On 9 11

[eisely]

The following is excerpted from a piece by William Bennett appearing in the Wall Street Journal. Our schools are failing our students again in the teaching of history.

 

"Sept. 11 has underscored the importance of teaching morality and patriotism, two ideas that have lost favor. American students should be taught what makes this nation great. They should learn the bedrock principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, ideas like equality, freedom and justice under law. They should know about the honor and courage of 1776, what Abraham Lincoln did to preserve this union, and how so many laid down their lives to defend freedom in America and abroad during the world wars. Nowhere else has freedom flourished like it has in America; never before in the history of the world have so many around the globe benefited because there is a land of the free and a home of the brave. Even with its faults, America remains the best nation on earth--which is one lesson never to be forgotten: We were attacked for our virtues, not our sins.

 

"Am I embarrassed to speak for a less-than-perfect democracy?" asked former Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan. His answer: "Not one bit. Find me a better one. Do I suppose there are societies which are free of sin? No, I don't. Do I think ours is, on balance, incomparably the most hopeful set of human relations the world has? Yes, I do."

 

Because our greatness is being denigrated, unlearned and forgotten, it has become a moral imperative to teach it. And a fair reading and teaching of our history will reveal, once again, that we truly are the "last, best hope of Earth."

 

 

[ASM7]

Maybe Mr. Bennett should familiarize himself with some of the things Lincoln said.

[Rooster7]

ASM7,

 

Your response seems to be implying some sort of dig toward Mr. Bennett, but it's pretty ambiguous. Exactly how has Mr. Bennett misrepresented Lincoln? That was your implication, was it not? Regardless, which of the above statements deserve criticism? I think Mr. Bennett's words are true.

 

[yaworski]

I really wonder what they teach in school today. According to my son, "George Washington was that President guy." Thy'e studied Japan, Mexico, and China in great detail but he can't tell you where California is.

[ASM7]

No, it wasn't a dig on Bennett. He didn't misrepresent Lincoln. I think that history has not included all of Mr. Lincoln's views on different issues. Some of the speeches he made could raise some eye brows.

[NJCubScouter]

I would hope that on the anniversary of 9-11 we would focus on things like remembering those who gave their lives because they were Americans, honoring those who performed herculean efforts (and in some cases sacrificed themselves) to save others, and also to honor all of those millions of Americans who contributed to the relief efforts, and ourselves as a nation for the way we came together in this time of tragedy, for the common purpose of recovering from our wounds and bringing to justice those who attacked us.

 

If I have missed any specific aspect of what I am talking about, I think you get the gist. When we remember 9-11, let's focus on what unites us. Let's all wave the flag -- as my pack will be doing literally as we participate in uniform in a ceremony hosted by a local minor-league baseball team, but endorsed by council.

 

What I think people should not do, especially in connection with the "anniversary" or "Patriots Day" as some are calling it, is to use 9-11 to promote their ideological or political agenda. (Or their commercial agenda, though that is not directly relevant to this thread, at least not yet.) Unfortunately I believe that Mr. Bennett has done just that. He certainly is not the first.

 

I understand that Mr. Bennett feels that the public education system in this country is terrible. He has been saying so for years. I just don't see how the 9-11 reference advances his argument, except to try to tug at peoples' emotional heartstrings. I say, stick to the facts and try to persuade people that way, not implicitly invoke the mutual horror that we experienced to promote your educational (and ideological) agenda.

 

I also disagree with Mr. Bennett factually. My children all attend (or have attended) public schools and have been taught the basics of American History that Mr. Bennett contends are being left out. Maybe my school district is unusual, but I don't know why that would be so. Are my children specifically taught that this is the "best nation on Earth"? I have to admit that I am not sure. I also am not sure they should be taught opinions, at least not until they learn the basic facts and are capable of evaluating the opinions for themselves. In elementary and high school they should be taught the facts of American and world history as well as the critical and reasoning skills necessary to draw their own conclusions.

 

Unfortunately, I think the type of education Mr. Bennett is advocating -- in other words the type of education that I received in the 60s -- unfortunately left out some important facts, idealized or in some cases, outright falsified some facts. The settlers of this country wiped out many Native Americans and "appropriated" their land. Jefferson and Washington, however great the things they did, owned slaves. Much more recently, in the 50s through the 80s, this nation overthrew democratic governments in nearby countries to install dictators more to our liking (or tried to), often at the cost of innocent lives. I was never taught those things in school. I was, however, taught that the Spanish started the Spanish-American war by blowing up the Maine. It didn't happen, and our government knew it, and more importantly, at the time I was taught this in school, historians knew it wasn't true. More trivially, I was taught that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, not as a fable with a valid and important lesson (which it is), but as the truth. There are other examples.

 

I'm not saying to inundate kids with all this in the first grade. I'm not saying to teach kids that these things make this a bad country. I also don't think that the even-worse conduct of other nations over the centuries should be sugar-coated as they often are. It is really only when you have a broad understanding of human history that you can appreciate how great this country is. But I don't think it benefits anyone to give kids the kind of education where they get to college and, as I did, suddenly realize, hey, those elementary and high school history classes left out some important stuff.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[sctmom]

Here is one thing I didn't learn in history classes. Just learned about this a few years ago. The Japanese camps here in the United States during World War II!

 

Bennett is right that Lincoln preserved the Union, he wasn't out to free the slaves.

 

[Rooster7]

I think that history has not included all of Mr. Lincoln's views on different issues. Some of the speeches he made could raise some eye brows.

 

Okay...I wasn't sure where you were going. As to Lincoln's writings and speeches, you may have a point. Nevertheless, I think the gist of Mr. Bennett's comments is right on the mark. Politicians and the media of the day have made a mockery of our country's history. To hear some of them tell it, it's amazing anyone defended our nation.

 

If you believe today's version of history, no one should be proud to be an American. The pilgrims were a bunch of intolerant religious bigots who sat around judging others and went on witch-hunts. The Wild West wasn't tamed, but destroyed by greedy ranchers and prospectors. Racial bigots whose only interest was to make more money dominated the West and South of the 1800's. Industrialists, who cared more about money than society, exploited the workers in the Northeast and West during the 1900's. Furthermore, our government sheltered them and aided their efforts. Every war we ever fought was about money or protecting our narrow-minded interests. This is the history that some want to proclaim in our schools today. While parts are true, it's a disgrace how many public schools portray our forefathers and their desires for this country. Many "teachers" it seems would rather focus on the self-proclaimed victims of revision than the true heroes who fought and bled for the noble ideas of this country. In 30 years, the true victims of 9-11 may well be portrayed as foolish pawns of our "stubborn and intolerant" government. It's been less than a year and there are some who imply that today.

 

Has our country been less than perfect? Yes, but why is this a shock...And more importantly, why is it that some feel a need to shout this from the rooftops while practically ignoring the sacrifice and efforts of so many great men and women. I'm proud to be an American. I wouldn't trade my citizenship or this country's history for any other on this planet. Those folks, who think some other nation has something on us, should review their history as well. I challenge you to find a nation that has a history with fewer blemishes. I'll put our nation up against it and make comparisons anytime!

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter]

I alluded to this earlier, but I want to expand on it a bit.

 

I don't want anybody to think I am picking on the United States or its history. What I am criticizing is the way history was taught in the past. I want to be fair, and point out that U.S. history is by no means alone in the sugar-coating and twisting of history for reasons of "patriotism."

 

To give an example, I thought of a figure from medieval British history who is universally thought of as a supremely evil, wicked man -- King Richard III. His distant cousin and immediate successor, Henry Tudor (King Henry VII) is thought of as a good guy, uniter of England after the Wars of the Roses, etc. How do we know these things? Mostly from the plays of William Shakespeare, from whom generations of high school students (and movie-goers) have learned what happened. The most dastardly act attributed to Richard III is the murder of the "Princes in the Tower", the "princes" being Richard's two nephews, the older of whom was the deposed King Edward V (age 12.) Shakespeare tells us that Richard III deposed his nephew and usurped the throne, and had the boys placed in the Tower of London (for "safe keeping") -- both of which are undeniably true -- and then had them killed. To the extent that American school children learn anything about this historical era, this is what we learn. What we do not learn is that there is at least as much evidence that the murders took place somewhat later than Shakespeare says and were ordered by Henry VII, who was much further down the line of succession than Richard III had been and had ample motive to get the young former king out of the way to eliminate a rival claimant. We also do not hear much about Shakespeare's "conflict of interest" in this matter -- his greatest supporter was none other than his Queen, Elizabeth I, who by the way, was a granddaughter of Henry VII. Shakespeare's account was raised to the level of "history" by Elizabeth and her successors, all descendants of Henry VII. It is a classic case of "the winners write the history books."

 

If you look around, you will find a few web sites dedicated to clearing the name of Richard III, but these have the same sad tone as those run by the descendants of such as Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold. History has made its judgment on Richard III, however incorrect it may be.

 

For those of you who are still awake, my long-winded point is that history ain't so simple, so (and here's the real point): When there is a change in the way in which a historical event or era is taught, the change is not necessarily bad. The change can just as easily correct a previous misstatement of historical fact, as introduce a new misstatement.

 

In the case of American history, I don't see the teaching of history as being as unbalanced as William Bennett (or Rooster) claims. Rooster lists a number of things he claims are currently taught about American history, and then says "parts are true." In fact a substantial amount of what Rooster lists is true. I especially liked this one:

 

Industrialists, who cared more about money than society, exploited the workers in the Northeast and West during the 1900's. Furthermore, our government sheltered them and aided their efforts.

 

That is completely, absolutely true and there is really little or no dispute about it. It is what I learned in high school, but before I could learn it, I had to un-learn what I had learned in elementary school about this country being built by upstanding industrialists interested only in progress. (Or at least that is the impression I have of what I learned, all of this was 25-30 years ago.)

 

But the real point is, are today's students taught only or even mostly bad things about the U.S.? I don't think so. When I have browsed through my children's history books, they seem fairly well balanced to me. What I think really upsets people like William Bennett is that the one-sided, sugar-coated, fairy-tale version of American history, in which G.W. could not tell a lie, is no longer taught in most schools. If indeed it is no longer taught, I am glad. It may have made us feel good as children, but it is not the whole truth.

[KoreaScouter]

In "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith called it "enlightened self-interest". In other words, by investing my capital to build this factory, I certainly hope to earn a substantial return on investment, with the understanding and desire that those who work in the factory will also prosper enough to be able to purchase what they build. Entirely altruistic, which seems to be the standard some would hold an industrialist to? Of course not, but who is motivated solely by altruism (except maybe we Scouters)? Let's not fall into the trap of completely judging people's activities a hundred years ago by today's standards. Let's remember, many people back then who railed against industrialists did not think twice about sending their own children to toil in those factories. A hundred years from now, people will likely look back on us in horror that we allowed kids to play video games, deliver newspapers, or operate vehicles that weren't robotically guided.

 

Henry Ford is still regarded as a groundbreaking compassionate humanitarian for paying $5 a day to his factory workers at the turn of the century. His main motivation in doing so was to reduce factory turnover and save training and scrap costs.

 

I happen to be a big fan of Mr. Bennett, and many of his books (The Book of Virtues, the Children's Book of Virtues, the Book of Heroes, The Educated Child) are in our library. I have read to my childrens' school classes from The Children's Book of Virtues, and they have always been captivated (or, maybe it's just me!). If you study The Educated Child's recommendations on curriculum across grade levels, his excellent sections on private and home schooling as well as the good public schools he points out, you'll see he doesn't have an ideological bias, or an interest in sugar-coating anything.

 

As many Americans including teachers and parents deal with the date (as we will every year now), they're revisiting questions such as: How do we make this relevant to our kids; what can we do to make our kids resilient; what do our kids need to know and understand about America's place in the world? Mr. Bennett offers a foundation based on morals and patriotism. Check him out before you bash him.

 

Yaworski, your complaint about kids knowing about Japan but not California is common, too, and becoming more so as many states adopt standardized testing. The problem, as I saw it when we lived in Virginia, is that when the various state governments devise the standards, the history and geography portions in particular are heavily focused on the particular state you're in, at the expense of a larger world view. In the 4th grade, my son could define the five specific regions of Virginia, identify their borders, plot the fall line on a state map, and knew the three main factors that determined why the capital was sited in Richmond...but he couldn't find Alaska on a map. That is, until I used...ta-daa! William Bennett's "The Educated Child" to fill in those gaps with additional work (had to get that shameless plug in)...

 

KS

[VH_50]

KoreaScouter makes a fair point about the need to be careful when applying modern standards to historical figures, but if we're going to admit the "times were different then" argument . . .

 

1) We need to be honest about it and explain *how* times were different then, even if the differences are ugly. If we're going to excuse Jefferson's ownership of slaves on the grounds that "times were different," we should also acknowledge that most Enlightenment thinkers (TJ included) believed that non-white races were biologically inferior . . .

 

2) We need to acknowledge that, even when "times were different," there were often people who objected to the way things were on the same grounds that we would. If *our* criticisms of Henry Ford as a tight-fisted anti-Semite who tried to micro-manage his workers' private lives and sent armed thugs to attack strikers aren't legitimate . . . what about Ford's contemporary critics, who brought similar charges?

 

3) We need to be *very* careful not to fall into a double standard . . . using the "times were different" argument to excuse the behavior of people we like, but refusing to apply it to people we don't like (or don't care about). Is it logical to gloss over the racism in Washington and Jefferson's ownership of slaves, but deplore it in the lynch mobs of the 1920s or the segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s?

 

4) We need to ask ourselves whether we'd be willing to apply the equivalent standard to other societies: "Different cultures do things differently, and we ought not to judge them strictly by our standards." If we're willing to cut the Puritans a little slack for the witches they burnt, are we equally willing to cut (say) the Aztecs a little slack for their use of human sacrifice in their religious rituals?

 

Let me finish where I started. I think KoreaScouter makes a good point: Seeing the past on its own terms is essential, IMHO, to understanding it. BUT, declaring that "It's wrong to judge the actions of historical figures by contemporary standards" is *not* a position to adopt lightly.

 

[VH_50]

On a lighter note . . .

 

NJCubScouter (or anyone else interested in Richard III),

 

If you've never read Josephine Tey's novel _The Daughter of Time_, it's well worth a try. The plot involves a Scotland Yard detective who (to pass the time while recovering from surgery) decides to investigate the death of the "Princes in the Tower" as if it were a contemporary murder case. He begins to suspect that, despite Shakespeare's literary hatchet-job, Richard III may have been innocent . . .

 

Great fun!

 

 

[yaworski]

" The settlers of this country wiped out many Native Americans and "appropriated" their land."

 

So what? The Normans . . . The Turks invaded Greece. The Persians invaded. . . . The Egyptians invaded . . . The Zulus invaded . . .

 

Hey, you know what? The Indians were invading each others territories, looting, killing and pillaging long before we got here. The Central and South American cultures were horrible, just killing right and left.

 

There was a war, the Indians lost. Wah, wah, wah! I see no one crying out about the horrible Normans squashing the Saxon way of life. Let's ban all words of Norman origin from our language.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Yaworski, you respond to one sentence taken from the middle of my post, but you miss the point of the whole thing. I never said anything about "crying" or about removing words from a language. I didn't state any criticism or condemnation or make any value judgment about the settlers' treatment of the Native Americans. (Mind you, I could, but I didn't.) That is not what this thread, or my posts in it, are about.

 

All I am saying is that the facts should be taught in school. All the facts, not just the section of the facts that make us feel good. The facts about the English settlers, about the Normans, about the Turks, about one Native American tribe attacking another, about all of them, on all sides, the attackers and the attacked. Everybody should be given the facts and permitted to draw their own conclusions. If someone wants to conclude that it was ok to give the Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets as a "gift," because of the Persians and the Normans and one tribe against another, well, fine. But they have to know the facts first before they can draw that conclusion. A historical judgment based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge of the facts is worth nothing.

 

However, I do have to point out a difference between the history of the Native Americans and that of the Persians, Egyptians, Zulus or whoever else, which explains why people in this country are more interested in the history of Native Americans. They were here. We are not in Persia or Egypt or Africa. If we were, we would probably be more interested in what happened there. But we are here, so we are interested in what happened here. I am not defending this kind of parochialism, but it is part of human nature.

 

And, by the way, if you "see no one crying out about the horrible Normans squashing the Saxon way of life," you must not have read "Ivanhoe." And in some cave in Northern Egypt there is probably an etching expressing outrage about these Greek invaders under Alexander the Great swooping in here and taking over our land. History repeats itself, only the names change.

 

But kids deserve to know the names, and the dates, places, etc., without the government or the textbook writers deciding that some of the facts don't fit the approved agenda.

[eisely]

I saw a quote from Napoleon recently to the effect that, "History is an agreed fable." Another quote from some source I saw a long time ago is that, "History is the propaganda of the victors." There is some truth to these, but we must rise above cynicism. We can teach the facts without denigrating ourselves. There are unpleasant facts, such as slavery. One should also point out that the injustice of slavery was redeemed quite literally in white mens' blood.

 

Thomas Sowell wrote a book a few years ago. I forget the exact title but it incorporated the words "Cosmic Justice" as in the search for, etc. One of his main points was that the United State was held up to ideal standards while other countries were held up to lesser standards. Too many people in the US today dismiss the achievements of their own country because it does not meet all their ideals. Not a sound basis for policy making or teaching.