History should mark human triumphs

(from home page)

      For as long as there have been books used in schools, there have been arguments over content. History is one of the most explosive of topics due to the many political slants of those who teach and write about the subject. Few, if any history textbooks are free from political or social bias.
    From the foundation of the republic until the Civil War, American history glorified the American experience. Books written about the exploration and settlement of what would later become the United States followed a simple formula. Superior Europeans displaced the barbaric, uncouth American Indians. Christianity triumphed over paganism. The God of the Bible vanquished the demons and devils of the new World.
    America figured in a Divine plan to set an example to the world. Freedom and justice, democracy and equality, would be demonstrated in this new land. The children of those who settled America and their descendents must never forget God’s purpose for Americans. The truth must always be told.
    It is with the interpretation of the truth regarding American history that trouble soon fomented. With the military victories of Protestant England over Catholic France and Spain, clergymen and teachers saw divine intervention. God evidently was a Protestant. Therefore, history must be told from a Protestant point of view.
    In North America, save the Catholic enclaves in Canada and Mexico, Protestants dominated historical writing. The victory of the American colonists over the British Empire seemed to be another sign from on high that the newly established country of the United States had a special place in the greater scheme of things. Thus the new nation had to have its special brand of history.
    The early textbooks on American history extol the virtues of American life, but rarely its faults. Except for a few passages here and there, the American Indian, women and black slaves are mostly ignored. A few condescending sentences appeared about minorities among the pages of these works, but they placed little emphasis on minority contributions to society. These omissions were not uncommon in the history books of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Men controlled society and, therefore, history should be written about them.
    Some learned groups and individuals protested the exclusivity perpetrated on those left out of the history books. No matter how upset minorities might become, the textbooks remained the same. America remained a white man’s country.
    Not only did history textbooks ignore minorities, so did literature and readers. White, and to a great extent, rural middle-class values dominated the elementary and high school textbooks. While these values represented honesty, respect for authority, and a positive work ethic, some students of different racial and socio-economic backgrounds felt a strong disconnect with how these virtues were represented.
    Complaints by civil rights activists deplored the lack of positive racial images. They noted that children of non-white parents did not have heroes to admire. They also observed that much of the educational materials used in American schools had no appeal to minorities at all.
    By the 1960s, the American educational system faced a crisis. Racial integration had radically changed the face of the public school system. School systems needed new textbooks that reflected the minority experience in American life. Some textbook companies timidly began to add more material on blacks, women and the American Indian.
    Some minority leaders felt that the new editions of history books still did not adequately meet the challenge of true racial and gender equality in education. Committee after committee endeavored to influence the rewriting of history in a more equitable manner. The results pleased very few.
    Some 1960s textbooks so obviously tried to be politically correct that the results only offended all concerned. Then there were those textbooks that radically changed history to favor certain minorities or ideologies. By the 1970s and 1980s, diversity had become the order of the day.
    Regretfully, the diverse history revolution complicated the teaching of American history. Authors of history textbooks found themselves rewriting chapters of textbooks filled with a hodgepodge of the old standards of historical interpretation mixed in with as much minority history as possible. It became painfully apparent that some authors felt it necessary to add minority materials at each step of the historical narrative so that the flow of history became difficult to follow.
    Within a few years, some textbooks not only added minority materials but began to eliminate sections of history that had been taught for generations. The move to eradicate what some people referred to as the “old dead white man” version of history began to become more influential. Some icons of history, from Christopher Columbus to George Washington and Robert E. Lee, lost ground to worthy, but in many cases, lesser known figures of history.
    Recent factors in minority history that are presently affecting the outcome of the textbook debates focus around Hispanics and followers of Islam. The arguments made by the opposing sides are similar. Should these groups be given the same space in the history books as blacks, women and the American Indian? The answer is far from simple.
    The complexity of race, gender, nationality and religion makes a consensus over what should be placed in a history book for students more than just confusing. After a while, history become more of a collection of political agendas rather than a compilation of historical facts. Instead of binding us closer together as a nation, history can also be used to divide us as a people.
    History books were meant to record the trials and triumphs of humanity and not to be a series of one-upmanship. If history is taught and written correctly, then all participants in the historical drama will be adequately represented. This does not mean that all groups will have equal time and space. In fact, history should be no respecter of persons. Those who have done the most to influence their nation’s past have earned their place in the history books. Nevertheless, this does not mean that others should be ignored.
   Each epoch of history has a cast of thousands of heroes and villains. All of them cannot be given equal space. To leave out a Booker T. Washington or W.E. B. Du Bois would be just as bad as leaving out a George Washington or Robert E. Lee. To leave out Mary Todd Lincoln would be just as bad if future history books left out Michelle Obama.
   It is not as important to make sure that history becomes a list of those within or those kept without, it is important to accurately and fairly tell the story of a nation and its people. Every wrong can never be righted, but that does not mean our history books should ignore those wrongs. On the other hand, history should not be used by one segment of society to browbeat another.
  Texas is facing a showdown on its history textbooks; Kentucky and other states may have to do so in the future. Hopefully we can learn that history is just that  – history. History is not a plaything, it is not a political tool, it is the telling of the rise and fall of nations, and those who have been an integral part of those processes. If historians can accomplish that task, then the textbook wars might subside, and education in the truest sense of the word might triumph.

   
    Bryant’s Political Quote
   
    The machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., (1841-1935)



Ron Bryant is a noted Kentucky historian, lecturer and author. He may be reached at ron.bryant@ky.gov.

Read more about Kentucky's vivid history at Friends of Kentucky History.