunately this approach only survived until the Thatcher era, when, like Trump, the Iron lady believed that controlling the school curriculum would allow her to control what people thought and more importantly how they voted. The introduction of the, National Curriculum not only watered down what was taught in schools but reduced the time allowance for the Humanities to just an hour or so a week. The History taught in schools has returned to glorifying the success of Britain and ignoring any unpalatable truths.
As I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected, this story is more or less the same in the US. History is not seen as being important and is not a popluar choice for High school and university study and what is taught is just a glorification of the progress the US has made since 1776, rather than reality, 'warts and all'. Which is just one reason that less then 50% of US citizens bother to vote, and those that do are far too heavily influenced by, shall we say; 'alternative facts'.
Thank you for a most interesting essay. It is particularly disturbing when societies try to excise history and art that they find to be currently unpalatable or which makes it impossible to tell a single unified story. Life is just not so simple and journalists, historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest of us interpret observations in accordance with our own assumptions and experiences. The destruction or silencing of experience makes it impossible for those coming after us to examine whether our assumptions or descriptions were indeed accurate.
Future historians will need the hard data and different voices to be able to determine what were the forces that were driving political and social decisions. Human history is far more complex and diverse than anything taught in school. We need the statues, photos, art, stories of those who are in power and those who are not to be able to understand that complexity. David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything suggested that the common view on the progress of Western civilization is just not supported by anthropological or archaeological evidence. The glorious complexity of human history could only be seen by re-examining earlier writings, art, behaviour and histories composed by those in power as well as those who were ignored at the time.
Many thanks for this sober and unsettling analysis of the foolishness settling over our country from the top down—engineered by an illiterate moron who certainly knows nothing of real history!
An important implication of your excellent analysis is the consideration of how one uses history in reflecting aspirations for the future. If the past is one of heroes who always got things right then there is nothing to which we can aspire. And any attempt to deviate from that is an attack or effort to take us backwards. A strict focus on what we got wrong can be used as a way to argue we got nothing right and thus everything must be torn down.
I found common cause with those who want to celebrate what has been achieved while acknowledging past actions that have not meshed or ran counter to our stated principles and values. Going forward in the belief that we are flawed but committed to using lessons from the past to aspire for something better that does conform to our principles (even as they likely evolve) is difficult, but can be inspiring.
I recall early in my diplomatic career how government reps in other countries countered concerns we raised about their human rights abuses by critiquing Canadian history. It effectively blunted our arguments to a degree since our official line was to then defend our own record. Later on we simply acknowledged our imperfections which returned the focus to their situation, allowing for a much deeper discussion.
TY for your voice of reason & moderation from this retired HS history teacher. This will be widely shared!
And thank you for your comment. An essay like that takes a heap of work and because it's not a partisan polemic it won't go viral and boost my subscription numbers. So it's nice to know it's reaching its intended audience.
Superb look at this Orwelian moment we are all in. The conclusion that the vast majority of Americans crave facts, warts and all I believe holds true.
I love these points you’re making about the construction and reconstruction of memory. That topic deserves a lot more focus from everyone for its impact on political imaginations. If you haven’t yet read Ian Hacking’s work in the same area, it was eye opening for me and highly recommend!
Yes. Unfortunately it's a little too meta for most people's tastes but I find the historiography, popular memory, and how history is used as fascinating as history itself.
In an awful sense, Trump's attack on the Smithsonian is the least of it. Here you can read about the damage he has done and will continue to do to the U.S. National Archives, which holds the primary sources for writing the history of the country: https://americanoversight.org/investigation/trumps-hostile-takeover-of-the-national-archives-and-our-nations-history/
Oh lord, I was afraid of what I was missing. I will click on that link with dread. But, um, thanks for sharing, Ruth!
A superb summary of a potentially very scary situation! Well done!
This is fascinating, Dan. I think it must also reflect Canadian perceptions in terms of misperception of the “other side’s” point of view. To avoid the breakdown seen in the US do we need to create greater understanding of what we share and less of an “us vs them” polemic (while providing an accurate portrayal of history)?
I think they will cover the Red Scare but in a way that heroes like a young J Edgar Hoover stopped communism from gaining a foothold in Liberty loving America
This is how truly awful they are
Trump has displayed an acute dearth of historical knowledge from early on. I rest my case with,
“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
No doubt, the MAGA and woke extremes are both ridiculous and harmful. (Note: MAGA is not conservative and woke is not liberal.) I have bigger worries about the woke faction. They are vastly over represented in college faculties. They are the ones indoctrinating current and future generations. The Hamas support on campuses is a clear example of this.
An excellent essay, and a theme that I (a retired History/Politics/Economics teacher) have been banging on about for years.
But the fault also lies with those in charge of education and in particular the school curriculum.
When I began teaching in the UK in the late 60s/early 70s the History curriculum was decided by the the teachers with no real interference from the government. However as the school system in the UK at that time was very heavily influenced by the success (some would say!) of the private school curriculum, History as a subject was dominated by the very old fashioned - History of British Kings and Queens and the British Empire, but change was on the way.
"The Schools Council Project History 13-16 was set up in 1972 to undertake a radical re-think of the purpose and nature of school history. It sought to revitalize history teaching in schools and to halt the erosion of history’s position in the secondary curriculum."
This project was set up and run by professional history teachers, advised and helped by academic research in Universities and Education Colleges across the country and led to the introduction of what I would call 'real' history based on the evaluation of evidence from original sources. Absolutely fundamental to this approach was critical thinking and students making their own judgements based on the evidence before them.
Unfortunately this approach only survived until the Thatcher era, when, like Trump, the Iron lady believed that controlling the school curriculum would allow her to control what people thought and more importantly how they voted. The introduction of the, National Curriculum not only watered down what was taught in schools but reduced the time allowance for the Humanities to just an hour or so a week. The History taught in schools has returned to glorifying the success of Britain and ignoring any unpalatable truths.
As I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected, this story is more or less the same in the US. History is not seen as being important and is not a popluar choice for High school and university study and what is taught is just a glorification of the progress the US has made since 1776, rather than reality, 'warts and all'. Which is just one reason that less then 50% of US citizens bother to vote, and those that do are far too heavily influenced by, shall we say; 'alternative facts'.
The irony will be entirely lost on him that he will be the one who brings about the destruction and degradation of that Shining City on a Hill.
Why do I feel like it's 1980 again and I'm reading for an upcoming tutorial on Stalinist Soviet Union's actions to white wash the past?
Thank you for a most interesting essay. It is particularly disturbing when societies try to excise history and art that they find to be currently unpalatable or which makes it impossible to tell a single unified story. Life is just not so simple and journalists, historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest of us interpret observations in accordance with our own assumptions and experiences. The destruction or silencing of experience makes it impossible for those coming after us to examine whether our assumptions or descriptions were indeed accurate.
Future historians will need the hard data and different voices to be able to determine what were the forces that were driving political and social decisions. Human history is far more complex and diverse than anything taught in school. We need the statues, photos, art, stories of those who are in power and those who are not to be able to understand that complexity. David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything suggested that the common view on the progress of Western civilization is just not supported by anthropological or archaeological evidence. The glorious complexity of human history could only be seen by re-examining earlier writings, art, behaviour and histories composed by those in power as well as those who were ignored at the time.
Another terrifying signal and marker of the march of authoritarianism in the United States.
Many thanks for this sober and unsettling analysis of the foolishness settling over our country from the top down—engineered by an illiterate moron who certainly knows nothing of real history!
All this bad faith in American historiography makes one wonder if the 1619 project's premise is really polemical at all?