The teaching of history in the U.S.

[Stevicus]

Did you learn about Juneteenth in school? Many Americans don’t. Educators explain why.

A Connecticut fourth grade social studies textbook falsely claimed that slaves were treated just like “family.” A Texas geography textbook referred to enslaved Africans as “workers.” In Alabama, up until the 1970s, fourth graders learned in a textbook called "Know Alabama" that slave life on a plantation was "one of the happiest ways of life."

In contrast, historians and educators point out, many children in the U.S. education system are not taught about major Black historical events, such as the Tulsa Race Massacre or Juneteenth, the June 19 commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States.

As the country grapples with a racial reckoning following the killing of George Floyd in police custody, educators said that what has and what has not been taught in school have been part of erasing the history of systemic racism in America and the contributions of Black people and other minority groups.

“There’s a long legacy of institutional racism that is barely covered in the mainstream corporate curriculum,” said Jesse Hagopian, an ethnic studies teacher in Seattle and co-editor of the book “Teaching for Black Lives.”

“Really the overarching theme is, ‘Yes, we made mistakes, but we overcame because we are the United States of America,'” said King, who is also the founding director of the Carter Center for K-12 Black History Education at the university.

This last quote kind of sums up how a lot of history is taught. We acknowledge what was done in the past, but the bottom line is that we changed because we are Americans and we have the best political system in the world. It fits within the standard propaganda narrative about "freedom," "democracy," "capitalism," etc.

“What that has done is it has erased tons of history that would combat that progressive narrative,” he said.

King said the experiences and oppression of Black people, Latino people, indigenous people, Asian people and other minority groups in the U.S. are largely ignored or sidelined to fit those narratives.

“So, of course you’re not going to have crucial information such as what happened in Tulsa, you’re not going to have information such as the bombing of a Philadelphia black neighborhood,” he said.

Hayter said that the history of Black people and other minority communities has already “been completely whitewashed and erased" when it is taught in American classrooms.

He pointed to the argument made by some that removing Confederate statues and iconography is tantamount to erasing history.

“So when people say you can’t erase history, it's like, what are you talking about?” he said. “If you crack open a textbook from the mid-20th century, there are no minorities in those textbooks.”

“The contributions they made to the American democratic experience are completely ignored,” he said.

Hayter said those histories have been seen as “a footnote to a larger narrative and not an important and integral portion of the history more largely.”

“As long as we continue to treat these as addendums to a larger American narrative, we’re failing these kids in large part because we’ve reduced these histories to second-class status,” he said.

I think a lot of our history has been whitewashed to a significant degree, probably due to political expediency more than anything else. It's been largely presented as "yes, we did some horrible things in the past, but we're much better today." But society also wants kids to be proud of America and our history, and it encourages patriotism and the idea that America is all about "freedom" and "democracy," especially as we enforce our will around the world.

What I recall most about history classes when I was a kid was that most of the other kids thought history was "boooooring." It wasn't that the teachers didn't try to teach history, but most of the kids just weren't interested in learning it.

Also, a lot of the textbooks were so old, the teachers had to add their own supplementary materials. In fact, as I got older and started studying history more independently, I realized just how much was missing from what the public schools were teaching. I had an interest in history that many of my peers did not share - because they didn't see history as something practical or useful to any career or other such endeavor (unless one was planning a career as an historian). It was seen more as an "elective."

It seems that the teaching of history was more about teaching a political agenda than anything else. I observed this notion coming up quite frequently in debates over public policy, particularly as we Americans tried to justify ourselves as "guardians of freedom" and a "beacon of hope" for the rest of the world. Our whitewashed and sanitized "history" proved instrumental in foisting this view on the public to generate support for our militarist interventionism.

At an early age, I remember learning about the Mayflower, the Pilgrims and the First Thanksgiving. That seemed to figure prominently in my early education about America. At some point, we learned about a young George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and said "I cannot tell a lie." We learned one-sided versions of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, Westward Expansion, the Alamo, the Mexican War, the Gold Rush, the Civil War (aka War Between the States), and even a bit about the Spanish-American War (in order to hear about Teddy Roosevelt's heroic charge up San Juan Hill). We also learned about all those famous American inventors who invented everything.

When it came to more recent history, that was covered too, although I also had the benefit of asking my parents and grandparents about the more recent events.

So, my questions are as follows:

How were you taught American history? If you come from a country outside the U.S., I'd be interested in how your society teaches your own country's history and how they cover U.S. history. (In another thread a couple of posters indicated that they didn't know much about Andrew Jackson, which was surprising, since he's one of the more well-known figures in US history.)

How can the teaching of history be improved so that it presents a more objective, fair, and balanced view of America?

How useful is it to teach history at the early levels? Some history can be rather complex (and frankly, horrifying), and when it's simplified to a level where small children can understand it, does it really teach anything at all?

Since it's impossible to cover absolutely everything in history, teachers and administrators might have to pick and choose which events and eras in history are important enough to be in a standard survey of U.S. history, so they might have to leave stuff out or consider it more of a footnote. What are the key essential events which should be considered mandatory?

Should history also be considered a lesson in morals and ethics? Sometimes, history is told from the viewpoint of passing moral judgment or censure on people who lived a long time ago. Is this helpful to a better understanding of history? Or is it more of a political statement about how things are today?

What role do the media play in all of this? A lot of attention and responsibility might be put upon the educational system about the teaching of history, but I recall a quote from Herman Wouk where he said "It may grieve the judicious that the great public often learns history from works of fiction, but such is often the case." There have been works of fiction which pass themselves off as "historical dramas" and so forth which many might mistake for real history.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but here's an entertaining history lesson I recall:

 

[icehorse]

It's been largely presented as "yes, we did some horrible things in the past, but we're much better today."

I think this is the key ^^

Our morals and ethics are evolving, and - we hope - generally improving. I think that what we *ought* to keep our textbooks up to date, but we should NOT whitewash history.

 

[Augustus]

We learned one-sided versions of... the War of 1812,

This is always a funny one.

Started a war a in order to claim Canada, end impressment and get the Royal Navy to stop interfering with trade; got mollywopped by the Canadians, the capital and the White House got burned down as well as the President literally having his lunch taken, and suffered significant damage the US economy.

Sign a treaty to end the war that achieves not a single one of the initial objectives then claim it as a heroic victory worthy of becoming the national anthem because you didn't lose any territory to a country who was busy fighting a much more important war thousands of miles away.

It's like that dude who used to do the press conferences for Saddam in the 2nd Iraq War

How useful is it to teach history at the early levels? Some history can be rather complex (and frankly, horrifying), and when it's simplified to a level where small children can understand it, does it really teach anything at all?

I think it is useful, sort of 'how we got here'.

Many kids love learning about Ancient Egypt, the Romans, Knights, Pirates, etc.

Seeing as all history is political, usually best to avoid the more controversial aspects of modern history though.

How can the teaching of history be improved so that it presents a more objective, fair, and balanced view of America?

Too many people want to see history as a triumphalist explanation of why the USA is the best country in the world ever. Others want to paint it as a uniquely terrible abomination.

History can never be objective, but you can provide greater context.

For example, instead of whitewashing slavery, or focusing on how evil America was because of slavery, teach about the global history of slavery, with a particular focus on the US.

Should history also be considered a lesson in morals and ethics? Sometimes, history is told from the viewpoint of passing moral judgment or censure on people who lived a long time ago. Is this helpful to a better understanding of history? Or is it more of a political statement about how things are today?

It certainly shouldn't be an exercise in anachronistic judgement where people bask in the sense of superiority for the stunning achievement of being born later in history than the people they are condemning.

The moral lesson should be that morals change, and had they been born back then they would likely have believed the same thing as the average person did.

You can combine this with an exercise of trying to predict what people in 200 years time will find appalling about people today.

 

[sun rise]

I think a lot of our history has been whitewashed to a significant degree

I agree.

How were you taught American history?

I was taught from the dominant cultural narrative. I don't remember the Trail of Tears being taught. If the Japanese being sent to concentration camps was covered at all, it was in passing. The same goes for all the treaties the American government broke with the First Nations people.

How can the teaching of history be improved so that it presents a more objective, fair, and balanced view of America?

That's a really deep and interesting question. Because the answer has to involve not only having better textbooks but also getting those into the hands of students and making sure teachers are up to date.

Should history also be considered a lesson in morals and ethics?

I would prefer teaching the evolution of our understanding of what is moral and ethical through history to be a special topic that can be woven through regular history or taught as a special area of focus.

 

[Stevicus]

This is always a funny one.

Started a war a in order to claim Canada, end impressment and get the Royal Navy to stop interfering with trade; got mollywopped by the Canadians, the capital and the White House got burned down as well as the President literally having his lunch taken, and suffered significant damage the US economy.

Sign a treaty to end the war that achieves not a single one of the initial objectives then claim it as a heroic victory worthy of becoming the national anthem because you didn't lose any territory to a country who was busy fighting a much more important war thousands of miles away.

It's like that dude who used to do the press conferences for Saddam in the 2nd Iraq War

Well, we closed that war on a more successful note by defeating the British at Baltimore after they burned Washington.

Another successful battle (Battle of New Orleans) was fought after the treaty was signed. However, I've heard some arguments that, by winning that battle, it established America as a power in the region to be reckoned with, and led to American settlers being more emboldened to move into Spanish Florida and Texas, two territories we would later annex. It also gave more teeth to the Monroe Doctrine. The battle itself didn't affect the War of 1812, but it did influence what happened afterwards.

 

[Augustus]

Another successful battle (Battle of New Orleans) was fought after the treaty was signed. However, I've heard some arguments that, by winning that battle, it established America as a power in the region to be reckoned with, and led to American settlers being more emboldened to move into Spanish Florida and Texas, two territories we would later annex. It also gave more teeth to the Monroe Doctrine. The battle itself didn't affect the War of 1812, but it did influence what happened afterwards.

Losing the battles of Baltimore and NO would have been terrible for the US, but weren't that meaningful for Britain.

The last battle of the war was actually the British sack of Fort Bowyer a few days later.

Britain had no desire to try to retake America even before the war as, strange as it seems now, it wasn't all that important a part of the Empire then and there was more to be made from trade than colonialism absent the threat of the French.

The defeat of Napoleon was what really mattered and there was no desire for further wars with no real upside and no degree of popular support.

Wellington, although he considered the war a draw, believed the 1812 War had clearly demonstrated Britain's military superiority given its other engagements at the time.

The Monroe Doctrine was also based on a British proposal that sought to limit the threat of Spain to British trade. The US ended up making a unilateral declaration, but it supported British interests.

You are right that it did influence what happened afterwards, but mostly from the psychological point of the American nation in adding to its foundation mythology. Seeing as all nations are artificial constructs, such stories are important in forming a national identity and generally exist in all cultures.

 

[Stevicus]

Losing the battles of Baltimore and NO would have been terrible for the US, but weren't that meaningful for Britain.

The last battle of the war was actually the British sack of Fort Bowyer a few days later.

Britain had no desire to try to retake America even before the war as, strange as it seems now, it wasn't all that important a part of the Empire then and there was more to be made from trade than colonialism absent the threat of the French.

The defeat of Napoleon was what really mattered and there was no desire for further wars with no real upside and no degree of popular support.

Wellington, although he considered the war a draw, believed the 1812 War had clearly demonstrated Britain's military superiority given its other engagements at the time.

The Monroe Doctrine was also based on a British proposal that sought to limit the threat of Spain to British trade. The US ended up making a unilateral declaration, but it supported British interests.

You are right that it did influence what happened afterwards, but mostly from the psychological point of the American nation in adding to its foundation mythology. Seeing as all nations are artificial constructs, such stories are important in forming a national identity and generally exist in all cultures.

I think the War of 1812 was important to the U.S. in the sense that it set the tone for U.S. expansionism later on. Both North and South were run by expansionists, with the Northerners wanting to expand into Canada, and the Southerners wanting to expand into Florida, Texas, and further south. Both wanted to push westward as well. They may have figured that the British wouldn't want to put up much of a fight over Canada. After all, we got the Louisiana Purchase for a song because Napoleon was hardly in a position to defend it if we took it by force. It wasn't quite so easy with Canada, but after the war, I think both America and Britain reached an understanding.

Americans were in a position where they could do whatever they wanted on the continent, as long as they didn't antagonize the British too severely. For their part, as you say, the British really no interest in reconquering America. And we didn't want to have any more trouble with the British.

It might have been different if we had been a full-blown ally of Napoleon, but our early leaders resisted any kind of foreign entanglements or alliances. Since we were neutral and were no longer considered a threat, the British had no cause for conflict with us. And even despite the setbacks and defeats in the War of 1812, we did prove that we could hold our own in a fight against a major power. Spain was already in pretty bad shape by that point, so it looked like their empire in the Americas was "easy pickings."

This may be part of what influenced Americans to take an aggressive, expansionist approach on their own continent, since the major powers of Europe were essentially doing the same thing all around the world. They also were afraid of the major powers of Europe, since America was small and weak in the beginning. There was always this fear that we might be dominated by foreign interests (which appears to be a theme in every era in our history, up to the present day).

 

[Shaul]

History should be taught as a methodology, not as a propaganda mechanism. Keep the schools free of ideological debates.

 

[Stevicus]

History should be taught as a methodology, not as a propaganda mechanism. Keep the schools free of ideological debates.

I agree. I think this is true for other subjects as well, but adults and local school boards always seem to want to use the schools as political football fields for whatever dispute they might have. Then they wonder why Johnny can't read.

 

[Heyo]

Our history education had two main topics. The first was context. We had to learn few dates but always the cause/effect of events. Who was connected to whom, what were the reasons that led to events. This part was so effective that it undermined the second topic which was, of course, indoctrination.

Part a was the Third Reich which made up a great part of our overall education, not only history. Fascism bad was hammered into us and it mostly stuck.
Part b was communism bad, USA good. This one didn't stick. Using the tools of historical analysis we figured out that we (NATO and especially the US) weren't the good guys but just the other side in the cold war.
And that was just recent history and current events. We hadn't already learned what the US did in the more distant past. US history was just as much a footnote here as European history is in the US.

 

[Stevicus]

Part a was the Third Reich which made up a great part of our overall education, not only history. Fascism bad was hammered into us and it mostly stuck.
Part b was communism bad, USA good. This one didn't stick. Using the tools of historical analysis we figured out that we (NATO and especially the US) weren't the good guys but just the other side in the cold war.

I think in the U.S., we got the "communism bad, USA good" lesson, and that definitely stuck. I don't recall much about lessons in "fascism bad," as it was about Hitler's aberrant personality, not so much about the politics of fascism. U.S. historical approaches seem more focused on individual personalities.

 

[Heyo]

I think in the U.S., we got the "communism bad, USA good" lesson, and that definitely stuck. I don't recall much about lessons in "fascism bad," as it was about Hitler's aberrant personality, not so much about the politics of fascism. U.S. historical approaches seem more focused on individual personalities.

I think the "Hitler bad" weak excuse wouldn't have cut it here. He was voted into place and most of Germany was not in the resistance. The message was "it happened here, let's make sure it can't happen again".

 

[Tambourine]

History should be taught as a methodology, not as a propaganda mechanism. Keep the schools free of ideological debates.

All methodology contains an ideological foundation at its core, see e.g. Great Man/Whig history vs. Marxist history.

But I would argue one reason why history is being taught to children and young adults is to train patriotism and certain ideologically foundational viewpoints to history into them from an early age.