Blog 4 History

I am just getting into an excellent book by Harry L. Watson titled, Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America.

In the introduction of the book, Watson recalls a story by a young Frenchman who visited America in 1834 and witnessed, among many things, a Democratic Party Parade. The event amazed the visiting European. As a matter of fact, he had NEVER seen anything like it. In Europe and in France where he was from, the ordinary European was not allowed to vote and to have gathered in such demonstrations would most likely have been considered a seditious  act.

The amazed visitor wrote after the event, “[its] scenes belong to history. They are the episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming democracy.”

I know, a delusional Frenchman who did not understand how our Constitution did not give everyone the right to vote: most blacks and women prominent among them. There was nothing exceptional about us, this so called “coming democracy” was a farce.

Yep, nothing exceptional about it…

Levin says, “I am not studying history in order to feel better or worse about my country. Rather, and without going into detail, I am trying to understand the richness and complexity of what is the human experience. It has nothing at all to do with whether I love or hate America. To be completely honest, I am not sure what that even means. I will leave overly simplistic categories to overly simplistic minds.” [Link]

Levin makes the assumption that all of us “simplistic minds” are defending American Exceptionalism as if we are not capable or interested in the “richness and complexity” of history. Levin is an arrogant person and when you don’t agree with him, you are simple minded and not capable of understanding his level of thinking. Remember, he is sooo much smarter than the rest of us “simple minded” folk. LOL.

Because to even argue that America was unique, at least to intellectual morons, is tantamount to intellectual bankruptcy. To be a serious historian you must look for  “richness and complexity,” whatever that means!? Frankly, Levin and I will never agree on what that means and that is what is at the heart of the issue. He can call me whatever he wants, I will do the same. The gloves will stay off. It does indeed have NOTHING to do with love or hate, but something else and that something is what will divide the likes of Levin and myself.

However, I will offer a guess. (Note, this is my own personal opinion!) Levin has issues with the Republican Party going back to Reconstruction and what they failed to accomplish. He is also disappointed in what the American Revolution failed to accomplish. He is very much like Howard Zinn. But that is the problem, America was exceptional for what it was attempting. It initially failed to live up to our modern and presentists views. I wish our Founders were able to give equality to all, though nowhere else on such a scale was there anything close to early America in terms of political participation.

The post-Civil War era was a disaster for Civil Rights. It is disappointing. However, when one looks to history with such a “presentist” eye and can then call themselves a “Democrat” — which is the historic party of slavery — is to me a bit hypocritical.

I know, I’m simply not smart enough to understand and I look forward to LEVIN setting me straight.

Chris.

Interesting how the comments pour in stating how I am comparing Obama to Hitler. I did no such thing.  The singing of a religious song and inserting our current President’s name is frankly creepy and at best stupid and at worst hero worshiping. I am happy people can take pride in our President. But this kind of thing opens them up to radical (which is the word I USED) comparisons like the one I LINKED TO. These people are opening themselves up for this. And let’s not forget, every single Liberal out there would have been up in arms if there were little children singing praises to George W. Bush after, say, 9/11.

Yes, this is harmless. But this is not an isolated incident, Our President is to be respected, but not worshiped or to have songs that have children pledge any kind of allegiance.

Here’s a radical take on it (I do not necessarily approve of it but if Obama’s promoters wish to go here, it is their call):

Can you imagine if this was done in honor of Bush or any other President? How about in the name of God or Jesus? The Press would be all over it and would condemn it. This is very disconcerting. I have to as WHY? Why are we teaching children to sing a song for Obama? Is he special?

I know, call me crazy.

Yes, this is harmless. But this is not an isolated incident, Our President is to be respected, but not worshiped or to have songs that have children pledge any kind of allegiance.

Here’s a radical take on it (I do not necessarily approve of it but if Obama’s promoters wish to go here, it is their call):

In A.P. U.S. History we just finished our second Unit (The American Revolution) and one of the things we explored was the question: “Was the American Revolution Radical or Conservative in its Social and Political Outcome?” What we focused on was the aftermath of the Revolution through the Constitutional Convention, and ratification. I gave my students two readings, one from Gordon S. Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution and the other from Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Both are very good as polar opposites.

The groups read the materials and had to perform something we call “Levels of Questions” where they have to come up with Level I, II, and III questions from the reading. I will explain this later.

Wood argued that the relationships between Americans, their families and their government changed so much that is justifies the title of “radical.” He contends that the  post-Revolution era produced an “enlightened republican relationship among people.” (Exceptionalism!?) Though there was still a significant gap between rich and poor, the so-called poor were far better off than their European counterparts and most importantly they did not see themselves in the same light.  They were removing the bonds of dependency within the family and the political units around them. Primogeniture was eroding and of course the Americans replaced a Monarchy with a Republic. For the Americans the “post-revolutionary republican culture” talked of nothing but “liberty, equality, and independence.”

We also discussed Wood’s comments in light of the fact that the Constitution did not allow for blacks or women to vote and did not address slavery.  We also realized the fact that  anyone was voting on that scale was radical, regardless of race or gender. Only in a few small republics was this true. In Europe Monarchy and Aristocracy dominated.

Zinn argues that the Constitution was the creation of the elite, the wealthy, and he is indeed correct. But what he focuses on (remember my comments on Emphasis?) is how that fact must have and did indeed dominate the Constitutional Convention and the cause and effect nature of American Republicanism. According to Zinn, the wealthy elite created a government that gave just enough to the middle class to make them docile and content while it protected the wealthy elite. His argument is very good.

My students reacted to both historians. It was a very passionate discussion. They observed that both made valid points. But in the end, they noted that Wood’s argument was more sophisticated and more synthesized and that Zinn took simple facts and generalizations and ran with them.

Anyway, it was some excellent discussion and I am now reading their essays.

The Liberalization of the History Channel now brings us such needed and informative documentaries as “History of Prostitution” and “High Tech Sex.” (Both were on tonight!) You know, I’m sure some people might think this is “history” but I find it disgusting. I have kids who watch the history channel and students, and I can tell you I do not want them watching this. I am usually very pleased with the programming on The History Channel, but this is ridiculous.

All non-offensive comments that I have received concerning discussions below have been posted. I must say some have been eye-opening and not always in a good way. I am done with this topic no further comments will be addressed. I stand by my posts and have explained it all I care to. -Chris

Levin, first I get home at 7:15 pm my time (MST), I teach at a public school and then volunteer after school for various things. I teach all day, not a lot of breaks. I don’t have a lot of time to check my blog and make sure I update you or anyone else.

Also, I seem to recall all of us referring to first names, you included when you attack Dimitri or Richard for things you don’t agree with?! Are you saying for you
I have to address you by your last name when I challenge you?

But most importantly, I never received your claimed response. I have always posted responses, always! Whatever.

Anyway, the post you jumped on was a follow up to my earlier post here. And this was one of several posts by you that caught my eye concerning your views on where Civil War history should or is going, and indeed “American Exceptionalism” as drawn out and tired thing.  You write, “I say this as someone who has presented talks in front of at least 15 different Roundtables. Let me explain. While I enjoy the interaction with the audience, it is difficult to present interpretations that conflict with a very traditional view of the war. It is difficult to talk about the role of race in the war or even to emphasize the importance of slavery in understanding the cause of the war.”

Why is it difficult, well you tell us, “The other problem is that most attendees want to hear the same drawn out and tired stories about the major battles and the central characters of the war.” Drawn out and tired. Your point? Those books sell, you know this?

So indeed Levin, you are bemoaning the ole “traditional” approach that focuses on the big and “major” players of history, missing that those are the books that sell. Dare I say that these “traditional” approaches are, well, promoters of American Exceptionalism. That’s my point, Levin.

You also wrote, “I recently presented a talk on my ongoing research related to the way Confederate veterans and other southern whites remembered the presence of United States Colored Troops at the battle of the Crater and was shocked to find people actually walking out in disgust. They didn’t stick around to question my sources or interpretation.”

They walked out in “disgust.” Ok, we will assume that you’re a mind reader and knew this. Perhaps they wanted to hear something “traditional” and nothing more.

To many educators teaching something that is positive about American history is considered to be intellectually dishonest. Today Kevin suggest that to teach our history in any way that is “positive” is to teach in a vacuum free of “critical thinking.” Whatever. His idea of “critical thinking” is hard to imagine, but I can guess. To teach the American Revolution intellectually and to challenge students students to “think critically” Kevin probably thinks that the emphasis would be on Women, Blacks, and Indians. Are they to be left out? Of course not, but the spirit and heart of the Revolution was unique and dare I say… um, “Exceptional.” No, TRUE, few women, blacks or  Indians participated (as very few owned enough land to vote), but the fact that so many white males were at a time when Monarchies and Aristocracies dominated the globe, it was radical, revolutionary and “Exceptional.” I contend that Kevin and others simply cannot crawl out of that “Presentism: box they exist in.

But it is about emphasis that we as educators take. Educators do not lie (well I hope not) they simply pick and choose what is important. I do it, we all do. Am I saying my way is best? No. To teach something from a limited point of view is exactly that, limiting. I agree with Kevin that teaching solely American Exceptionalism leaves much to be desired. However, for today’s educational biases where the opposite is the norm, I wish to pull a Howard Zinn and say that since we have a significant majority who teach American History from the left, as if American Exceptionalism is the Boogie Man, I want to emphasize that we did establish something good and that we did create a Republic that was unique and at that time, 1789, something exceptional. We have enough educators ranting about much the opposite. Too much.

So therefore, if its okay for some to claim that they can be an “activist” as there is a need or a void as Zinn has argued, than I say so be it and I will do the same.

By the way, the very first reading I gave my APUSH students was the introduction to Zinn’s “A People’s History…” and along with it the introduction to “A Patriot’s History.” It resulted in wonderful and “critical thinking” level synthesis from the students for an opening to the class.

PS-  I’m sure some of you are thinking, “Sure it was!” I did not say a word, I let them discuss and in the end, some valued Zinn and some did not. I was the “guide on the side” and that was best. Sure I had an opinion, but I stayed out. I doubt most teachers do.

So its one month into A.P.U.S.H. and I have had some interesting experiences. First, the level of the students was about what I expected. I had hoped for more students with a true passion for history. Many if not most are taking the class as it is an Advanced Placement class and, well, their parents make them!

One month into it, and, the class has dropped from 28 students to 17.  Disheartening. It was a progression as the first Quiz hit, then the daily work piled up, and eventually the first Unit Test last week. I have honestly been surprised by the number of students who simply cannot accept the fact that not everyone can get an A in A.P., it’s a hard class.

While it has been one month, I feel I am finally getting my feet under me and have enjoyed the class. Well, I am at the first night of parent teacher conferences and must retire from this post as I have my first parent standing before me!

Chris

Hello, I am alive and still kicking though my blogging has not reflected that as I have been drowning and swimming these past few weeks of my first foray as an A.P. U.S. history teacher.

Anyway, I have been reading — when I can — my fellow bloggers and there has been some chatter concerning a “50 greatest books on the Civil War of all time” via the Old Baldy Civil War Roundtable of Philadelphia who apparently published the results of a poll that resulted in the said list. Eric was happy by the listing of his books while Kevin, predictably, bemoaned that the list reflects the old guard of 55+ white men. (This link is in check with this observation.)

I have no idea if this list reflects old racist white men or stupidity or whatever, but I would bet you that these books outsell and are vastly more popular than the majority of social, racial, or gender based Civil War books that Kevin wishes dominated these lists. Right or wrong, maybe we should call these lists not the “Best” but the “Most Popular.” For the fact of the matter is that history books that deal with great historical figures and great historical events have always and will always dominate such lists. Nothing racial, ageist, sexiest, or anything else about it. Always has been and always will be.