Protestantism

» pink101 - Teaching History in The U.S.A.

.
I'm writing this post primarily to Brian Tubbs who has worked as a high school history teacher.
.
Brian, I stumbled into some information about teaching history in the U.S.A. while I was doing some research for a paper I'm writing for my personal files.
.
I'm sure you must be aware of the controversy in the way the subject is being addressed in American and U.K. high school classrooms. Here is a link where I am beginning to learn about it.
.
http://www.sydneyline.com/Democratic%20H...
.
And, here is an exerpt from the link:

One of the major appeals of the multiculturalist platform is the way its proponents have identified it with democratic ideals. Nash, Crabtree and Dunn talk about the creation of "a history education that is fit for a democratic society" which at the same time "represents a commitment to multiculturalism." They note that the last few decades have witnessed "a remarkable effort to broaden the scope of history education to ensure that the experiences of all classes, regions and ethnoracial groups, as well as both genders, are included in it." A glance at current textbooks, syllabuses and teacher-training programs, they observe, will confirm the growth of this movement which "expresses an allegiance to the democratic notion that our history should reflect the experiences, contributions, aspirations and travails of all the nation's people." They want to overturn Thomas Carlyle's definition, inscribed in the rotunda of the Library of Congress, that "History is the biography of great men", or as they put it, of "great white Protestant men". Instead, they say, history should become:
.
" an examination of vast dimensions of the human experience hertofore unnoticed. Why should a democratic people dedicated to equality not applaud the attention now given to the roles in history of women, African Americans, working people, religious denominations, and other groups relatively powerless in the formal political sense? ... Is this the voice of 'political correctness' or a recognition of the link between a democratic society and a more historically complete and accurate rendering of the past? ... That American history textbooks until recently left out the record of common folk seems extraordinary in a democratic society where we live by the motto 'of, for, and by the people'."
.
I know you have mentioned multi-culturalism in the past; but, would you please comment on what appears to be a controversial issue in American politics:
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Teaching History in The U.S.A.

In response to Teaching History in The U.S.A. posted by pink101:

This is an extremely controversial subject. Hard to address in a simple post. I'll make just a few comments here.

1. History is what it is - and I don't think it's appropriate to revise or change history in order to accommodate an agenda (whether that be nationalism or multiculturalism). People on both sides need to be aware of this.

2. The rebellion against the "great men" approach to history has, in my view, led us to the other extreme - one easily seen in the writings of people like Howard Zinn. The FACT of the matter is that some very great men exerted ENORMOUS influence over the course of our history. Whether that's popular or not - or right or not - doesn't change reality. That's the way it is.

3. It's abominable that some states, in adopting standards proposed by the likes of Nash, Crabtree, and Dunn have deemphasized (and sometimes outright ignored) the contributions made by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, et al in order to emphasize other aspects or peoples in history. In the case of GW, for example, no one (of any race, gender, or color) comes anywhere close to the impact he had on America - and that's just the way it is.

4. Lastly, I've read through Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" - and I can tell you that the outcome or product of this approach to history is typically to emphasize exploitation, oppression, etc. - and, almost always, a leftist slant on history. Never is there really an effort to talk about the common person per se. Zinn doesn't spend a lot of time for example on the middle class. No, what these historians often mean (if not ALWAYS mean) is the lower class and minority groups. Is it wrong to talk about them? Absolutely not. But to emphasize them to the point that the majority is ignored or disproportionately downplayed, I think we start to have a problem. I have found that Zinn's approach is every bit as agenda-biased as what he claims is the case with the traditional approach to history.

» pink101 - Bottom-Up or Tom-Down

In response to Teaching History in The U.S.A. posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Thanks for your comments.
.
From what I've read, the controversy in the way history is being taught in high schools centers around the philosophy that history is more about a bottom-up social flux than it is a top-down series of movements generated by certain dynamic leaders? Are you saying that if it weren't for George Washington, there wouldn't be a United States of America?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - GW

In response to Bottom-Up or Tom-Down posted by pink101:

Are you saying that if it weren't for George Washington, there wouldn't be a United States of America?

Yes

» pink101 - GW

In response to GW posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Wow.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - GW

In response to GW posted by pink101:

Don't act too surprised. My opinion is rather common among historians who don't have a leftist axe to grind. I would encourage you to read 1776 by David McCullough. If that doesn't bring you closer to my line of thinking...nothing will.

» pink101 - Leftist Ax?

In response to GW posted by BrianTubbs:
.
A leftist ax? Where did that come from?
.
I thought everyone knows society unfolds with an ebb and flow.
.
I certainly never demean George Washington; but, I don't apotheosize him. He was a great man and deserves great honor in the annals of world history. He is rightfully known as the Father of our country. My direct ascendent, James Rumsey, enlisted for eight tours of duty under his command.
.

-- posted by pink101