The 1619 Project

[garbon]

Also interesting was the portrayal of Lincoln. I was definitely never taught that Frederick Douglass had this to say - where he can complicate our mythologizing of Abraham Lincoln and yet still celebrate him and his accomplishments.

All of this about Abraham Lincoln can be explained once you get out of the myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery, from the North's point of view.  The South fought slavery on which depended their economy and future, the North fought to protect the Union, on which depended their economy and future.

Lincoln engaged in a war to protect the Union.  Everything he did, even abolishing slavery in the end was to protect the Union, in his mind.

Lincoln still believed, before his election, that the Black man was inferior to the White man.  He was but a product of his time.

He said so himself at the beginning of the war that if he could end the war by freeing no slaves, freeing some or freeing them all he would do it.

It is no surprise that Douglass would celebrate his accomplishment, while criticizing the man.

Oh it completely makes sense it is just that it is completely swept under the rug.

In fact, one thing that was pointed out in 1619 was how the initial draft of the Emancipation Proclamation spoke of compensation for those losing property as well that black people should be encouraged to go back and colonize Africa. While I know we were taught about Liberia and incidentally the American Colonization Society, I recall that presented as solely a pre-war thing and not something advocated by the great Lincoln.

[Oexmelin]

The model you describe, Sheilbh, is the sort of model many historians have suggested over the years - basically something about "developping critical thinking skills".

I think it is laudable. It was mostly developped as an answer to strong mythical/national history narratives, and it has largely developped out of the rise of social history.

However, in the recent years, I think we have seen that it also runs the risk of leaving aside some basic building blocks of institutional history - esp., i.e., trying to understand how our societies "work". I remember David Hall, the great historian of the Puritans, having this sort of epiphany in a conference, that our critical narratives were continuously revising a baseline that was less and less understood.

It can also tend to leave unattended another purpose of history-as-civics, which is to provide the context for some shared cultural landmarks. At some point, for instance, you kinda have to learn some elements of, say, Catholicism, to make sense of the Reformation and its impact on British history.

The challenge, therefore, are to provide both a moment for history-as-narrative, and a moment for history-as-critique. In North America, at least, the old consensus was to (mostly) keep history-as-narrative for primary and secondary education, and leave history-as-critique for college. That broke down somewhat. I couldn't assume my American students had a firm grasp on the events of colonial America - even as they knew the beats of revisionist history, while the many of the more passionate history students had to turn to popular history (the bloody Presidents...) to provide them with more complex (but oh so problematic) narratives.

Of course, history-as-critique was always subjected to criticism, either because what was taught didn't fit well the old narrative model ("they don't know the names of our Prime Ministers!") or because it directly attacked the more mythical parts of national history (which is what Trumpians are targetting now, with their version of official, authorized history).

[Jacob]

A few semi-related thoughts:

Critiquing skills may be applicable if there's a narrative to critique.

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

Also, IMO, peoples and societies need common narratives to function

[Oexmelin]

Yes, on all three. The devil is very much in the details - about how to achieve that balancing act, which is harder and harder as the politics of history become more and more rigid and intolerant.

[garbon]

A few semi-related thoughts:

Critiquing skills may be applicable if there's a narrative to critique.

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

Also, IMO, peoples and societies need common narratives to function

To some extent we did it. Early on we learned about the Pilgrims but only later in school learned it wasn't all love, light and harmony. Similarly we learned about MLK Jr but only learned more about why he was needed.

Slavery was easier as when introduced could just blame the South.

[Barrister]

There were then, and are now even more, so many barriers between research at university and textbooks in the classroom. The interface between academic history, popular history, mythology (which informs so many parents who push back hard), and state programs was never the best (the AP programmes were an attempt to remedy that) but attempting to paint a more complex picture is basically a sisyphean task.

I don't remember having a "British history" class or learning it chronologically at school here. I was in Scotland and remember a whistlestop tour of Picts, Mary, Queen of Scots, Jacobites, Highland Clearances etc but it was very jumping through time - and basically until 14 (when it becomes optional). Obviously there is an angle in that narrative ().

But for 14-18 it's modular rather than chronological - and the whole point was really about making arguments. That speech I think would have been loved in a course (I didn't do the American Civil War at school) because my memory was that it was all about learning about different sources, thinking about how to balance them (who's writing, when, for what purpose etc) and basically building an argument using sources. So I think two of the most popular modules (I did both at my school) are the origins of the First World War and the rise of the Nazis - in part because there's loads of good primary and secondary sources and there's a live historiographical argument that essay questions will be based on. Is it a similar approach in the US? Because I feel like that speech would be really helpful in that sort of class?

History is tough because you have to have a certain grounding in exactly what happened, and in what sequence, before you can delve more deeply.

I'm glad we've moved beyond just rote memorization of the Kings of England, or US President, that I understand was common in my parents generation.  But "academic history" isn't appropriate for grade school, or probably even high school, students.  You need to know about the civil rights movement before you can delve into the Autobiography of Malcolm X.  You need to know the general scope of history of Scotland and the UK before exploring the Highland Clearances.

I'm a little bit puzzled by Sheilbh's insistence that his history was about "making arguments", as that seems like you're trying to use history to in fact teach rhetoric, or first year law school.  Law school was like a revelation for me because it was almost never about getting to the right answer - it was about asking the right questions.  But if you're dealing with high school students (or even 1st or 2nd year undergrads) learning history it should be about the right answers.

Studying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

Oex brings up "academic history".  I remember doing a 1st year-level university course on Canadian history in my final year of undergrad as a "fun" filler.  I had to do a final paper.  Partly looking for brownie points, but partly to cover the fact that 90% of my paper was a summarization of a proper book on the topic, I was trying to find academic articles to reference.  It was really hard to find anything that would be relevant to a 1st year level paper though, and would be even more so in high school.  (It worked for brownie points, I think I got an A+ and an invitation to study history honours.  I went to tell the professor thanks, but I had been accepted to law school.  He didn't seem impressed)

For certain was not blaming teachers for what they were mandated to teach. Although by my last couple years of high school, we were engaging with texts like the Autobiography of Malcolm X (and having discussions where white classmates said they thought racism was over...) which suggests to me there would have been some leeway to look at myths with a more critical lens had they been so inclined.

The above being said though by no means is trying to say you should stay away from controversial topics.  And that students can be engaged by controversial topics, certainly in a way that learning about the Oregon Trail yet again might not.  And yes, teachers have to deal with their stated curriculum so very hard to blame them for doing so.

[Barrister]

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

[HVC]

Thanks for the Extra leg work, garbon. Man, 25% rate for married black mothers is shockingly low.

[Valmy]

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Well history is tricky that way. Just because of its limitations it is difficult to get at "truth". But that doesn't apply to fields outside of history.

[garbon]

the AP programmes were an attempt to remedy that

I guess this is what it was like when I took Chemistry and Physics in high school and then took AP Chemistry and AP Physics. I remember in AP (and it was the same teachers who taught me first year in both cases), it was like okay throw out all the formulas we taught you last year as those don't accurately describe any of the phenomena but were useful to get you thinking as training exercises.

I remember being so angry to have wasted so much time learning foundations than then we turned around and smashed.

[garbon]

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Well history is tricky that way. Just because of its limitations it is difficult to get at "truth". But that doesn't apply to fields outside of history.

The despair of postmodernism.

[Barrister]

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Well history is tricky that way. Just because of its limitations it is difficult to get at "truth". But that doesn't apply to fields outside of history.

The despair of postmodernism.

But there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

Now you might have an experience like you did with AP Physics - that the facts you learned initially are more nuanced (a lot of what we know about Julius Caesar was from biased sources) , but you have to have the starting point.

[Valmy]

But there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

Now you might have an experience like you did with AP Physics - that the facts you learned initially are more nuanced (a lot of what we know about Julius Caesar was from biased sources) , but you have to have the starting point.

Sure but the Hows and Whys, and the facts surrounding those, is where the history is. It is kind of hard to teach about the Boston Tea Party and try to communicate why that event happened. Even when they nicely provide a slogan like "no taxation without representation" it gets a tad dicey. They weren't really demanding representation in the British Parliament...

[garbon]

but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

That's quite the handwave. There are so many events where we don't know exactly what happened or the sequence of the events that took place.

[Oexmelin]

I'm a little bit puzzled by Sheilbh's insistence that his history was about "making arguments", as that seems like you're trying to use history to in fact teach rhetoric, or first year law school.  Law school was like a revelation for me because it was almost never about getting to the right answer - it was about asking the right questions.  But if you're dealing with high school students (or even 1st or 2nd year undergrads) learning history it should be about the right answers.

That's because there seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of what a historical argument is - or what the "right" answer is.

The problem with teaching history as a series of "right answers" - is that it creates a profound misunderstanding about the nature of the historian's work. People can, at least, get a vague sense of science evolving because of "new discoveries" - even if that's a reductive view of what scientific work. That form of popular explanation doesn't work for history - hence the insistence on "new documents" being found often in the media. If no new documents are found, why is history changing? It *must* be because of woke professors brainwashing our kids...

The other element is the conflation between "cause" and "fault", which, because of history-as-civics, is often portrayed as indictment. A historical argument is basically arguing about causes and linkages. Because of the nature of historical knowledge, it is really quite rare that arguments are polar opposites of one another, or about finding the "true" culprit for something. Indeed, most of the time, it isn't about finding culprits at all. While there are disagreements about what constitutes a robust historical explanation, most historians try to produce forms of relative explanations that are liable to be argued: can one read the document this way? Is that the best proxy for the explanation? Is this the best scale? There are no simple answers to those questions, but I would argue you can produce appropriate narratives for primary and secondary school kids that, at least, provide an introduction to these questions without flirting with utter disregard for the truth, absolute relativism, or messes of conflicting stories. 

For instance:

Studying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

No, you don't. The unfolding of WWI has little bearing about its beginning, and one can really study diplomatic history without knowing the details of the Somme. It really depends on what you want to teach about WWI. Maybe the details of the Somme become relevant once you want to describe interwar politics. You may not even want to make it a national blame game - maybe you want to ascribe its cause to European imperialism, or to an arms race, or the nature of the international diplomatic scene. But it may also be interesting to understand *why* it often was turned into a blame game.

I was trying to find academic articles to reference.  It was really hard to find anything that would be relevant to a 1st year level paper though, and would be even more so in high school.

Times have changed. Now there is google scholar. Thousands of articles are available at the tip of the student's finger.
So is ChatGPT.

In any case, first year of college is all about acquiring the skills to let go of the training wheels (the textbook-style narratives, the reassuring topics) and get your hand in the details of how an argument is made. It's harder to do when students are here for brownie points, but also, when students come in with a passion for history - but for history-as-details-oriented - because their idea of a better argument is one where you get all the uniforms and weapons right...