"Our first contribution is one of omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and the biographies of heroes are left out." Charles A. and Mary Beard, The History of the United States (1921)
I am a
historian by trade. One of the most important moments I experienced in
my graduate training was when a professor explained that her doctorate
was in the “philosophy of history,” not history itself. It is an
important distinction because people equate history with mastering
historical trivia. The possibility that there is a philosophy of or a
way to think about history is rarely raised.
Actually,
there are several different philosophies of history—often at odds with
each other—not just one universal philosophy. During the early years of
the American republic, history helped create a national identity and
instill positive virtues in the public. Parson Mason Locke Weems turned
to George Washington’s famous cherry tree-chopping incident to invent a
memorable fable to teach children honesty. Other contemporaries agreed
with this approach. Early feminist educator Emma Willard wrote in The History of the United States, Or, American Republic that
“The most important advantage of the study of history, is improvement
in individual and national virtue . . . [especially in] the history of
the American Republic.” These authors presented the Founding Fathers and
military heroes as role models. The fact that white males dominated the
nation’s early historical narrative reflected society as it existed at
that time. Nevertheless, the pursuit of republican ideology, conveyed by
words like liberty and freedom, was believed to be the engine that
drove the United States toward a new enlightened age.
Even
as the new age dawned, others lamented that only a few groups really
prospered.
Industrialization showered wealth on those who controlled
capital but what about those who worked the machines and tilled the
fields as well as the women and minorities who had even lower status? There could only be prosperity and justice when society shared its
treasure with all its members. To these early critics, economic
factors—not ideology—motivated human actions. Karl Marx became the
spokesperson for this emerging philosophy—Marxism.
In the early 20th
century, a group of historians connected with the progressive movement
declared war on traditional history. In 1921, husband and wife Charles
A. and Mary R. Beard co-authored a high school textbook simply titled The History of the United States,
a work that detailed the progressive movement’s plan to revolutionize
teaching history. An online version of this important work can be found here.
The volume’s introduction stated: “If the study of history cannot be
made truly progressive [or organized] like the study of mathematics,
science, and languages, then the historians assume a grave
responsibility in adding their subject to the already overloaded
curriculum.” Their approach expunged “The time-honored stories of
exploration and biographies of heroes” and “all descriptions of battles”
as unnecessary and even detrimental.
The
Beards listed seven changes to the traditional narrative approach to
history. First, their curriculum was topic-based. Second, these topics
revealed how each had contributed to the nation’s development. Third,
their approach “dwelt fully upon the social and economic aspects” of
American history. Fourth, the causes and results of wars and the
problems of financing and sustaining armed forces replaced military
strategy. Fifth, discovery and exploration were omitted to make room for
citizenship. Sixth, although recognizing America’s uniqueness in some
areas, they believed attention must be paid to diplomacy, foreign
affairs, world relations, and the influence of other nations. And
seventh, they claimed that their approach would stimulate students to
think and analyze, resulting in graduates ready for the modern world.
Like Weems, the Beards believed historical instruction could mold the
character of future citizens. We heard the fruit of the Beards'
philosophical approach in Barrack Obama’s famous Berlin speech, where an
American president declared himself a citizen of the world.
Other
progressive historians reinforced this view of history in which
economic factors drive history. In particular, the Marxist notions of
property and class struggle began to gain favor. These authors and their
works shaped several generations of students, who would, in turn,
become authors and teachers. While the Beards and most progressive
historians have largely been relegated to historiographic reading lists,
their influence on the modern history profession cannot be overstated.
The popularity of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States demonstrates how widely accepted and entrenched the progressive interpretation of history launched by the Beards has become.
This
economic approach to history has been popular on campuses and in
textbooks for years. Examples are familiar: the American Revolution was a
war for economic independence; the Founding Fathers were rich white men
who established a government to protect their own interests; the nation
was built by the labor of workers who toiled for the benefit of slave
owners and industrialists; the Westward Expansion stole land at the
expense of Native Americans and Mexicans; and women and minorities
endured a menial and minimal existence. Words such as liberty or freedom
masked bigotry and greed. Heroes were not the misguided men who fought
for kings and capitalists on faraway battlefields but those who
struggled in factories and fields against oppression. It was a world
that cried out for fairness and change as well as a world, too, in which
the individual triumphed only if assisted by the power of the
government, the basic tenet of progressivism. The case can be made that
all historical interpretations have a political agenda at heart.
However, progressive historians created a world view designed to help
politicians reconstruct society.
Victimhood is key
to the progressive interpretation of history. Basically, if someone
gains then someone else loses. Thus, history becomes a scorecard for
identifying winners and losers. Those with wealth and power use it to
oppress others. The goal of progressive history is not to understand the
past but to identify guilty parties. Assigning roles of oppressor and
oppressed (i.e., victim) signal which past wrongs must be righted. Since
the guilty culprits are dead, the responsibility to make things right
rests with their progeny. The beneficiaries aren’t the original victims
but their descendants. An economic redistribution of wealth is usually
suggested to demonstrate contrition.
To
modern progressives, no narrative can exist other than the claim that
powerful groups oppress less powerful groups, which supports the moral,
legal, and political implications that history’s victims deserve
restitution. Progressive history strikes at the very root of the early
American republican historical narrative by rejecting the notion of
American exceptionalism. Rather than acknowledge and celebrate the
Founding Fathers and other early heroes, progressive historians
denigrate them and work to remove them from the public discourse. Look
no further for an explanation of what is happening to statues deemed
offensive and guilty of some past injustice.
Why
do historical interpretations matter? The boundary between history and
politics is razor-thin and too many practitioners claim to be historians
when in fact they are political operatives. I am not referring to just
the academic voices in the classroom crying for social justice but the
advocational historians who strive to maintain their group heritage
and/or identity. Both can be extreme in their own way, picking the
historical “facts” that support their view of the past. Moreover, the
struggle for control of the historical narrative has made the field
unappealing to the public in general and students in particular. It is
an unhealthy situation for both the profession and the society it
professes to serve.
We have
all heard the well-worn rejoinder, "Those who forget the past are doomed
to repeat it." Nevertheless, many in our society go about their daily
lives with little or no regard for history or those who write it. It is
enough to beg the question, "Is history obsolete?" The answer, of
course, is no. However, it is time that those in the profession
reevaluate how we present history to the public and adopt strategies to
address the problem of societal disinterest. If no remedy is found, it
is historians themselves who face becoming irrelevant.
