Follow Up to Post on History Textbooks

Matt over at Southern Pasts applauds the idea of emphasizing individual works of history rather than the standard textbook.  He rightly connects the possibility of such a move with the spirit of the recent report, "The Next Generation of History Teachers."  [I commented on this report a few weeks back.]  Matt gets to the heart of the matter here:

History, in my opinion, is about understanding the complexity of human events—the intersections of people and places and things and ideas. Rather than attempting to draw a set of guidelines for the future, students should be pushed to question the past on its own terms. Why did certain people make certain decisions? What impact did the actions of this group have on that group? Do we see changes? Continuity? How does our understanding of the past directly impact the way we make decisions today? Does history really matter?

Too often, textbooks fail to encourage these kinds of questions. Instead, they tend to provide a fairly simplistic “master narrative” of history, one which places an overwhelming emphasis on political history, often to the detriment of other approaches.

I do think it is important to acknowledge that textbooks can serve an important function, especially for students who need a foundation structured around a master narrative broken down into discrete sections.  And there are indeed textbooks that do just this and present history in all of its richness and complexity.  There is an excellent online textbook over at Steven Mintz’s Digital History site, which could be assigned for background reading as we move through the various texts.  Keep in mind that this idea is for my regular American history survey courses and not for the AP classes.  I simply do not see how the class could dispense with the textbook approach given the AP curriculum and its emphasis on content.  That said, there are aspects of the curriculum, namely the DBQ essay, that forces students to think deeply about the American past. 

I am working with one of my teaching colleagues on a list of books that could be used in such a course.  As I mentioned in that previous post I’ve been thinking about such a move for the past few years but for one reason or another failed to make the move.  Teaching can be like any other job where you grow sufficiently comfortable with a certain process and resist change. I believe it is absolutely essential for teachers to keep their end of the classroom fresh and challenging for their own well-being.

Society of Civil War Historians Comes of Age

I was pleased to learn that the Society of Civil War Historians is going to expand the scope of their activities in the near future.  The SCWH is a small group of historians who meet once a year for a special session at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association.  Other than the meeting there is a newsletter that is released quarterly which reports on upcoming meetings and other related items.  The plan is to expand operations to include a biennial conference held in late May or early June.  While Florida Atlantic University will continue to serve as the organizational home of the SCWH, Penn State’s Richards Civil War Era Center will co-sponsor.  Membership dues will be increased but members will receive the journal Civil War History

I am sure that most people associated with the organization were pleased to receive this news along with a copy of the constitution for their approval.  This is a much needed development which should work to bring even more attention to those currently engaged in the serious study of the Civil War era. 

Out With the Standard History Textbook and In With…

A few weeks back Rebecca Goetz shared her frustration after learning that her entire department received a copy of Bedford/St. Martin’s American History (6th ed.).  Her post was written more in frustration with the high costs of these book, but towards the end Rebecca hinted that she might drop the textbook altogether next year.  I’ve been thinking along these lines for a few years now.  My survey classes use The Brief American Pageant by Kennedy, Bailey, Cohen, and Valparaiso.  I use it because it is brief compared with other textbooks currently on the market.  While it is brief it is an absolutely boring read and my students are at their wits ends.  I haven’t read the book in about a year; however, a few days ago I read the chapter on WWI and was appalled.  Keep in mind that I am not attacking the scholarship of the authors, in fact I am a big fan of Kennedy’s work.  The text is difficulty to follow and it seems to me that it doesn’t have to be.  It’s as if the writers of these books intentionally write in a way that will alienate or bore their readers.  Why can’t I use books that are informative and entertaining to read?  For the interdisciplinary seminar that I am currently team teaching on the Civil Rights Movement we are reading Harvard Sitkoff’s book and the students are fascinated.  We asked them to have the first three chapters finished before the seminar started last Monday and at least half had already read the entire book. 

What I plan on doing for next year is ordering a certain number of books that cover different stages of American history.  The books must be accessible for high school students with a varying range of abilities.  Of course, I am sacrificing breadth of knowledge, but I am hoping to push a deeper more meaningful understanding of the historical method as well as content.  The history texts would be supplemented with primary sources of every kind.  At this point it is completely up in the air in terms of book choices.  Perhaps Joseph Ellis’s Founding Brothers would be an attractive read for the Revolutionary generation, David McCullough’s Johnstown Flood and Eric Foner’s Short History of Reconstruction.  English courses read works of literature, poetry, etc, so why don’t we do the same in an introductory history course?  I can easily imagine a course where students are able to think about different kinds of historical writing such as gender history or the differences between social and political history. 

I would love to hear some of your ideas.  What would you have me use in the classroom and why? 

Get Over It

I have to admit that I was amazed to see just how popular this story about the lynching of the Confederate flag turned out to be.  A few days ago the story was featured on AOL and at last check Google News lists just under 200 stories involving this particular incident.  This is one of those moments when I feel as if I am being manipulated by the media’s tendency to go for the dramatic story regardless of its real importance.  Does anyone really care about the depiction of the Confederate flag at the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science other than those individuals and groups who have an emotional connection with a selected aspect of its past?  Are we to believe that this is just another example of the "culture wars" that supposedly divides average Americans?

"Don’t Believe the Hype" – Chuck D of Public Enemy

When Did We Start Writing the History of Virginia?

The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography has kicked off Vol. 115 with an excellent article by Brent Tarter who is editor of the Dictionary of Virginia Biography at the Library of Virginia.  The article, “Making History in Virginia” was given last year as the keynote address at the First Annual Meeting of the Virginia Forum.  I enjoyed listening to Tarter deliver the paper last year and am pleased to see it in print.  [This year's meeting of the Virginia Forum will take place in April at the Library of Virginia.]

So, how long have we been writing Virginia history?  Well, it depends on how we interpret the history of the history of Virginia.  Tarter’s article is part historiography and part memory study as it moves through the major trends and landmark studies and commemorations throughout Virginia’s rich history.  Tarter argues that until relatively recently the overall master narrative was quite narrow in scope and used to solidify both a political hierarchy and a progressive story of expanding freedom.  Tarter reminds the reader “that Virginia’s long history has on the whole been written in the voices of English-speaking white men and has preserved their actions and perspectives at the expense of the actions and perspectives of women, African Americans, and Virginia’s Indians.”  The important point here in contrast to this unified voice is that from the beginning Virginia was defined by “opposing cultures” and “intimate interactions of persons with differing perspectives and interests.”

Changes in interpretation did indeed take place, but they continued to serve the direct interests of the author’s social, political, and economic class.  For instance, Robert Beverly who authored The History and Present State of Virginia (1705) deals with Bacon’s Rebellion by praising Governor Berkeley and minimizes the complexity of conditions that brought about the uprising in 1676.  One can only make sense of this interpretation if it is understood that Beverly was a colonial bureaucrat, planter, legal scholar, and Virginia politician.  In his History of Virginia, which was published in the early nineteenth-century interpretation of Bacon’s Rebellion John D. Burk interprets the event as a precursor to the American Revolution.  Interpretive change took place, but only as a way to justify an agenda rather than as an attempt to better understand Bacon’s Rebellion.

Along the way Tarter introduces a bit of literary flair by labeling competing interpretations that could have introduced minority voices, but for the reasons stated above never had a chance of being introduced.  So for instance an interpretation that focused on the experiences of the first slaves is given the title The Inferno or Gulag Archipelago.

Not surprisingly, Tarter spends a great deal on memory and the Civil War.  He touches on the role historians played in shaping the Lost Cause story at the turn of the twentieth century as well as various commemorations that attracted large crowds and provided ideal forums to “educate” the general public.  Tarter also mentions the 1930s state highway historical markers program.  Those markers reflect the master narrative of the time and betray serious gaps.  The battlefield at Manassas boasted 21 markers and the ground that made up the Seven Days Battles counted 21.  On the other hand there were no signs marking Nat Turner’s 1831 slave uprising or anything that acknowledged the Indian or black experience at Jamestown. The centrality of the war is clear to anyone who studies American history; however, Tarter offers a cautionary tale in the way we think and remember that event:

People who are not historians continue to this very day to emphasize the centrality of the Civil War military experience in ways that the residents of and the visitors to, Virginia cannot miss.  Historical markers are no longer the products of tourism promoters but are placed at the request of interested individuals and groups who are willing to pay for them; there are more new markers that treat Civil War events than any other topic in Virginia’s history.  Television and movie producers, visitors to battlefields, re-enactors, and others constantly remind everybody of the Civil War in ways that almost no one reminds anybody of any other important episode of Virginia’s history.  All of those people are interpreters of the past, and for the most part their interpretation of the past is that of the “Moonlight and Magnolias” variety, even if the battlefield re-enactors strive for authenticity in the not-so-glamorous aspect of camp life.  The klieg lights remain focused  brightly and so closely on the often-romanticized Civil War battlefields that other events in Virginia’s history are easily forgotten and other essentially important aspects of the Civil War period-such as the causes and consequences of the war, the effect it had on non-combatants, the realization of freedom for the enslaved, and the postwar hardships of the widows and orphans and of the men with empty sleeves- get neglected and forgotten.  In that neglecting and forgetting, the interpretation of the historical event gets badly warped.  Depictions of the Civil War in cinema and on television, in popular literature, and on the re-enactors grounds bear little resemblance to the version presented in the excellent modern historical scholarship on that especially important episode in Virginia’s history (p. 31)

While it can be argued that the Civil War was Virginia’s central event the tendency on the part of the general public is to reduce all categories to those years.  Confederate tends to be equated with the South when in fact not all of the south aligned itself with the Confederacy; in addition it ignores significant pockets of Unionist support.  More importantly, there is a tendency to equate Southern with Confederate as if 4 million black Americans simply disappeared from the scene entirely.  If amnesia is not working its interpretive magic than there is the move to somehow include as many black Southerners within the Confederate embrace.

What is so striking about Tarter’s analysis is the realization that the first challenges to the master narrative happened so recently.  Tarter cites the publication of The Negro in Virginia which was overseen by the Negro Unit of the Works Projects Administration’s Virginia Writer’s Project in 1940.  This was the first narrative to address black Virginians.  The first exhibit to concentrate on Virginia’s women did not open until 1984.  More importantly, recent studies have not had as their primary goal the maintenance of a political or social hierarchy.  While we can debate the philosophical assumptions surrounding the idea of historical objectivity it seems clear that modern scholars are much more interesting in questioning old assumptions and offering more sophisticated and complex interpretations.  This clearly ruffles the feathers of some who hold tight to the old standards, but Tarter calls historians to formulate new questions about how to integrate the broad range of voices that at present animate our historical studies of the commonwealth.  In short, is there a possibility of writing a new master narrative?

The challenge, according to Tarter, is not “to write another old-fashioned History of Virginia but a completely new History of Virginians.