Today was the first day for the second running of Eric Foner's Civil War & Reconstruction course series. You can enroll here at this link: Eric Foner's The Civil War & Reconstruction. The series is outstanding. There are three courses offered in the series that take the learner from the antebellum period to the end of Reconstruction in 1877. I highly recommend these courses for anyone who is interested in the Civil War and wants a chance to learn from a master of the craft.
EdX is the platform the courses work on. They are completely free and there are no essay assignments. For a fee you can earn a certificate if you desire one. The course is completely asynchronous with the video lectures accessible at any time. There are suggested readings which are useful. I read two of Foner's books during the series and found it beneficial, especially in the Reconstruction course.
I found the courses to be enjoyable. Forums are available as well and there were some very good conversations that took place. A few Lost Causers showed up in the first week or two, but they pretty much vanished when they discovered that no one was interested in their mythistory and lies. The video lectures were filmed from Foner's final course on the subject at Columbia, so this is a great chance to "sit in" on actual college lectures.
I found the Reconstruction course to be the best. I still reference the lectures from time to time and it really helped me develop the chapter that kicked off my newest course which I am teaching this semester, American History from 1865. This is probably one area of history that is least understood and as we go through the 150th anniversary of the period, I am sure there will be some disagreements as heritage types complain about facts being used to revise history.
Again, I highly recommend this series. The courses do not need to be taken in their entirety as a series. If you are conversant with the Civil War materials and weaker on the Reconstruction, you can take that course without taking the other two. In any event, I do not think you will be disappointed.
A website and blog dedicated to the expansion of history education.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
History...Yesterday in the Present
Taken from Ben Franklin's World, Episode 043
Editor's Note: I really cannot say enough about Liz Covart and Ben Franklin's World. I admire her for being able to do this. I was going through the work behind the 18th Amendment in class today and pointed out how Americans were such hard drinkers in the early 19th century, thus making temperance and prohibition slightly crazy things that actually happened. Then I explained why it happened. Liz has a nice piece here on those early years.
How and when did doctors become respected professionals in American society?
The answer lies in early Americans’ fascination with delirium tremens, or alcoholic insanity, and the Temperance Movement of the early-to-mid 19th century.
Today, Matthew Osborn, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of Rum Maniacs: Alcoholic Insanity in the Early American Republic, leads us on an exploration of early American medical history and reform movements.
It is a show for people who love history and for those who want to know more about the historical people and events that have impacted and shaped our present-day world.
Each episode features a conversation with an historian who helps us shed light on important people and events in early American history.
|
During our conversation, Matthew reveals what delirium tremens are; Why early Americans became fascinated with delirium tremens and excessive drinking during the 1820s; And information about the Temperance Movement and how doctors used the movement to elevate their social and professional status in American society.
Get in Touch! Send me an e-mail, tweet, or leave a comment.
Why Not Subscribe?
|
Positive ratings and reviews help bring Ben Franklin’s World to the attention of other history lovers who may not be aware of our show
Click here to rate & review on iTunes | Click here to rate & review on Stitcher
Editor's Note: I really cannot say enough about Liz Covart and Ben Franklin's World. I admire her for being able to do this. I was going through the work behind the 18th Amendment in class today and pointed out how Americans were such hard drinkers in the early 19th century, thus making temperance and prohibition slightly crazy things that actually happened. Then I explained why it happened. Liz has a nice piece here on those early years.
Episode 043: Matthew Osborn, Rum Maniacs: Alcoholic Insanity in the Early American Republic
By Liz Covart
The answer lies in early Americans’ fascination with delirium tremens, or alcoholic insanity, and the Temperance Movement of the early-to-mid 19th century.
Today, Matthew Osborn, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of Rum Maniacs: Alcoholic Insanity in the Early American Republic, leads us on an exploration of early American medical history and reform movements.
About the Show
Ben Franklin’s World is a podcast about early American history.It is a show for people who love history and for those who want to know more about the historical people and events that have impacted and shaped our present-day world.
Each episode features a conversation with an historian who helps us shed light on important people and events in early American history.
Listen Now
Ben Franklin's World
Episode 043: Matthew Osborn, Rum Maniacs
Episode Summary
In this episode, Matthew Osborn, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of Rum Maniacs: Alcoholic Insanity in the Early American Republic, leads us on an exploration of early American reform movements and medical history.During our conversation, Matthew reveals what delirium tremens are; Why early Americans became fascinated with delirium tremens and excessive drinking during the 1820s; And information about the Temperance Movement and how doctors used the movement to elevate their social and professional status in American society.
What You’ll Discover
- The professionalization of the medical profession over the early republic
- Definition of delirium tremens
- How Matthew came to study alcoholic insanity during the early republic
- Why early Americans became fascinated with heavy alcohol consumption
- Why early Americans drank a lot of alcohol
- Information about Benjamin Rush and his interest in temperance
- How society came to perceive heavy alcoholic drinking as a societal problem
- How and why doctors raised elite issues
- What the early American economy looked like in the 1810s and 1820s
- Connections between heavy drinking and the economic problems of the 1810s and 1820s
- How alcohol consumption became a way to ascribe personal responsibility for the condition of poverty
- Matthias Baldwin and his quest to end poverty through temperance
- Whether African Americans or women who lived in the early republic suffered from delirium tremens and excessive drinking
- Problems with statistics on early Americans who suffered or died from delirium tremens
- The Temperance Movement, ca. 1783-1840s
- Whether the 19th-century Temperance Movement had success in limiting alcohol consumption
- How doctors used the Temperance Movement to curb the practice of unorthodox medical treatments
- How early Americans made delirium tremens a topic of entertainment
- How Walt Disney’s Dumbo made entertainment out of delirium tremens
- Whether the desire for delirium tremens as entertainment drove anyone to drink to produce entertainment
- Edgar Allan Poe and delirium tremens
- How delirium tremens and 19th-century depictions of the disease have shaped 21st-century perceptions of alcoholism
Links to People, Places, and Publications
- Matthew W. Osborn
- Matthew’s University of Missouri-Kansas City webpage
- Twitter: @UMKCHistoryProf
- Rum Maniacs: Alcoholic Insanity in the Early American Republic
- William Rourabaugh, The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition
- Karen Haltunnen, Murder Most Foul: The Killer and the American Gothic Imagination
- Episode 020 Kyle Bulthuis, Four Steeples Over the City Streets
- Episode 030 Shelby Balik, Rally the Scattered Believers
- Matthew’s interview with The Kansas City Star
Time Warp Question
In your opinion what might have happened if doctors had not taken such an interest in delirium tremens in the early 19th century? Would early Americans have taken a strong interest in the disease and its symptoms? If not, how would our modern-day understandings of alcoholism be different?Questions, Comments, Suggestions
Do you have a question, comment, or suggestion?Get in Touch! Send me an e-mail, tweet, or leave a comment.
Subscribe!
Enjoy the Podcast?Why Not Subscribe?
|
Ratings & Reviews
If you enjoy this podcast, please give it a rating and review.Positive ratings and reviews help bring Ben Franklin’s World to the attention of other history lovers who may not be aware of our show
Click here to rate & review on iTunes | Click here to rate & review on Stitcher
Ben Franklin's World: A Podcast About Early American History
048 Ken Miller, Dangerous Guests; Enemy Captives During the War for Independence
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
History...Yesterday in the Present
From hero to traitor: Benedict Arnold’s day of infamy
Where the Meeting took place |
Arnold was descended from of one of the founding families of Rhode Island. The major general led and served with honor at Ticonderoga, Quebec and Saratoga. But Arnold often fought with other officers and Congress. American commander George Washington understood Arnold’s shortcomings, but valued his usefulness on the battlefield.
Arnold was wounded seriously at Saratoga and Washington put Arnold in charge of the city of Philadelphia after the British ended their occupation. When Washington then asked Arnold to rejoin his Army as a top commander, Arnold instead requested command of the Hudson Valley region and the facility at West Point, New York.
Andre was a top aide to British commander Sir Henry Clinton. The young major also led the British spy network and had been in secret talks with Arnold for some time.
Within a month of their meeting, Andre was executed under orders from American commander Washington for espionage, while Arnold fled to a British side that didn’t exactly welcome him with open arms.
The British, and many Americans, blamed Arnold for the death of the popular Major Andre, and many people resented that it was Andre, and not Arnold, who swung from the gallows.
On September 21, with the help of a loyalist associate, Joshua Hett Smith, Arnold and Andre had met near the Hudson River at Smith’s house. The men had corresponded using coded letters. Arnold would arrange for the British to easily take over the key American facility of West Point, which Arnold commanded. The price was 20,000 pounds and a British military command for Arnold.
The British believed the acquisition of West Point would give their military control of the Hudson Valley, a potentially important blow to American independence. But fate conspired against both men. The British ship HMS Vulture, which had transported Andre to the meeting, was forced from the scene by American gunfire.
Andre was forced to walk back to the British lines in civilian disguise, but he was confronted by three American militiamen while Andre believed he was on British-controlled territory. The Americans quickly discovered the plot and Arnold was able to flee on the same ship that carried Andre up the Hudson River.
Washington reportedly authorized kidnap plots to seize Arnold to be either returned to American lines for execution, or to be killed on sight. As a British commander, Arnold led forays into Virginia and Connecticut, and he was able to flee to Britain after the war concluded.
Later in life, Arnold failed in several business ventures in Britain and Canada, and he died in England in 1801. One Massachusetts newspaper noted his passing with one line: “In England, Brigadier General Benedict Arnold, notorious throughout the world.”
In popular culture, the words “Benedict Arnold” became synonymous with treason or becoming a traitor. And at West Point, Arnold’s name was erased from a series of monuments that honor the generals of the Revolutionary War.
Back in 1781, Benjamin Franklin wrote to the Marquis De Lafayette about Arnold’s treason, after American agents seized a letter that said Arnold only received 5,000 pounds for his acts. Franklin compared Arnold to Judas and said it was “a miserable bargain especially when one considers the quantity of infamy he has acquired to himself and entailed on his family.”
The Mad Historian's Athenaeum, Vol. 1, No. 19
Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign
Relations since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. xvi + 1036
ppg.
This entry
into the Oxford History of the United States focuses its attention on the
diplomatic affairs of the nation since its founding in 1776. In doing so, this
volume examines US history through the lens of two centuries and more which
sets it apart from the other volumes which focus on smaller time spans. I found
the book to be interesting as most histories tend to focus on all aspects of
eras and denote foreign affairs only as sideshows to domestic events. Herring’s
lens placed foreign affairs at the center of attention and showed how they
impacted domestic affairs. This was a rather interesting change of pace.
Herring is
the Alumni Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Kentucky. He has
specialized in studying American foreign affairs as a career field and has
written several books on the subject. This volume is the culmination of that
specialized study. Beginning with Benjamin Franklin and his incredible
achievements in France during the American War of Independence right up to the
first decade of the 21st century, Herring covers the often mishandled
foreign policy of the nation.
The thing
that struck me the most in reading the book is that Herring seemed to show how
there has never been a general US foreign policy. It has always changed
depending on the will of the president and political party in control of the
federal government. I would think this would be extremely frustrating for other
nations who constantly had to adapt to a new president and their desires. If
one thing stands out, it is that the nation’s leaders often regulated foreign
policy to the backburner in favor of domestic affairs, but soon found out that
this approach often failed. Woe to the American president who ignored foreign
affairs after WWII. In some cases foreign policy influenced their decision
making process far more than they wanted to the point where foreign affairs played
a make or break role in their administration’s success in the long term.
A prime
example of this would be Lyndon Johnson. The conflict in Vietnam sapped his
ability to sustain his liberal domestic policy which resulted in conservative
assaults upon it that severely crippled the legislation’s ability to live up to
its promises. The nation still deals with the effects of that event. In the
case of early American presidents, Herring also shows how foreign policy
impacted their choices. Jefferson and Madison are often well known for their
domestic policies and political idealism, but foreign affairs played such a
strong role in their choices that contemporary Americans often felt those
administrations were nowhere nearly as successful as modern Americans make them
out to be.
Herring is
extremely critical of the unilateralism policies of George W. Bush and his
neo-conservative base. He saw these policies as disastrous which probably
reflects the attitudes of the academic community at large during those times as
well as the hindsight which has clearly shown unilateralism to have
significantly damaged America’s standing in the international community. I
thought the book was excellent even without that analysis. While some readers
may object to that analysis, the facts bear out Herring’s assessment.
Herring
supported his interpretations quite well with a great deal of scholarship as
borne out by his supporting documentation. He used a rich mixture of primary
and secondary sources to develop them. I really liked the book and its set up
as working the different eras via chapters. Each one could be read separate
from the other which is helpful for instructors who are looking for information
on specific time periods. The drawback is this is a big book and the separation
can cause readers to set it down for long stretches. All in all I found the book to be a very good
study of US foreign policy which has greatly enriched my understanding of the
nation’s development over time.
Monday, September 21, 2015
History...Yesterday in the Present
Mount Vernon's Civil War symbolism
It remained whole during the war — a sign of America's early promise and future hope.
Story by Rachel Smolkin and Brenna Williams, CNN
Mount Vernon, Virginia
During the bloody years when the
Civil War tore apart the United States, one place remained whole: a
symbol of America's early promise and future hope.
Mount Vernon, the Virginia home of George
Washington on the banks of the Potomac River, was a refuge for Union and
Confederate soldiers throughout the war. All were welcome to pay their
respects to the father of the country, so long as their weapons were
left behind and their uniforms were removed or hidden from view.
For the next 14 months, Americans will focus on
choosing their next president -- a task that is reinforcing the nation's
modern-day divisions. But a fast-paced campaign waged in the moment
also offers an opportunity to look backward -- a chance to rekindle
stories of presidents who came before, the places they loved and how
they brought the country together.
No presidential place is more emblematic of
American unity than the cherished home of its first president, which
attracts more than 1 million visitors each year.
About this series
Presidential Places is a weekly series on past presidents and places they loved. Over the next five weeks, we'll take a look at iconic presidential sites from Mount Vernon to LBJ's ranch.
Yet Mount Vernon likely would not be here today if it weren't for the Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
The nation's oldest historic preservation society, which formed in the
years leading up to the Civil War to save Washington's house, kept it
open to both sides during the war and protected it in the turbulent
years afterward, when survival and recovery -- not preservation of
national landmarks -- consumed the nation's attention.
"It's hard to believe, but only 50 years after his
death, in the early 1850s, the home was in complete disrepair," said
Curt Viebranz, president of George Washington's Mount Vernon, during a
recent interview by Washington's marble tomb. "A woman was taking a
steamer (on the Potomac). It was the custom of the captain to ring the
bell when he got in front of Mount Vernon. She looked up. She saw the
shape of the house."
Upset by her moonlight view, Louisa Bird Cunningham persuaded her daughter, Ann, to take up the mission of saving it.
"I was painfully distressed at the ruin and
desolation of the home of Washington and the thought passed through my
mind: Why was it that the women of his country did not try to keep it in
repair, if the men could not do it?" Louisa Cunningham wrote to Ann
Pamela Cunningham. "It does seem such a blot on our country!"
Five years after founding the Mount Vernon Ladies'
Association, they raised enough for an $18,000 down payment in 1858 --
and paid off the entire $200,000 cost
in 1866. In those days, fundraising by women was considered scandalous.
So they and their friends wrote anonymous letters to newspapers to
bring in money.
An 1858 notice for the Courtland County Fair
includes a request for contributions "from both sexes and in any sums"
including "The dime or even the penny of the child" and is signed by the
"Lady Managers" of the Mount Vernon Association. A December 2, 1853,
appeal to the "mothers and daughters of the South" is signed simply by
"A Southern Matron."
The ladies did not hold back in stating their case
in the starkest terms. An 1858 plea "To the Children of the Public
Schools" notes that Washington's happiest days were spent at his
beautiful home, and he worked throughout his life to maintain it.
"Now this dear old house and farm of our Washington
is running to rack and ruin; the paths are being run over with weeds;
the house, his home, is crumbling to pieces; the tomb is a disgrace,"
the ladies wrote. "All say who visit it that the whole is a burning
shame to the nation whom he so faithfully served -- It is a shame,
children, and you must help to remove it!"
As the ladies collected contributions, Washington's
family, aware the home was falling into disrepair and struggling to
maintain it, had begun the search for a trustworthy buyer.
John Augustine Washington III, the President's great-grandnephew,
wanted to sell it either to the Commonwealth of Virginia or the federal
government, "neither of whom wanted any part of it, and part of it was
because there was this sense of impending Civil War," Viebranz said.
The ladies took over the house in 1860 -- a year
before the start of the Civil War -- at a time of fast-rising tensions
between the North and South.
"There was some nervousness about what might happen
to the house," Viebranz said. "But through an order of Gen. Winfield
Scott, who was a Union general, it was really set up as neutral ground.
So, effectively, any soldiers that visited Mount Vernon, Confederate or
Union soldiers, came out of uniform, with absolutely no flags or
anything like that, because it was thought to be totally nonpartisan."
Even before the ladies took over, Washington's tomb
had become a national site for pilgrimage. When he died on December 14,
1799, at 67, President John Adams approached Martha Washington about
burying her husband at the site that would become the Capitol.
Martha Washington reluctantly agreed, but the plan
never came to fruition and Washington was buried at his home. Initially
in a small tomb up the hill, he was moved to his present location in
1831. The site, lovely and peaceful, has two simple marble sarcophagi --
one is George Washington's, the other Martha's.
Americans came to pay their respects throughout the
early 1800s. When the Civil War started, they kept coming: walking the
grounds and, in some instances, taking rocks or other mementos.
All were expected to maintain their neutrality while on the property.
"While they may not have removed the uniform, the
theory was to make sure that nobody was openly showing any of their
uniform," Viebranz said. "So they may have come, changed, or they may
have put on a cloak that covered all of their insignias and their battle
uniform."
The ladies association picked up its work after the
war, when the devastating loss of life and property turned attention
away from national landmarks and toward more urgent matters.
The ladies acknowledged this reality in an 1868 appeal to the "rich men and rich women of the country."
"We who would be willing to labor again, know that in this day, the people cannot be acted upon as before -- all is changed."
This plea, signed by Ann Pamela Cunningham, asks
whether their work "shall remain like some funeral shaft -- perfect in
design -- beautiful in execution -- but unfinished -- or, that it shall
proceed to completion, with increasing beauty as it reaches its crowning
point!"
The ladies' early efforts established the goal of
preserving presidential landmarks and offered a model for nonprofits to
follow.
"The Mount Vernon Ladies Association really is the
gold standard for presidential preservation," said Andrew Coffin,
president and director of the Reagan Ranch. "They've done a phenomenal
job."
Sunday, September 20, 2015
History...Yesterday in the Present
9-18-15
South Dakota: Please Reconsider Your Decision to Dump
Early American History
Historians/History
tags: history
tags: history
by John Fea
John
Trumbull's Declaration of Independence, showing the Committee of Five
presenting its work to Congress
Top of Form
In case you haven’t heard, the South
Dakota Board of Education has dumped early American history from its
K-12 curriculum.
When
I heard about this decision, a quote from one of the great nineteenth-century
observers of American life came to mind. During the 1830s a French
aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States
and studied the character of American society. His observations would
later be published in his Democracy in America—a work that is just as
important to our national identity today as it was when it first appeared in
1835.
In
Chapter Two of Democracy in America Tocqueville laments the way that
individualism—an idea at the heart of American democracy—destroys a citizen’s
appreciation of the past.
“Among
democratic nations,” he wrote, “new families are constantly springing up,
others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition;
the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced.
Those who went before are soon forgotten; those who will come after, no one has
any idea; the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to
himself.”
Tocqueville
understood that sometimes in a democratic society we become so addicted to the
present that we forget where we came from. We lose touch with history—the
subject that provides us with our identity as Americans.
Now
that early American history is no longer part of the curriculum, it is very
unlikely that a student in the public schools of South Dakota will ever read
Tocqueville’s quote.
The
decision of the South Dakota Board of Education seems to be based on the idea
that early American history is not important because it occurred so long ago
and has no relevance for the present. The Board of Education seems to
think that history is merely the memorization of dates, timelines, and
names.
The
decision is also based on a very thin view of citizenship. How can
students understand what it means to be a citizen of South Dakota or the United
States without understanding that everything that they encounter in the present
is rooted in a historic context?
History
is more than memorization. It teaches students that current events are
contingent on the events that came before them. History teaches us the
root causes of the things that happen in our world today.
When
students learn about context, contingency, and causation they develop a
deeper—more robust—understanding of the world around them.
The
study of the American past relieves us of our narcissism and helps us to see
ourselves as part of a much larger human story. As the Stanford historian
Sam Wineburg writes, “mature historical understanding teaching us … to go
beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeting moment in human history to
which we have been born.” Don’t we want our young people—our future
citizens—to understand their world in this way?
Sadly,
the students of South Dakota have had the very foundations of American
citizenship ripped out from under them.
Think about it:
● Students will
no longer be required to learn about the American Revolution. How will
they be good citizens if they don’t know anything about the ideas and values on
which this country was built?
● Students will
no longer be required to learn about the Constitution. How will they know
how the United States government works or about the rights afforded to all
United States citizens?
● Students will
no longer learn about slavery. How will they understand race-relations in
the United States without learning about the roots of the Civil Rights Movement
and other black protest movements, including Black Lives Matter?
● What about
Native Americans? I would think that any resident of South Dakota should know
something about the Indians. As it now stands, their understanding of
Native American history will begin with the United States attempts to drive the
Sioux from their lands and will end with Indian reservations and casinos.
● Without early
American history most of the story of the women’s rights movement will no
longer be taught. Goodbye Seneca Falls. Goodbye Elizabeth Cady
Stanton. South Dakota students will be left with a view of the past in
which women were always able to vote.
This
all seems worse than the attempts in Texas and elsewhere to change the
curriculum to conform to conservative or Christian views of history.
Perhaps
we should start thinking about Tocqueville less as an observer and more as a
prophet.
Story from History News Network: South Dakota: Please Reconsider
9-18-15
tags: history
5 2 0
by John Fea
When I heard about this decision, a quote from one of the great nineteenth-century observers of American life came to mind. During the 1830s a French aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States and studied the character of American society. His observations would later be published in his Democracy in America—a work that is just as important to our national identity today as it was when it first appeared in 1835.
In Chapter Two of Democracy in America Tocqueville laments the way that individualism—an idea at the heart of American democracy—destroys a citizen’s appreciation of the past.
“Among democratic nations,” he wrote, “new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; those who will come after, no one has any idea; the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself.”
Tocqueville understood that sometimes in a democratic society we become so addicted to the present that we forget where we came from. We lose touch with history—the subject that provides us with our identity as Americans.
Now that early American history is no longer part of the curriculum, it is very unlikely that a student in the public schools of South Dakota will ever read Tocqueville’s quote.
The decision of the South Dakota Board of Education seems to be based on the idea that early American history is not important because it occurred so long ago and has no relevance for the present. The Board of Education seems to think that history is merely the memorization of dates, timelines, and names.
The decision is also based on a very thin view of citizenship. How can students understand what it means to be a citizen of South Dakota or the United States without understanding that everything that they encounter in the present is rooted in a historic context?
History is more than memorization. It teaches students that current events are contingent on the events that came before them. History teaches us the root causes of the things that happen in our world today.
When students learn about context, contingency, and causation they develop a deeper—more robust—understanding of the world around them.
The study of the American past relieves us of our narcissism and helps us to see ourselves as part of a much larger human story. As the Stanford historian Sam Wineburg writes, “mature historical understanding teaching us … to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeting moment in human history to which we have been born.” Don’t we want our young people—our future citizens—to understand their world in this way?
Sadly, the students of South Dakota have had the very foundations of American citizenship ripped out from under them. Think about it:
● Students will no longer be required to learn about the American Revolution. How will they be good citizens if they don’t know anything about the ideas and values on which this country was built?
● Students will no longer be required to learn about the Constitution. How will they know how the United States government works or about the rights afforded to all United States citizens?
● Students will no longer learn about slavery. How will they understand race-relations in the United States without learning about the roots of the Civil Rights Movement and other black protest movements, including Black Lives Matter?
● What about Native Americans? I would think that any resident of South Dakota should know something about the Indians. As it now stands, their understanding of Native American history will begin with the United States attempts to drive the Sioux from their lands and will end with Indian reservations and casinos.
● Without early American history most of the story of the women’s rights movement will no longer be taught. Goodbye Seneca Falls. Goodbye Elizabeth Cady Stanton. South Dakota students will be left with a view of the past in which women were always able to vote.
This all seems worse than the attempts in Texas and elsewhere to change the curriculum to conform to conservative or Christian views of history.
Perhaps we should start thinking about Tocqueville less as an observer and more as a prophet.
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160667#sthash.2f77AINR.dpuf
South Dakota: Please Reconsider Your Decision to Dump Early American History
Historians/Historytags: history
5 2 0
by John Fea
John Fea is the chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, PA and the author of Why Study History?: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past.
John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence, showing the Committee of Five presenting its work to Congress
In case you haven’t heard, the South Dakota Board of Education
has dumped early American history from its K-12 curriculum.When I heard about this decision, a quote from one of the great nineteenth-century observers of American life came to mind. During the 1830s a French aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States and studied the character of American society. His observations would later be published in his Democracy in America—a work that is just as important to our national identity today as it was when it first appeared in 1835.
In Chapter Two of Democracy in America Tocqueville laments the way that individualism—an idea at the heart of American democracy—destroys a citizen’s appreciation of the past.
“Among democratic nations,” he wrote, “new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; those who will come after, no one has any idea; the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself.”
Tocqueville understood that sometimes in a democratic society we become so addicted to the present that we forget where we came from. We lose touch with history—the subject that provides us with our identity as Americans.
Now that early American history is no longer part of the curriculum, it is very unlikely that a student in the public schools of South Dakota will ever read Tocqueville’s quote.
The decision of the South Dakota Board of Education seems to be based on the idea that early American history is not important because it occurred so long ago and has no relevance for the present. The Board of Education seems to think that history is merely the memorization of dates, timelines, and names.
The decision is also based on a very thin view of citizenship. How can students understand what it means to be a citizen of South Dakota or the United States without understanding that everything that they encounter in the present is rooted in a historic context?
History is more than memorization. It teaches students that current events are contingent on the events that came before them. History teaches us the root causes of the things that happen in our world today.
When students learn about context, contingency, and causation they develop a deeper—more robust—understanding of the world around them.
The study of the American past relieves us of our narcissism and helps us to see ourselves as part of a much larger human story. As the Stanford historian Sam Wineburg writes, “mature historical understanding teaching us … to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeting moment in human history to which we have been born.” Don’t we want our young people—our future citizens—to understand their world in this way?
Sadly, the students of South Dakota have had the very foundations of American citizenship ripped out from under them. Think about it:
● Students will no longer be required to learn about the American Revolution. How will they be good citizens if they don’t know anything about the ideas and values on which this country was built?
● Students will no longer be required to learn about the Constitution. How will they know how the United States government works or about the rights afforded to all United States citizens?
● Students will no longer learn about slavery. How will they understand race-relations in the United States without learning about the roots of the Civil Rights Movement and other black protest movements, including Black Lives Matter?
● What about Native Americans? I would think that any resident of South Dakota should know something about the Indians. As it now stands, their understanding of Native American history will begin with the United States attempts to drive the Sioux from their lands and will end with Indian reservations and casinos.
● Without early American history most of the story of the women’s rights movement will no longer be taught. Goodbye Seneca Falls. Goodbye Elizabeth Cady Stanton. South Dakota students will be left with a view of the past in which women were always able to vote.
This all seems worse than the attempts in Texas and elsewhere to change the curriculum to conform to conservative or Christian views of history.
Perhaps we should start thinking about Tocqueville less as an observer and more as a prophet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)