QUIZ
Follow the directions below
[three steps] in
bold type
Step 1 of 3:
Remember to bring along a blank
red ParScore quiz form and #2 pencil. The quiz
will take place at the beginning of class.
< Don't let this happen to you. Know your
history.
"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is
humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us
novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in
innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly
false."
~Paul
Johnson
"Nothing is inevitable in life. People make choices, and those choices have
results, and we all live with the results."
~Stephen
Ambrose
"The writing of history is clearly an act of manipulation. It has to be, for the past is too vast, too full of an unimaginable number of details to be dealt with except by simplification. . . . Even the most dispassionate historian, trying to select fairly, with intelligence and discretion, manipulates in spite of himself, by nuances, by repudiation, by omission, by unconscious affection or hostility." ~Fawn McKay Brodie
"God alone knows the future, but only an historian can alter the
past." ~Ambrose Bierce
"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." ~Mark Twain
"Virtually since the inception of the [American] republic, its citizens have
eagerly envisioned dark cabals and cover-ups of heinous crimes by powerful
figures both inside and outside the government, at various times in league
with secret organizations, foreign governments, religious and ethnic groups
with nefarious hidden agendas, and perhaps even space aliens. Collectively,
their accusations form a meta-narrative in which official sources cannot be
trusted, and in which nothing ever seems to happen by chance." ~Patrick J. Kiger
[FYI: Truth & Conspiracy Theories
]
Step 2 of 3: Part of the quiz will be some of these questions below as you see them here. To answer these questions you must read the paragraphs that follow:
1. The word history may be used in
several different ways, and therefore it has several acceptable definitions.
Which of the following is not an acceptable definition?
(A) History is the record of the past
(B) History is the study of change over time
(C) History is the systematic study of the record of the past
(D) History is the scientifically accurate reconstruction of the past.
2. In which of the following subfields would
you normally find historical research on such subjects as marriage, family,
education, and gender?
(A) social history
(B) political history
(C) economic history
(D) diplomatic history
3. The study of family or clan descent is known as:
(A) heraldry
(B) genetics
(C) genealogy
(D) antiquarianism
4. The study of the changing philosophies, interpretations, and methods of
history is known as:
(A) histology
(B) philology
(C) psycho-history
(D) historiography
5. Philosophy is classified as one of:
(A) the humanities
(B) the social sciences
(C) the natural sciences
(D) the behavioral sciences
6. Until it emerged as an independent discipline, history was considered a
branch of:
(A) sociology
(B) literature
(C) anthropology
(D) natural science
7. A list of events arranged by dates is called:
(A) an annual
(B) a chronology
(C) a synchronism
(D) an anachronism
8. Secondhand perceptions, feelings, and understandings derived by reading
about the direct experience of others is known as experience.
(A) virtual
(B) virtuous
(C) vestigial
(D) vicarious
9. The word empirical denotes:
(A) a government headed by an emperor
(B) a policy that advocates the acquisition of colonies
(C) problem solving that uses the inductive method
(D) problem solving that uses the deductive method
10. The word rhetoric may be most simply defined as the art of:
(A) persuasion
(B) prevarication
(C) making quick, witty, or biting replies
(D) restoring something to its original historic form
The answers to these above questions can be found by reading this text:
[Adapted from the source, "History: A Definition," Edward M. Anson, A Civilization Primer 5th edition. (San Diego: Harcourt Publishers, 2002)]
The word HISTORY has several different levels of meaning. In the broadest
sense it means "everything that has ever happened in the past." But in a
more practical sense, history is "the surviving record of the past." As an
academic discipline, history means "the systematic study of the record of
the past." This last definition is what you mean when you say that you are
taking History 101, etc.
Each of these definitions may be acceptable, depending on the context in which the word is used. But, to promote a new way of thinking about the subject, the definition we will use is that "history is the study of change over time." This definition lends itself well to expression as a simple mathematical equation: History = Change over Time. Everything that undergoes change has a history and can be studied historically.
The study of changes in the physical world is in the domain of specialists
in the various PHYSICAL SCIENCES. Historians are more directly and
personally concerned with changes involving human beings, as individuals and
as groups, and the interactions of these humans with one another and with
the physical environment. Historians are, of course, interested in the
findings of the physical sciences whenever they describe environmental
changes that may have social consequences. But in their own research
historians generally confine themselves to studies of change in the various
areas of human activity.
Change is inevitable, if for no other reason than because one generation
passes on and is replaced by the next. But history also shows that people
will resist too much change if it comes too quickly. Radical and
revolutionary change threatens our ability to cope with our environment and
thus, ultimately, our very survival. We are much more comfortable in
familiar surroundings, in an environment that we know and understand, even
if it has certain undesirable features. Jefferson commented on this
characteristic when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed." So, history is also the study of resistance to change,
or phrased positively, of continuity. Between any two consecutive ages in
history, more things stay the same than change. Evolution is more pervasive
than revolution. Profound changes take place very slowly, in part because we
would not have it any other way.
HOW IS HISTORY SUBDIVIDED?
History is typically subdivided into smaller segments on the basis of (1)
topic, (2) geographical area, and (3) time period. The usual topical
divisions include:
POLITICAL HISTORY, DIPLOMATIC HISTORY, MILITARY HISTORY, ECONOMIC HISTORY, SOCIAL HISTORY, and CULTURAL HISTORY.
They may be represented by modifying the
equation given earlier (History = Change over Time) to (What kind of?)
History = Change (in what?)
Subfields of History
Political history studies change in government: its various branches (legislative, executive, and judicial), its various levels (national, state, local), and the interactions among these branches and levels. Political history is interested in politicians, politics, policies, power, parties, platforms, and polls.
Diplomatic history studies change in the relations between nations. It is interested in negotiations, conferences, agreements, treaties, foreign policies, boundary lines, trade agreements, and, ultimately, peace and war.
Military history studies change in the use of armed force (land, sea, and air). It is interested in weapons, strategies and tactics, logistics, engineering, battles, campaigns, wars, occupation forces, prisoners, mutinies, martial law, and military government.
Economic history studies change in the production, distribution, and consumption of the world’s resources. Economic history is interested in agriculture, manufacturing, services, transportation, markets, labor, and the role of government in the economy.
Social history studies change in lifestyle, customs, conventions, and social INSTITUTIONS (other than government). It is interested in marriage, family, education, churches, other voluntary social organizations, DEMOGRAPHY, RACE, CLASS, and GENDER.
Cultural history studies change in thought, arts, and entertainment. It is interested in language, literature, fine arts, performing arts, cinema, sports, and other popular entertainment, recreation, and leisure.
There are no sharp lines of demarcation between these subfields, nor are they mutually exclusive or exhaustive. The boundaries are blurred and overlap considerably, just as these various areas of human concern overlap in our everyday lives. (For example, military historians are often interested in the social and cultural impact of military change.) Furthermore, the classification of the subfields themselves have changed over time. For instance, in the early years of the twentieth century, INTELLECTUAL HISTORY certainly would have been considered an independent subfield, rather than an aspect of cultural history as it is usually considered today.
Several other subdivisions of history need to be mentioned. Until relatively
recently, history was considered to be merely "past politics." It consisted
of narratives of political and military conflict and change. Kings and
queens, presidents and prime ministers, generals and admirals were the
principal, if not only, actors on the stage of history. The major dynamics
of change were seen as the actions of the great heroes. Thus, BIOGRAPHY
became an important branch of history. It still is, but good biographers
today are careful not to fall into the trap of the GREAT PERSON THEORY of
causation by attributing too much significance to the role of the single
individual. And biographers today no longer focus on politicians and
generals alone. Important individuals in all fields of human endeavor-male
and female, black and white, strong and weak, noble and despicable-are the
subjects of modern biographies. Biographies written by persons about
themselves are known as AUTOBIOGRAPHIES, sometimes called MEMOIRS.
GENEALOGY is a very specialized subdivision of history that traces and
records family or clan descent and kinship relations. In addition to topic, history is also
subdivided into smaller units on the basis of geography. In this age of
nationalism, the most common geographical subdivision is the nation-state.
You are probably reading this Primer in a course titled "Survey of United
States History." But history can encompass smaller units (a state, a city,
or county) and also larger units like continents (European history, Asian
history). World history covers the globe.
Finally, history is subdivided on the basis of time. American history has
usually been divided, for academic purposes, into two semesters or quarters
demarked by the year 1865 (the end of the Civil War) or the year 1877 (the
end of Reconstruction). The practice of breaking up history into
smaller time segments is known as PERIODIZATION.
So now we can present a more complete equation: (What kind, where when?)
History = Change (in what, where, when?)
Textbooks in survey history courses are usually general histories. They
attempt to summarize the major historical developments in all of the major
topical subfields. Usually, however, these topics are not evenly balanced.
Traditionally, most attention was devoted to political, diplomatic, and
military history. In recent years there has been a trend toward including
more economic, social, and cultural history. Nevertheless, the greatest
amount of text in most American history textbooks is still devoted to
politics and national politics at that.
Everything that undergoes change has a history. Even the writing of history
itself undergoes change, so there can be a "history of the writing of
history." Historians have a term for this: HISTORIOGRAPHY.
Historiography includes changes in the philosophy of history, the
methodology of history, and especially the interpretations of history.
Thus this equation is: Historiography = Change in the writing of
history time.
IS HISTORY A SOCIAL SCIENCE OR ONE OF THE HUMANITIES?
History belongs in the categories of both
social sciences and the humanities. The liberal arts curriculum in American
education is typically divided into three broad categories: NATURAL SCIENCES
(including mathematics), SOCIAL SCIENCES, and HUMANITIES. The following
table shows these three categories and some of the basic courses usually
included in each.
|
NATURAL SCIENCES & MATHEMATICS |
SOCIAL SCIENCES | HUMANITIES |
|
Biology Chemistry Geology Mathematics Geography (physical) |
History Political Science Sociology Anthropology Economics Geography (cultural) |
History Art Literature Music Philosophy Speech and Drama Physics |
This chart is much simplified. Many other academic disciplines do not fit
precisely into any of these categories. Some disciplines overlap two (in a
few cases, all three) of the categories. Notice that geography is split
between the sciences and the social sciences. History, also, has a dual
membership.
History began as a branch of literature. Only in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries did it begin to emerge as a distinct discipline. Since
the mid-twentieth century, some historians have adopted the methodology of
the social sciences and advocated that history move completely into the
social-science camp. Yet history still retains important aspects of its
humanistic tradition, and a significant body of historians diligently
defends that tradition. The Pulitzer Prize committee, which gives annual
prizes to the best writers in America, still regards history as a branch of
literature and awards a prize for the best history published each year. For
administrative purposes, slightly more American colleges group history
within the humanities division than treat it as part of the social sciences
division.
What are the differences between the social sciences and the
humanities? Actually the differences are less significant in the content
than in the approaches to the content. The social sciences, like the natural
sciences, claim a high degree of objectivity. They seek, as far as possible,
to quantify their findings. They strive, ideally, to remove all imposed
emotion, value judgments, and subjectivity from their work. Not so in the
humanities. The valuation and interpretation given to works in the
humanities depend very much on informed, subjective judgment, conditioned by
the culture and values of a particular civilization. Whereas the social
sciences are primarily concerned with discovering universal truths about the
interrelationships of human beings in groups, the humanities have a profound
appreciation for the accomplishments, thought, values, and literary,
artistic, and musical expression of the unique, individual human being.
Historians may strive to be scientific in their methodology, but history can
never be an exact science because there is no way to experiment. History
cannot even be an exact descriptive science, because, as all historians well
know, it is impossible to reconstruct the past exactly. Too many things
happened for which there are no surviving records. Even when there are bits
and pieces of evidence, our interpretation of that evidence is colored by
our own point of view, however much we may strive to be objective.
WHAT DO HISTORIANS DO?
Historians must wear several different hats in
the course of their work:
1. Detective:
Investigation and authentication
2. Judge: Evaluation and selection
3. Philosopher: Organization and interpretation
4. Storyteller: Narration and publication
WHY DO HISTORIANS DO WHAT THEY DO, AND WHY SHOULD ANYBODY CARE? OR, WHAT ARE
THE VALUES OF HISTORY FOR THE NON-HISTORY MAJOR?
Except for those who want to become teachers or writers of history, most college students probably study history only because it is required for graduation, not because they expect to learn anything practical or useful. So why do state legislatures and boards of regents and curriculum committees always include a history requirement? Fifty years ago, when history occupied a prominent and secure place in the liberal arts curriculum, no one questioned the value of history. Today, however, when there is an increasing emphasis on vocational education, students should spend some time thinking about and discussing with their teachers the values of history, especially for the non-history major.
Some American history textbooks include a discussion of the values of
history in their prefaces or introductions. Look to see if your textbook
does. If so, read what your author has to say. Then read the following
suggested list of values and compare it with the discussion in your
textbook. These ideas and those in your textbook may serve as a starting
point for independent study and reflection or class discussion.
Values of History for the Non-History Major
1. Appreciation of Change. History is first and foremost the study of
change. Without change there would be no history. In contrast to many other
researchers who investigate relatively fixed subjects, historians must deal
with constantly and inevitably changing conditions. Thus, historians
describe their subject in such terms as growth and development, decline and
fall. They seek to trace and explain the patterns, processes, and, above
all, the causes of change. No other discipline concerns itself so
exclusively with this phenomenon. Other disciplines may answer the question
"Where are we now?" but the historian is best able to answer the question
"How did we get here?" or rather, "What were the patterns, processes, and
causes of change that brought us to this present condition?"
2. Appreciation of Continuity. Change is inevitable, and yet continuity is
more pervasive. Too much change too quickly threatens our ability to cope
with our environment and hence our ability to survive. We crave continuity.
Those who seek to bring about radical social change overnight find that
their efforts produce vast social disruption and most probably are doomed to
failure.
3. Appreciation of Historiography. A careful study of history demonstrates
that not only is the human condition subject to constant and inevitable
change, but our perceptions and interpretations of the past are also
constantly changing. You learned earlier in this chapter that the study of
these changing interpretations is called historiography. An appreciation of
historiography should lead us to a healthy skepticism of absolutist,
DETERMINIST THEORIES of history. It should also cause us to examine
carefully glib historical generalizations that political leaders across the
spectrum of beliefs, as well as other would-be molders of public opinion,
constantly invoke to support their arguments.
4. Vicarious Experience. History provides us with a vicarious extension in
time and space of our own limited personal experience. In VICARIOUS
EXPERIENCE, we participate at secondhand, through the eyes and actions of
someone else. While we may enjoy a brief seventy or eighty years of direct,
personal experience in a lifetime, history allows us the benefits of five
thousand years of recorded human experience for us to share in vicariously.
If we learn from experience, then the more of it we have, both direct and
vicarious, the more we should learn. Yet the precise "lessons" of history
are never as clear-cut or as easily understood as some would have us
believe. What may seem like an absolute lesson of history today may be
regarded as erroneous interpretation tomorrow.
5. Perspective. History provides perspective by permitting us to observe the
relationship of our lives and surroundings to those of previous times and
places. History puts us on a mountaintop from which we can scan the
surrounding countryside and discern our position and relationship to
everything else. Perspective allows us to judge the relative size or
importance of things. Something that at the moment seems vitally important
to us may pale to insignificance in the perspective of history.
6. Historical Insight. Although history does not enable us to predict the
future precisely, we can make intelligent estimates of the probable broad
trends of the future by carefully plotting the trends of the past. The study
of history provides us with what Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., has called
"HISTORICAL INSIGHT," which he defined as "a sense of what is possible and
probable in human affairs, derived from a feeling for the continuities and
discontinuities of existence." (The Bitter Heritage [1967], p. 84)
7. Pluralism. History provides an overview of the variety of human attempts
to solve the perennial problems of existence, such as acquisition of the
necessities of life, development of viable social, economic, and political
institutions, and maintenance of social control and cohesion. Especially,
history demonstrates that the solutions developed by a particular people at
a particular time are conditioned by their unique historical experience and
hence may not be appropriate for any other people at any other time or
place. If we develop an appreciation for this great variety of human
experience, we will likely be led to a pluralist cultural view that is, the
view that there is no one perfect way of doing things suitable for all
people at all times but rather a great range of workable possibilities.
We will become tolerant of, appreciative of, and prepared to coexist with
people who think and live differently. And we will certainly develop a
profound humility about our own ideas and institutions.
8. Skepticism. A careful study of history promotes a healthy skepticism of those who seek to influence public opinion in favor of this or that simplistic or erroneous ideology or plan of action and teaches us to subject all ideas and systems of thought to cautious testing and analysis. It thus protects us from uncritical acceptance of flashy panaceas and fads. History teaches us to beware of DOGMATISTS, who claim to possess absolute truth, and DEMAGOGUES, who appeal to the worst human emotions rather than to reason. By demonstrating the inevitability of change, history promotes a skeptical attitude to those unthinking CONSERVATIVES who oppose all change, and naive REACTIONARIES who wish to return to some mythical Golden Age of the past of future.
9. Empiricism. History is the ultimate EMPIRICAL discipline in the social
sciences and humanities. That is, it relies almost exclusively on the
INDUCTIVE rather than the DEDUCTIVE METHOD. Therefore, it is the essential
complement to theorists and system-builders. It provides the testing grounds
for hypotheses in other social sciences. History asks the simple questions:
What in fact happened, and what caused it to happen? While such questions
are simple, their answers are generally complex. And we can never be certain
that the answers are correct.
10. Humanism. As discussed earlier, history has strong roots in the
humanities but also claims membership in the social sciences. Thus history
can provide the essential complement to those disciplines. The study of
group behavior is important, but it sometimes tends to depersonalize the
individual, to treat him or her as a case study or an entry in a statistical
table. History is like a social science in that it carries on an objective
study of group dynamics, but history also retains its humanistic emphasis on
the significance, the dignity, and the intellectual and artistic expression
of the unique human being.
11. Rhetoric. An incidental side benefit of the study of history is
proficiency in RHETORIC. We do not use this word positively much anymore. To
the ancient Greeks, rhetoric meant the study of the principles of effective
oratory. In time it came to mean the art of persuasion in writing as well as
speech. Rhetoric involves more than just good communications skills. The art
of persuasion requires marshalling evidence to support an argument;
authenticating, evaluating, selecting, organizing, interpreting, and
explaining that evidence; and presenting it orally or in writing in a manner
calculated to convince the readers or listeners of the validity of the
argument. The skills needed in rhetoric are exactly the same as those needed
by the historian. (Look back at the “Function of Historians”)
The study of history, even at the introductory level, can provide students
the opportunity to develop and sharpen these skills whenever they write a
research paper or a book review, answer an essay question on a test, or
participate orally in class discussions or bull sessions. These research,
analytic, and communication skills will be vitally important to all those
who, after their formal education, make their living by selling their
services, ideas, or products. They will be as important to the used-car
salesman as to the lawyer or the politician.
12. Responsible Citizenship. History has been used by virtually every
government of modern times to promote patriotic loyalty. Unfortunately,
patriotism has frequently been construed (or denigrated) as unthinking
loyalty, an uncritical acceptance of past glories, and a blind adulation of
folk heroes. True patriots are not unthinking, uncritical, or blind. They
are responsible citizens who have a comprehensive understanding of the
origins, development, and workings of their social, economic, and
governmental institutions, who can evaluate and draw their own conclusions
about their nation's past and present policies, and whose conscientious
concern for the future well-being of the nation is manifested by a
willingness and capacity to participate effectively in democratic processes.
Responsible citizens cannot be taken in by dogmatists or demagogues. They
have a healthy skepticism towards simplistic solutions and pat answers. They
are flexible of mind, cosmopolitan and sophisticated in experience,
demanding and exacting in search of truth, and humble in spirit. The study
of history, along with the study of the other liberal arts, promotes these
qualities. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the nation of
the importance of education in a democracy: "In proportion as the structure
of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public
opinion should be enlightened."
Step 3
of 3:
The final part of the quiz is drawn from class lecture and the supplemental
reading below. Taking good notes and following the main points listed
on the Powerpoint slides is what is being assessed. Those questions will be formulated based on lecture
points into a multiple choice format; for example:
History is an art form because:
a. it seeks to communicate something about the human experience
b. it looks good when presented on paper or canvas
c. both
A & B are correct
d. neither A or B are correct
(From lecture you would know that A is the correct answer)
To allow time for students to acquire their textbooks, this first unit does
not have assigned reading from them. Instead, it is the material
posted on this page that is relevant to this issue.
Click on
"The Story of the Past: The Tales of Historians
(and Politicians)
Excerpt from Susan Wise Bauer's
The Well Educated Mind: A Guide to the
Classical Education You Never Had.
New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
 |
If after clicking the link and nothing opens, you likely have to install software which is available for free online. Click on www.adobe.com |
The
dual-founders of history as practiced in the Western World
Herodotus (484?–425? B.C.) A Greek historian who has been called the Father of History. He was born in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor. Only scant knowledge of his life can be gleaned from his writings and from references to him by later writings. His work was the first comprehensive attempt at secular narrative history, and it serves as the starting point of Western historical writing. Herodotus was the first writer to evaluate historical, geographical, and archaeological material critically. The focus of the history is the story of the Persian Wars, but the extensive and richly detailed background information put Greece in its proper historical perspective. He discusses the growth of Persia into a great kingdom and traces the history and migration of the Greek people. Among his grand digressions are fascinating histories of Babylon, Egypt, and Thrace, as well as detailed studies of the pyramids and specific historical events. The value of the work lies not only in its accuracy, but in its scope and the rich diversity of information as well as the charm and simplicity of his writing.
Some samples of Herodotus' writing:
Force has no place where there is need of skill.
Men trust their ears less than their eyes.
Great deeds are usually wrought at great risks.
Illness strikes men when they are exposed to change.
The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance.
Thucydides, 460-404 BC.
Herodotus, writing a few decades earlier than Thucydides,
recorded almost all he heard, whether he believed it himself or not.
Thucydides stands at the other pole; he gathers all available evidence,
decides what he thinks is the truth, then shapes his presentation to
emphasize that truth. We see everything through his eyes, and his views on
the forces which shape human events emerge on every page. Some samples
of his thoughts:
Men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them.
The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.
Wars spring from unseen and generally insignificant causes, the first outbreak being often but an explosion of anger.
BALANCED AND USEFUL HISTORY.
It is important for students
to understand from "where I'm coming from" when it comes to how I will
present material. This following article was instrumental in making me
re-evaluate how I taught American history.
"Nothing Wrong with Teaching
What's Right About U.S.: Historians have focused on America's weaknesses, not its strengths."
By Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman (December 30, 2001)
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, most Sovietologists were caught
flat-footed. With their lives' work based on the assumption of an enduring
communist state, they were ill-prepared to offer explanations when V.I.
Lenin's legacy went poof. Many American intellectuals find themselves
similarly empty-handed after Sept. 11.
The fall of the twin towers shook the twin assumptions of a generation of
scholarship: that America's relations with the Third World are essentially
wicked and that our country's domestic history can only be understood as a
continuing battle over race, class and gender. For more than 30 years,
scholars on the cutting edge of academe have helped students learn how to
identify where the U.S. fell short of its ideals, when it served only its
economic interests and how it turned a blind eye to those crushed by its
national ambitions.
Then came Sept. 11 and the spontaneous, heartfelt flag-waving that followed.
The America that academics had persistently characterized as "wrong"
had been wronged. Students returned to their classes changed. But they found
minimal guidance if they were looking for an intellectual bridge between love
of country and a sophisticated understanding of the nation's place in the
world. A lot of intellectuals burned that bridge decades ago. There are
numerous examples of the castigating tendency of American scholars, but my
personal favorite is an anthology I reviewed a few years back. This textbook
gave undergraduates three articles on World War II. The first was on Japanese
internment, the second on segregation of black troops in the South and the
third on harassment of Italian Americans. Every article discussed an aspect of
the war that was absolutely true, yet, collectively, they made for a portrait
of the war that was fundamentally false. No Adolf Hitler, no Emperor Hirohito,
no Holocaust--only an imperfect America battling its demons.
Historians who step out of this mold risk censure from academia's ivory tower.
Take professional attitudes toward Stephen Ambrose, arguably the nation's most
widely read historian, whose books frequently reach the best-seller list.
Ambrose is often disparaged as a superficial popularizer, but one senses that
what really bugs many fellow academics is his admiring portrayal of the
national experience and virtual silence on topics of race, class and gender.
Or take the critiques of Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis, who for years has
suggested that something besides simple "American arrogance"
accounts for the Cold War. In conversation, and sometimes in print, other
historians often dismiss this careful scholar as an apologist for the powers
that be.
I understand modern historians' dilemma. As a fortysomething person, I grew up
with Che Guevara, Bob Dylan and the Vietnam War. I come from the activist
left, and I am proud of that heritage. I remain a liberal. Like many of my
colleagues, I hesitate to write books or give lectures that might appear to
whitewash America's character flaws or its choices as a superpower. But it is
time to admit that this generation of historians--with some notable
exceptions--has yet to deliver to students, and to the public, a usable and
balanced interpretation of the past.
Too many
[U.S.] researchers have done a better job documenting the republic's
weaknesses than revealing its strengths. This lopsidedness ill serves both
foreign and domestic audiences. Our academic communities produce most of the
world's scholarship on the United States. Too often they implicitly encourage
critics in other countries to assume that America is culpable for all that
goes wrong. Foreign readers sometimes parrot the very things we have said
about ourselves. As teachers, we urge youth to learn from the country's
errors, but offer few lessons in what it has done right. How are they supposed
to build the future with only the blunt instrument of disillusionment?
I returned to the classroom Sept. 12 profoundly aware that I had not done
enough to prepare students to think complexly and comparatively. My dismay
deepened when one of them came back from a teach-in I had recommended
convinced that the real reason for the U.S. war in Afghanistan is to build an
oil pipeline across the country.
Since Sept. 11, I've been editing old lecture notes and asking students new
questions. Last week, at semester's end in my foreign-policy class, one
student summarized what she had learned by saying that the United States does
not help other nations just for humanitarian reasons. I agreed with her and
asked if she thought the same statement might apply to Mexico, from which she
commutes to school in San Diego.
But tinkering with classroom dynamics is not enough. We need to change our
approach more fundamentally. To begin, intellectuals should think harder about
how to apportion responsibility for world problems and stop reflexively
blaming America. That Saudi Arabia is undemocratic or that Israel and
Palestine have yet to resolve their conflict is not the fault of the United
States. Those countries are the primary actors in determining their fates. Our
country can answer for its friends no more than it can answer for its enemies,
sovereign nations all. We do not control the world, nor should we aspire to
Second, we need to recognize that the United States often has played at least
a decent hand in the game of world politics. Our country made its debut in
global affairs in 1917, when the intractable dilemmas of the Third World were
well advanced. Even so, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which culminated in
the formation of the League of Nations, gave hope to colonized peoples that
self-determination was possible. During World War II the United States led the
effort to create the United Nations, the first body to give a voice and vote
to every country, no matter how small or poor.
These accomplishments do not obviate the fact that U.S. foreign policy has on
other occasions been hopelessly stupid, arrogant and even destructive. (The
ongoing punishment of Cuba is an example.) And, internally, issues of race,
class and gender have certainly fractured our society--but we work on them.
Many nations do not. We need to examine the U.S. within the context of world
history, comparing the nation not only with its ideals, but also with its
contemporaries.
Third, we need to be more self-critical if we want to exert the best
intellectual leadership. A few weeks ago, a conservative group associated with
the vice president's wife and former head of the National Endowment for the
Humanities, Lynne Cheney, published a list of quotes by academics about the
war in Afghanistan. The organization charged professors with being
insufficiently pro-American. Intellectuals have scorned the broadside as
"Cheney's blacklist."
It is easy to write off inflated, patently partisan criticisms made by people
we do not like. But that is a poor way to learn. It is far better to examine
why the critique resonates with the public. If some American intellectuals are
not as prepared to defend the nation as they are to criticize it, they may
deserve the accusations of "unpatriotic" that we have parried for 30
years. The political right will capture the American flag only if we hand it
to them.
Lastly, it would not hurt for professional skeptics to meditate--only briefly,
if it hurts too much--on the nature of American goodness. What the nation does
right is typically underrated, underreported and underappreciated by
academics. When I interviewed him for a book I wrote a few years ago, Canada's
top TV and radio regulator gave me a lecture on American cultural imperialism
through TV and radio airwaves. He surprised me by what he said next.
"Don't get me wrong," he interjected emphatically. "I have no
doubt that the Americans will always be the first to go to the mat for freedom
in the world."
This is a lesson that scholars can embrace and share. An open-minded
examination of America's historical willingness to defend freedom might help
those students with flags pinned on their backpacks to fit their newfound
patriotism with what they also learn about the nation's flaws.
The tragedy in New York and at the Pentagon rekindled respect for our country.
Academics who ignore this risk becoming as irrelevant as yesterday's
Sovietologists. Indeed, the twin assumptions of fin de siecle scholarship
deserve to come down. America is more than the sum of its problems. Some of
the nation's intellectuals may have been lacking this perspective on Sept. 11,
but it's a precious piece of wisdom we can take away from ground zero.
SECONDARY SOURCE: Review of Sam Wineburg's HISTORICAL THINKING & OTHER UNNATURAL ACTS
No doubt that some will be frustrated by the approach in this course, because what we are trying to do does not come naturally. As the following book argues, "historical thought is not a natural process: it "goes against the grain of how we ordinarily think, one of the reasons why it is much easier to learn names, dates, and stories than it is to [understand] the past."
Taped to the door of Sam Wineburg's office at the University of Washington's College of Education are paired photos of dogs and their comically similar owners. Professor Wineburg greeted me with a pop quiz: "Which twins look most alike?"
Behind this playful question is an educational psychologist's interest in how people think, especially about history. Wineburg's "Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts" shows that historical thought is not a natural process: it "goes against the grain of how we ordinarily think, one of the reasons why it is much easier to learn names, dates, and stories than it is to [understand] the past."
Wineburg told me his interest in this subject first awoke when he took a history class he couldn't ace with his good memory. He learned that histories aren't objective summaries of the facts but interpretations and arguments made out of information that's always incomplete. "But how did historians do that?" Wineburg asked. "Their books seemed like products of naturally systematic thought--which wasn't how my mind worked, but maybe I was just dumb!"
Wineburg's research into history and the mind has won many honors during his 12 years at the University of Washington. Through having students and professors think aloud while reading documents, he found that only novices just read something and decide what it means. "A historian's thought process is full of hunches and reverses, constant self-questionings and I-don't-knows," Wineburg explained.
Standardized history tests inhibit this kind of thinking, besides guaranteeing that students will seem vastly ignorant. "Periodically, starting with the first national survey in 1917, Americans have concluded from factual tests that kids don't know history. The conclusion isn't logical." Wineburg smiled wryly. "Kids have just never remembered the facts that adults sitting around a table making up a test say they should remember."
He pulled a U.S. history text from a shelf. "Why not teach how to question the facts? Here's Rosa Parks: 'Tired after a long day's work, she sat down in the front section reserved for whites.' Actually, Parks sat in the middle of the bus, available to anyone unless the front was full. Other accounts have her saying she wasn't especially tired and wasn't sure why she kept her seat when challenged. Did Parks intend an act of civil disobedience? Why do these historians disagree?"
Comparing documents, Wineburg added, "is detective work that kids are usually deprived of. It shows them that no single authority has the whole story, and it raises real questions of meaning." He paused, considering. "Every topic doesn't need endless debate. Students stay engaged once they realize history's not a fixed story they must swallow whole but a way of thinking they can apply to life."
Americans need this way of thinking, Wineburg told me. "We're deluged by conflicting, fragmented information that tries to steer us in particular directions. We need to raise citizens who ask themselves, 'Is this true? Who's saying so? What's the nature of the evidence?' Taught this way, history is a training ground for democracy."
Is such training too hard for schoolchildren? "We underestimate kids' abilities to think. Or we believe their self-esteem depends on having tasks they easily do. But we feel good about ourselves by doing things we thought we couldn't do, with capable people around to pick us up after a tumble and show us our reach can exceed our grasp."
"Historical Thinking" is an academic book, but not daunting or dry, and full of stories any reader can enjoy. Wineburg describes Primo Levi's moving encounter with the student who swore that if sent to Auschwitz he could have escaped. There's a chapter on drawings that schoolchildren made of their mental pictures of Pilgrims, Settlers, and Hippies for one of Wineburg's studies--readers can bypass the statistical tables and walk right into these young imaginations. The high-school history class discussion that veers off the rails is as gripping as well-crafted fiction.
Wineburg's conversation with me was no merely academic exercise either. "History gives us a kind of humility," he mused at one point. "I can read something written in 1860 but not know what it meant to live in 1860. I never lived in a world where you could wake up in the morning and go to an auction and buy people. Studying history, we think our way into what living in that world was like. It's the only form of time travel that exists."
PERSPECTIVE: THE NATURE & POTENTIAL OF HUMAN BEINGS
"Human Nature--Are we basically good?
Video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWzj78fSm-4&feature=related
 John Lennon |
 Van Morrison |
| Imagine Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people living for today... Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace... Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man, Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, And the world will live as one. |
Man Has To Struggle Man makes his money and they call him rich Deep down inside he knows that life's still a bitch Man tries to keep things but they're taken away Man has to struggle all the live long day Man has to sweat and toil his life filled with trouble Man got to step and fetch it on the double Man has to work so hard to make it all pay Man has to struggle all the live long day Man keeps on moving 'cause he can't keep still Man has to set his goals and climb up the hill Man sees the mountains and the deep blue sky Man has to struggle till the day that he die Well, yes sirree Bob them there's the breaks That's how it is my friend don't make no mistake Man has to take some action all of the time Man by his nature's never satisfied Man just can't vegetate no matter what they say Man has to make it all the live long day Man has to create karma that's the way that it is Man has to keep on going way beyond his will Man has to keep on being 'cause there's nothing else And man just always has to go for himself Take all the gurus when they meditate Transcend the mundane into some altered state You just might get there, but you'll have to pay Man's got to struggle all the live tong day Well, yes sirree now Bob them there's the breaks That's how it is my friend don't make no mistake Man has to watch the weather and the food that he eats Man has to keep fit else he's prone to disease No matter what he does there's stress every which way Man has to struggle all the live long day Man is in conflict with his natural self Man has to suppress his own desires and instincts Man has to work so hard to keep them at bay Man has to struggle all the live long day Man was told that he was born in original sin By people long ago that were conning him Man is so out of touch he can't trust himself But man's still got to win by cunning and stealth. |