Kansas State Collegian: History invaluable, taught incorrectly in schools
One of the primary advantages we have over non-human animals is the ability to massively and meaningfully accumulate knowledge. Most of us at K-State are currently dedicated to adding to our lifelong stock of information, but this activity becomes even more powerful when pursued on a societal scale. Every human society has made millions of internal and external decisions about how to regulate themselves and interact with other societies, setting up a massive scientific experiment on a historical timescale. Studying these decisions and considering their outcomes is the best way to make the right choices with regard to politics and culture in contemporary society. The problem is, a large stock of relevant information is being ignored.
In my experience as a student, tutor and teaching assistant, I've found that many of my peers have a serious lack of knowledge about the recent past. In his 2008 book "Just How Stupid Are We?" historian Rick Shenkman concludes that this serious lack of knowledge about politics, government and American history is widespread and significantly contributes to the ridiculousness of contemporary American politics.
Knowledge of recent history is critically important, because it explains how the American identity has formed, and how we arrived at the place we are today. According to "Lies My Teacher Told Me," by James Loewen, American history courses spend significant time on the American Revolution, the Civil War and World War II, but give very little meaningful treatment to the recent past. For example, "textbooks, on average, include more information on the War of 1812 than Vietnam, despite its smaller geopolitical and historical impact." As a result, many of my students and classmates know little-to-nothing about the Cold War, the rise of conservatism, or how historical institutions like NATO function in today's geopolitical climate. This ignorance creates citizens that don't understand why America is economically and militarily dominant, and can't explain international animosity toward our nation. That's probably why people mistakenly assume "they hate our freedoms," instead of understanding how such opprobrium is a reaction to America's actions in the recent past.
Teaching history from the present backward is one possible solution, though our commitment to chronology might make it a less plausible solution. Doing so, however, would force teachers to adopt a better model of understanding history, taught as a set of competing interpretations rather than a series of objective facts.
Starting with the American Revolution encourages a "memorize these dates and people strategy," but starting with the Iraq war means considering various competing explanations for the invasion and subsequent quagmire. These topics would also encourage students to ask their parents about recent geopolitical events and start conversations about what it means to be a citizen of modern America. Loewen warns that waiting to address controversial subjects like contemporary politics to allow "historical perspective" to figure out the "truth" is not just lazy, but dangerous. That's because "the farther in time we move from the events, the more likely we are to lose sight of the relevant facts and allow the dominant perspective of the time to define the conflict." Students today are being spoon-fed the dominant, American-centered version of history, because to the victor go the epistemological spoils. This version of history is dangerous, because it's inaccurate.
Finally, a heavy emphasis on the Revolutionary, Civil and Second World Wars is disempowering to minority students. Loewen indicates that these students perform worse in history class and on tests of historical knowledge, despite equal success in other subjects. This should come as no surprise; our focus on these three main wars is probably at least partially intended to instill a since of civic pride in our political institutions, our ability to achieve moral progress and our global police role. But that history isn't as empowering for women and racial minorities, who due to systemic oppression played few key roles in these events. Contemporary history, however, is rife with positive female and non-white role models. Is it any wonder our federal government is composed largely of old white men when this demographic receives the lion's share of historical civic pride?
We are doing ourselves a massive societal disservice by ignoring much of the knowledge accumulated by the recent past. Ignorance of recent history is widespread and misinforms our contemporary political decisions; we've got to find a way to start teaching modern American history, whether by starting now and going backward or de-emphasizing the sacred cows of American history.
