AUGUST 24, 2020 – With the approach of another academic year—one fraught with unprecedented challenges—I’m reminded of my own classroom days. My favorite subject was history, an interest fostered by my dad—in lieu of bedtime stories, he’d read me excerpts from such works as William Prescott’s classics, The Conquest of Mexico and The Conquest of Peru. More than a “history buff,” Dad was a dedicated student of history. His abiding interest became my own.
But throughout early school, neither classmates nor teachers shared my interest. Textbooks were cursory and instruction, predictable—names, dates, and labels, all in chronological order. Little thought was assigned to “themes,” “trends,” “influences,” or “cause-and-effect.” History was merely a dump of data points and regurgitation. No one found it interesting. Everyone found it pointless.
And here we are today, a country where a standard feature of late-night TV shows reveals American ignoramuses who can’t place the Civil War in the correct century or who think FDR (if they’ve heard of him) wrote the Declaration of Independence.
What’s far worse is that many Americans can’t draw a connection between the death of George Floyd and the failure of Reconstruction or between the China of Xi and the China of the Emperors.
In some quarters, “history” has become a clumsy vehicle for political agendae—left and right. A left-leaning curriculum, for example, might dispense with (slave-owning) Washington and Jefferson and devote disproportionate attention to the unpublished poetry of a (literate) female slave. Well and good, but little is learned therefrom about the outsized influence of two historical figures—white or black, good or bad, slave-owners or not. In a right-leaning approach you’re apt to see a disproportionate dose of 18th century “solutions”—wrapped in “patriotic” bunting—for 21st century problems. Since history is by nature a political subject and can never be taught objectively in the manner of math or science, only a reversion to an empty litany of “names and dates” would render its teaching wholly “objective.”
There’s a far better approach than memorizing desiccated “names and dates” or favoring a review of feminism in 17th century Gambia over a study of China since the last emperor (for starters). I’d start with the headlines of FoxNews and CNN or the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post—or, depending on the age and maturity of the students, a selection of memes, tweets, and utterances on social media—left and right. I’d then get my students to use those same sources to list (a) issues; and (b) opposing viewpoints (“spins”). Next, I’d get them to work in reverse chronological order to discover what in last week’s news led to today’s headlines. I’d guide them to sources outside the realm of “news” and encourage them to evaluate “evidence” along a detective’s circuitous trail of causes, effects, and contributing factors. The desired outcome: (1) the ability to assemble, evaluate, and synthesize historical evidence; and (2) an appreciation for how the present connects to the past, and therefore, the past to . . . the future.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2020 by Eric Nilsson
