Revising History: Good or Bad
The phrases “historical revisionism” or “history revisionism” have been in the news lately due to the problems behind the revising of the A.P History exam, potentially for political reasons. This debate can put the revising of historical fact in a bad light, even though some changes to what we study as history can be beneficial. People need to be aware of the reasons why historic facts are changed from time to time, as the reasons behind the changes can be just as important as the changes themselves.
History Revisionism and the revisionists started being talked about in the academic community in the 1970s when the holocaust deniers started using the term to define themselves. “It (revisionist) recalls distasteful memories,” stated James M. McPherson, former president of the American Historical Society and author. The term has shown back up due to the changes some, politicians and school board members, would like to see made to the guidelines of the AP American history exam. The College Board set out a new framework for the History Portion of the Advanced Placement classes starting in 2014. Unfortunately those who were against the new curriculum and those who had no issue with it seemed to be split down partisan lines. Some Republicans, including Colorado State Representative Dan Fischer, had an issue with the guidelines for the class. He felt there was a “pretty strong leaning about everything that is wrong with America” (CNN). This, in turn, made him call for cancelling the class completely in his state; he later backed down due to protests (CNN). The students currently taking the classes for college credit felt differently on this however. Students in Jefferson County, Colorado walked out of class in protest over a school board member calling for a review of what was being taught (CNN). Claire Dinshaw, a high school junior in Connecticut, wrote an Op-Ed piece after hearing presidential candidate Ben Carson say on the subject “ … because of the 2014 framework’s negativity, students would leave the course wanting to join Isis”. This prompted her rebuttal of “As a student, I am happy to tell Carson that I left the course feeling more American pride than I did going in” (Dinshaw). Her rebuttal is an excellent example of the preposterous nature of Carson’s comments.
Some Colorado history teachers have become upset with the board members over their accusations and assumptions regarding teaching history. One such teacher was Stephanie Rossi, who said, “I was insulted, the thought that a board member that is supposed to represent an educational institution is assuming history teachers in her district are going to lead kids to be Un-American and Un- Patriotic” (CNN). Even some members of the school board questioned a proposal by Julie Williams, a board member with conservative leanings, that stated “…Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” School board member Lesley Dahlkemper said of the proposal, “It’s too extreme, it goes too far,” (CNN). Rebellion and civil disorder are two important facets of our history as, without them, America might very well not exist today.
So why did something that should have been a small issue for the College Board become such a huge issue, prompting various politicians to get involved? It is possible that Professor Wilfred M. McClay stated it best in his talk at Hillsdale College, “… The chief purpose of a high school education in American History is as a rite of civic membership, an act of inculcation and formation, a way in which the young are introduced to the fullness of their political and cultural inheritance as Americans” (McClay). Looking at that quote it makes sense that the politicians became involved especially since the ones protesting the curriculum were conservative in nature. Certain conservatives only seem to want history taught that shows how amazing America is as a country, leaving out most of the bad things.
Going with how history was taught in school from the late 70’s until the early 90’s, one does not remember anything “bad” about America being taught. That generation learned the basics: The American Revolution: America broke from England because King George III was a tyrant who was taxing us without representation. The Civil War: slavery broke up the United States so we went to war to bring the country back together. George Washington was our first president; he was an honest man who even as a child could not tell a lie to his father. Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, a great inventor who went to France and convinced them to recognize the United States and fight in the Revolution on our side. Things were skipped like: The Trail of Tears, The Reconstruction, and the Japanese Internment Camps of World War II. While most of what this generation did learn is technically true, there were parts left out and there were also things that were taught that some historians now believe to be legends and not factual.
Many of those who have issues with the curriculum are in that same age range as, or slightly older than, those who learned about the exceptionalism of America while leaving out the mistakes that were made. Some of what is now being taught to those in high school is so different compared with what was learned by prior generations that it almost seems like a completely new class. Is it any wonder that there are some fighting against the changes? They have no way of connecting to the curriculum, since some of it could be seen as wrong compared with what was learned throughout their school days. There are many out there who believe that history is history, because it is in the past it never changes and never will change. However those who study history for a living know that historical fact can always change. Like any other profession, historians get things wrong or have to change facts when something new comes to light.
If most people ignore what is being taught as history, especially in the public schools, those in charge could feel that they can change whatever they want without consequences. This is emphasized by Wilfred F. McClay, who stated that “loss of faith in the central importance of history pervades all of American Society”. This also makes it easy to understand the confusion over the furor on the new history curriculum. With the public ignoring what and how history is taught, it had to be a shock to the teachers and the College Board that some, particularly the school board members and other politicians, had concerns over the new modules. The main thing to know about history is that “History has a History and historians rarely tire of quarreling over it” (Moyn). Just like any other profession, those who study history can have different interpretations of how things happened.
What those outside of the profession do not know is that the facts of history do occasionally change. Not the big things, like dates and places, but small things like when people actually died or finding out they did not say or do something attributed to them. As an example: Boss Tweed, former head of Tammany Hall in New York City, who was in jail awaiting trial on charges he had defrauded the government, escaped. He eventually fled to Spain, where he was arrested after someone recognized him from an editorial cartoon drawn by Thomas Nast. This was the story that circulated at the time, and was even verified in a biography on the cartoonist. Later the story was proven false by scholars who discovered that he had been identified by an American in Cuba and the authorities set up his capture in Spain. That doesn’t make good copy though and someone came up with the more sensational story that overshadowed the truth (Reiger, Shenkman). When the true story was discovered, what was taught had to be changed, so that history students knew the facts of the situation, as opposed to the media version of the events.
It also happens that historians have to extrapolate due to only having a small amount of data on a given subject. Other times it is because various historians see the details differently, and at still other times it is because they are having difficulties separating facts from the legends that have built up around historical events like in the Boss Tweed episode. Changes also happen when people shift the types of history that they are interested in studying, such as the current shift from the study of social history (what the average person did, wore, and ate) to cultural history (how the culture worked, lived, and the politics of the region) (Moyn).
One of the biggest issues that historians and history teachers come up against is people still believing legends about American History are fact. At one time it was taught that Paul Revere was the only one who rode through the night to warn the countryside that the British Troops were coming. In reality most of it was legend that came from Longfellow’s poetic version of the ride. What actually happened was there were multiple riders; one account says Revere was joined by William Dawes and Samuel Prescott. Another states that it was Revere and Dawes who rode to warn the area. The basics are that there were multiple people going through the countryside warning the militia that the British Troops were advancing on the area and to be ready for a fight. William Dawes’ and Paul Revere’s graves end up telling the tale the best. William Dawes’ states “Patriot, Son of Liberty, and First Messenger sent from Boston to Lexington.” Paul Revere’s simply says “Paul Revere, born in Boston January 1743, Died 1818, while another stone nearby just states Paul Revere’s tomb (Raphael).
Another issue is that historians, though they should read and interpret the facts objectively, can fall into the partisan trap as well. Professor Wilfred McClay makes great points in his lecture on the AP history exam, but it shows a clear bias toward the problems that the conservative school board members had with the curriculum changes by the College Board. Ray Raphael, author of Founding Myths, shows where we started changing the facts of the history and allowing legend to creep into our teaching. He shows a clear bias toward what some consider the liberal agenda in history curriculum. These two historians show just how much history can be influenced by one’s opinion on the matter.
While having patriotism and loving your country is a good thing, the Paul Revere’s Ride myth shows what can happen if the patriotism overtakes factual events. It seems that showing only the best side of history can result in facts being twisted and becoming more legend than fact. However, leaning too far to the other side of the spectrum, the whole “our country did horrendous things and we should make it up to everyone we wronged” is just as bad. It can make some people embarrassed to be a part of a country that has such a horrible history. The history taught needs to be a middle ground of both the good and the bad. It needs to show students that, since the founding of our country people have made mistakes, but they found a way to overcome the issue and make things better.
In the end we need to find a middle ground for the good of our children and future leaders and not teach what could be considered propaganda focused on either side of the spectrum. What actually happened through time in both our country and the other countries of the world, both the good and the bad, has more than just history lessons to learn in the teaching of it. In learning what was done when mistakes were made, both the intentional and accidental, it is a good way to teach consequences for actions, how to take responsibility for said actions, and a way to rectify the suffering it could have caused. In showing the great things a country accomplished, the inventions, the orators, and the pride of the average person, it gives hope that maybe someday one of them could improve on what is already out there and make a difference in their communities, locally and globally.
Works Cited
Dacy, Glen, Ganim, Sara. “Making History: Battles brew over alleged bias in Advanced Placement Standards”. CNN .com. 24 February 2015. Web. 14 October 2015.
Dinshaw, Claire. “Glossing over American Sins is No Way to Teach History”. Hartford Courant.30 September 2015. Web. 2 October 2015.
McClay, Wilfred M. “History, American Democracy, and the AP Test Controversy.” Imprimis. July/August 2015. Volume 44, Number 7/8. University of Oklahoma. Web. 2 October 2015.
McPherson, James. “Revisionist Historians”. American History Association. Sept 2003. 19 February 2015. Web. 9 October 2015.
Moyn, Samuel. “New Old Things”. Nation. 300.6(2015): 27-32. Political Science Complete. Web. 14 October 2015.
Raphael, Ray. Founding Myths: Stories that Hide Our Patriotic Past. New York. W.W. Norton and Company. Print. 2004.
Shenkman, Richard and Reiger, Kurt. One-Night Stands with American History: Odd, Amusing, and Little-Known Incidents. New York. Harper Collins Publishers. Print. 2003.
Thomas, Joshua. Paul Revere’s Grave. 2011. Photograph. Private Collection. Ohio.
Thomas Joshua. William Dawes Tomb. 2011. Photograph. Private Collection. Ohio.
The phrases “historical revisionism” or “history revisionism” have been in the news lately due to the problems behind the revising of the A.P History exam, potentially for political reasons. This debate can put the revising of historical fact in a bad light, even though some changes to what we study as history can be beneficial. People need to be aware of the reasons why historic facts are changed from time to time, as the reasons behind the changes can be just as important as the changes themselves.
History Revisionism and the revisionists started being talked about in the academic community in the 1970s when the holocaust deniers started using the term to define themselves. “It (revisionist) recalls distasteful memories,” stated James M. McPherson, former president of the American Historical Society and author. The term has shown back up due to the changes some, politicians and school board members, would like to see made to the guidelines of the AP American history exam. The College Board set out a new framework for the History Portion of the Advanced Placement classes starting in 2014. Unfortunately those who were against the new curriculum and those who had no issue with it seemed to be split down partisan lines. Some Republicans, including Colorado State Representative Dan Fischer, had an issue with the guidelines for the class. He felt there was a “pretty strong leaning about everything that is wrong with America” (CNN). This, in turn, made him call for cancelling the class completely in his state; he later backed down due to protests (CNN). The students currently taking the classes for college credit felt differently on this however. Students in Jefferson County, Colorado walked out of class in protest over a school board member calling for a review of what was being taught (CNN). Claire Dinshaw, a high school junior in Connecticut, wrote an Op-Ed piece after hearing presidential candidate Ben Carson say on the subject “ … because of the 2014 framework’s negativity, students would leave the course wanting to join Isis”. This prompted her rebuttal of “As a student, I am happy to tell Carson that I left the course feeling more American pride than I did going in” (Dinshaw). Her rebuttal is an excellent example of the preposterous nature of Carson’s comments.
Some Colorado history teachers have become upset with the board members over their accusations and assumptions regarding teaching history. One such teacher was Stephanie Rossi, who said, “I was insulted, the thought that a board member that is supposed to represent an educational institution is assuming history teachers in her district are going to lead kids to be Un-American and Un- Patriotic” (CNN). Even some members of the school board questioned a proposal by Julie Williams, a board member with conservative leanings, that stated “…Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” School board member Lesley Dahlkemper said of the proposal, “It’s too extreme, it goes too far,” (CNN). Rebellion and civil disorder are two important facets of our history as, without them, America might very well not exist today.
So why did something that should have been a small issue for the College Board become such a huge issue, prompting various politicians to get involved? It is possible that Professor Wilfred M. McClay stated it best in his talk at Hillsdale College, “… The chief purpose of a high school education in American History is as a rite of civic membership, an act of inculcation and formation, a way in which the young are introduced to the fullness of their political and cultural inheritance as Americans” (McClay). Looking at that quote it makes sense that the politicians became involved especially since the ones protesting the curriculum were conservative in nature. Certain conservatives only seem to want history taught that shows how amazing America is as a country, leaving out most of the bad things.
Going with how history was taught in school from the late 70’s until the early 90’s, one does not remember anything “bad” about America being taught. That generation learned the basics: The American Revolution: America broke from England because King George III was a tyrant who was taxing us without representation. The Civil War: slavery broke up the United States so we went to war to bring the country back together. George Washington was our first president; he was an honest man who even as a child could not tell a lie to his father. Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, a great inventor who went to France and convinced them to recognize the United States and fight in the Revolution on our side. Things were skipped like: The Trail of Tears, The Reconstruction, and the Japanese Internment Camps of World War II. While most of what this generation did learn is technically true, there were parts left out and there were also things that were taught that some historians now believe to be legends and not factual.
Many of those who have issues with the curriculum are in that same age range as, or slightly older than, those who learned about the exceptionalism of America while leaving out the mistakes that were made. Some of what is now being taught to those in high school is so different compared with what was learned by prior generations that it almost seems like a completely new class. Is it any wonder that there are some fighting against the changes? They have no way of connecting to the curriculum, since some of it could be seen as wrong compared with what was learned throughout their school days. There are many out there who believe that history is history, because it is in the past it never changes and never will change. However those who study history for a living know that historical fact can always change. Like any other profession, historians get things wrong or have to change facts when something new comes to light.
If most people ignore what is being taught as history, especially in the public schools, those in charge could feel that they can change whatever they want without consequences. This is emphasized by Wilfred F. McClay, who stated that “loss of faith in the central importance of history pervades all of American Society”. This also makes it easy to understand the confusion over the furor on the new history curriculum. With the public ignoring what and how history is taught, it had to be a shock to the teachers and the College Board that some, particularly the school board members and other politicians, had concerns over the new modules. The main thing to know about history is that “History has a History and historians rarely tire of quarreling over it” (Moyn). Just like any other profession, those who study history can have different interpretations of how things happened.
What those outside of the profession do not know is that the facts of history do occasionally change. Not the big things, like dates and places, but small things like when people actually died or finding out they did not say or do something attributed to them. As an example: Boss Tweed, former head of Tammany Hall in New York City, who was in jail awaiting trial on charges he had defrauded the government, escaped. He eventually fled to Spain, where he was arrested after someone recognized him from an editorial cartoon drawn by Thomas Nast. This was the story that circulated at the time, and was even verified in a biography on the cartoonist. Later the story was proven false by scholars who discovered that he had been identified by an American in Cuba and the authorities set up his capture in Spain. That doesn’t make good copy though and someone came up with the more sensational story that overshadowed the truth (Reiger, Shenkman). When the true story was discovered, what was taught had to be changed, so that history students knew the facts of the situation, as opposed to the media version of the events.
It also happens that historians have to extrapolate due to only having a small amount of data on a given subject. Other times it is because various historians see the details differently, and at still other times it is because they are having difficulties separating facts from the legends that have built up around historical events like in the Boss Tweed episode. Changes also happen when people shift the types of history that they are interested in studying, such as the current shift from the study of social history (what the average person did, wore, and ate) to cultural history (how the culture worked, lived, and the politics of the region) (Moyn).
One of the biggest issues that historians and history teachers come up against is people still believing legends about American History are fact. At one time it was taught that Paul Revere was the only one who rode through the night to warn the countryside that the British Troops were coming. In reality most of it was legend that came from Longfellow’s poetic version of the ride. What actually happened was there were multiple riders; one account says Revere was joined by William Dawes and Samuel Prescott. Another states that it was Revere and Dawes who rode to warn the area. The basics are that there were multiple people going through the countryside warning the militia that the British Troops were advancing on the area and to be ready for a fight. William Dawes’ and Paul Revere’s graves end up telling the tale the best. William Dawes’ states “Patriot, Son of Liberty, and First Messenger sent from Boston to Lexington.” Paul Revere’s simply says “Paul Revere, born in Boston January 1743, Died 1818, while another stone nearby just states Paul Revere’s tomb (Raphael).
Another issue is that historians, though they should read and interpret the facts objectively, can fall into the partisan trap as well. Professor Wilfred McClay makes great points in his lecture on the AP history exam, but it shows a clear bias toward the problems that the conservative school board members had with the curriculum changes by the College Board. Ray Raphael, author of Founding Myths, shows where we started changing the facts of the history and allowing legend to creep into our teaching. He shows a clear bias toward what some consider the liberal agenda in history curriculum. These two historians show just how much history can be influenced by one’s opinion on the matter.
While having patriotism and loving your country is a good thing, the Paul Revere’s Ride myth shows what can happen if the patriotism overtakes factual events. It seems that showing only the best side of history can result in facts being twisted and becoming more legend than fact. However, leaning too far to the other side of the spectrum, the whole “our country did horrendous things and we should make it up to everyone we wronged” is just as bad. It can make some people embarrassed to be a part of a country that has such a horrible history. The history taught needs to be a middle ground of both the good and the bad. It needs to show students that, since the founding of our country people have made mistakes, but they found a way to overcome the issue and make things better.
In the end we need to find a middle ground for the good of our children and future leaders and not teach what could be considered propaganda focused on either side of the spectrum. What actually happened through time in both our country and the other countries of the world, both the good and the bad, has more than just history lessons to learn in the teaching of it. In learning what was done when mistakes were made, both the intentional and accidental, it is a good way to teach consequences for actions, how to take responsibility for said actions, and a way to rectify the suffering it could have caused. In showing the great things a country accomplished, the inventions, the orators, and the pride of the average person, it gives hope that maybe someday one of them could improve on what is already out there and make a difference in their communities, locally and globally.
Works Cited
Dacy, Glen, Ganim, Sara. “Making History: Battles brew over alleged bias in Advanced Placement Standards”. CNN .com. 24 February 2015. Web. 14 October 2015.
Dinshaw, Claire. “Glossing over American Sins is No Way to Teach History”. Hartford Courant.30 September 2015. Web. 2 October 2015.
McClay, Wilfred M. “History, American Democracy, and the AP Test Controversy.” Imprimis. July/August 2015. Volume 44, Number 7/8. University of Oklahoma. Web. 2 October 2015.
McPherson, James. “Revisionist Historians”. American History Association. Sept 2003. 19 February 2015. Web. 9 October 2015.
Moyn, Samuel. “New Old Things”. Nation. 300.6(2015): 27-32. Political Science Complete. Web. 14 October 2015.
Raphael, Ray. Founding Myths: Stories that Hide Our Patriotic Past. New York. W.W. Norton and Company. Print. 2004.
Shenkman, Richard and Reiger, Kurt. One-Night Stands with American History: Odd, Amusing, and Little-Known Incidents. New York. Harper Collins Publishers. Print. 2003.
Thomas, Joshua. Paul Revere’s Grave. 2011. Photograph. Private Collection. Ohio.
Thomas Joshua. William Dawes Tomb. 2011. Photograph. Private Collection. Ohio.