"1776 Unites curriculum" Topic

John, it is okay with me if you want to ask Bill to nuke one of your threads. Actually, I think it is probably a practice we should adopt more broadly on TMP, but to each his own. Turning the original poster into a bit of a sub-editor of his own thread strikes me as maybe a good idea.

Hayes-Tilden election in 1876 was a nightmare. There were 4 states with ballots in question. It was finally resolved in favor of Hayes on the agreement that the Army be withdrawn from the former Confederate states. The army was there partially to protect the freed slaves and protect their Civil Rights.

Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and signed by Hayes. Coincidence? It prohibited the Army from engaging in law enforcement. Its unstated but understood purpose was to prevent the Army from enforcing the nascent Civil Rights legislation emanating from the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Sorry, former slaves. You're on your own. It's amazing the twists and turns this primarily anti-Black legislation has taken. It's so ingrained that nobody considers it's origin and original purpose.

The whole hullabaloo, and myth, about "Carpetbaggers" is part of the Lost Cause. The 3 Civil Rights workers slain in Mississippi were the equivalent. How dare they try to work to give Blacks the right to vote!

Actually, I don't want that right. I don't "own" that thread, anymore than I "own" the AWI board.

And I started a Poll Suggestion about OP nuking a thread. Have at it.

Turning the original poster into a bit of a sub-editor of his own thread strikes me as maybe a good idea.

Oh, that's rich. You wish to be able to DELETE posts you disagree with? You want to be able to edit their content to favor the OP?

You don't "own" the thread. You merely started it.
Do you want to give me the right to bleep Kevin every time he says nasty things about militia? Sure, I sometimes want to punch him in the nose, but bleep or snip his comments? Hell no!

John, you are correct about Tilden-Hayes but not entirely on the other two. Some carpetbaggers were corrupt, others were honorable. The term itself is loaded, of course.

As to posse com, it is as complex as the whole topic of reconstruction. There were plenty of armed freedmen, for example, some organized into militias. The underlying reality is that, once the desire for revenge passed, the majority in the north was not much interested in enforcing equal rights for freedmen, in part because they were dealing with their own ethnic minorities from the new immigration. It is really really complex.

As to "owning" a thread, no, of course it would not be right to be able to zap a comment merely out of disagreement. But it would prevent hijacking. It's just an idea and one I doubt Bill would favor.

A simpler approach might be to just halt a thread. No further posts allowed by anyone but it would be preserved.

As wild as things may get, my feeling is that once you start a thread, you invite us to own it with you. Your original post may or may not control the thread throughout because you asked everyone to join. I think it's community property, subject to Bill's rules of conduct. My opinion.

Yes, I like Bob's idea to just halt it. Of course it is possible to simply stop responding.

Does this guy do stand-up to?

"History is what the present finds useful to remember about the past"

This statement could be right out of the Orwell's "1984", this statement is chilling. Any credible Historian would find this statement abhorrent. The study of history is based on facts. Whether anyone finds it useful is irrelevant.

History is inherently neutral, it is what it is. It is not political and trying to cherry pick from history the facts that agree with your political views is not how history is done. Cherry picking violates the principle of "total evidence." Total evidence is the principle of using all the facts, not just the ones that support our preexisting beliefs.

My degree is in "History Education" I am trained as a Secondary History Teacher. I was taught that a Historian develops a statement or hypothesis. To see whether the statement is true or false, you follow the facts, wherever they may take you. The facts may take you somewhere you didn't want to go. But in the end you go where the facts lead you, warts and all.

A lawyer on the other hand cherry picks the facts that support his/her case and ignore facts that don't support his/her case. What you describe is how a lawyer approaches the study of history not a Historian.

Hi OC,
You make reference to lawyers as manipulators of historical facts. No dispute there. I will only suggest that politicians are far more egregious in this respect. And it is not IMO a coincidence that so many politicians hold law degrees.

And yes, Orwell would be unhappily familiar with the state of the world today.

B

+1 Old Contemptible
Using the approved version of "history" to foster dedication to whatever regime you favor is … contemptible. As Johnny Cash (and Pilate) sing, "What is Truth?"
Well, Truth is accessible. But it's not easy.
But it's there. It's not to be thrown under the bus when inconvenient.

+1 John.

Please, let's debate history curricula and not COVID or anything else.

If that is actually your 'position' then why do you post material from far-right wing websites? Newsmax? Really?

Get a grip and please stop the agenda-driven postings. That isn't history, it's propaganda that is harmful.

John, yes, truth exists, and is what history aims at. What really happened, really happened. But our human ability to know it is limited. The process OC describes, making hypotheses and mustering facts, is not immune to viewpoint discrimination. We use it because it is the best we have, but it is far from perfect.

The goal, the purpose, of history is always to tell the truth. And truth is the standard against which history is measured.

HOWEVER -- as an example, there is always change, and there is always continuity. The American Revolution may be best understood in terms of continuity, but plainly some important things were changed. The French Revolution tried to change everything, and became unmoored from necessary continuity. And ended with Napoleon and then the Bourbon restoration.

But any historian, and any CURRENT society, or any sub-group within it, is likely to have its own preferences as to whether to emphasize change or continuity. Conservatives stress continuity. radicals may stress change. The Progressive Synthesis of American history (which few adhere to now but was dominant -- what Bob calls the current consensus of respectable historians -- up through the 1960s -- sees continuity in change, with alternating cycles of reform and reaction. Some very fine books, e.g. Schlesinger's AGE OF JACKSON, were written within that Progressive synthesis. After JFKs assassination and Vietnam, that idea of the American past had far fewer followers (apt alliteration's artful aid).

Each generation, each culture, each SUB-culture, writes, or tries to write, its own history, emphasizing things important to them. They will make hypotheses and muster facts and arrive at very different conclusions. "History is what the present finds useful to remember about the past." Deal with it.

To John, and Bob, and OC, and Kevin, and any others who reject my definition:

Do YOU imagine that twenty years from now (much less 50 years) American history will be understood, will be taught, as it is today?

If you admit that our understanding of our past (rightly understood, or wrongly understood) is bound to CHANGE as our culture changes, then you have just conceded the validity of my definition.

History is what the PRESENT finds USEFUL to REMEMBER about the past. The past does not change; it is true, it happened. But the present changes, usefulness changes, and memory is always partial and unreliable and somewhat outside our control.

Anybody who is concerned about the "Lost Cause" myth or narrative is conceding the validity of my definition.

History is what the PRESENT finds USEFUL to REMEMBER about the past.

I disagree 100%.
You are arguing for propaganda and made up "facts".

No, I am not.

Do you agree that the present changes? That, for example, the generation that FOUGHT the Civil War might have a different view of it than did/do their grandchildren or great-grandchildren?

Do you agree that an analysis of banking and politics written during the Great Depression (Schlesinger's AGE OF JACKSON) might have a different idea of USEFULNESS than an analysis of the same topic written 20 years later during the Eisenhower prosperity (Bray Hammond's BANKS AND POLITICS)? Do you agree that the US experience in VietNam changed in important ways our understanding of the American Revolutionary War (e.g John Shy's work on the militia)?

Do you know the history of the history of slavery? That early standard works like Phillips' AMERICAN NEGRO SLAVERY (c. 1910) and Stampp's THE PECULIAR INSTITUTION (1956, just after the Korean War) -- which took radically different views of the subject -- both relied on 'literary sources" like letters and diaries from the time? But in 1974 there appeared, within months of each other, both TIME ON THE CROSS by two "cliometricians" who used numerical data like plantation account books and census data and slave market records -- data that had existed but never really been used -- AND also Genovese's ROLL JORDAN ROLL which used, extensively for the first time, the slave narratives collected during the 1930s? Those two books likewise disagreed on many points, but both changed in fundamental ways what data, what FACTS, historians would use henceforth?

There are other truths that apply here, as well, but I do not remember them.

Is an analysis of the fall of South VietNam and of Saigon more USEFUL today than it was a month ago?

You are once again confusing 'truth' with historical facts.

It seems to me you are venturing into the confusing world of alternate facts to merely suit an agenda.

That isn't history-it's nonsense and ahistorical.

And that 'process' is what autocrats and wanna-be totalitarians do.

All genuine facts are true. But there is a lot of truth that is not based on facts but on philosophy.

Was Hitler's Third Reich an evil regime? yes.
Was the Holocaust an evil act? yes.

But while Hitler's genocide and wars of aggression are facts, our justifiable conclusion that they were EVIL is not a fact, nor yet an opinion. It is a moral judgement based on certain assumptions -- assumptions which not everyone shares.

I certainly, and I imagine you as well, would reject a history of the Third Reich that attempted to excuse his misdeeds by applying, say, a "cull the herd" justification for the Holocaust -- acknowledging the FACTS but denying the moral verdict. But that rejection would not be based on facts but on philosophy. It would be bad history, though, however factual.

"History is what the PRESENT finds USEFUL to REMEMBER about the past."

I also disagree 100%. History is history; a chronicle of the past. What the present finds useful to remember is merely thumbing through that chronicle in order to cherry pick what historical events might be currently relevant.

But the remainder of history, the "un-useful" bits if you will, remains intact. To assume history isn't history until the present finds it useful to remember sounds a bit ridiculous.

Yes I do remember some of those books, doc, and have been fascinated by the use and analysis of historical data ever since. Along with a more comprehensive examination of new and existing narrative documents, we have enjoyed a better understanding of facts and their impact on people in the past.

I prefer to understand all this in a narrative, story form however. I am surprised, angry, disappointed, hopeful, inspired, and entertained by good historical writing based on facts and logical conclusions, knowing that not all questions can be answered unless the facts are there.

I think you and I are on the same page in terms of the style of curriculum that works for kids today. And I respect your knowledge and experience, even though we do not always agree.

A lot of folks have been omitting many of the less pleasant aspects of our national story for a long time, but this has been changing. I don't want to forget the good things America has done. I just want us to be honest with ourselves. Facts are true by definition. Accept no substitutes!

We are afraid of change and I think too many have ramped up the fear factor to keep change in check and hold on to money and power. As a result, where some see Marxism, socialism, etc. I see Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin. I think we need more compromise for now so we find the middle. Where nobody is happy, but we are all included and the country survives.

I don't think we have the leadership we need to keep history part of our ongoing story. Washington's army did not secure the airports, nor ram the ramparts, but I would guess that many may now swear to it. Some people can escape history, it seems.

No way can I organize all my thoughts on this except over time, not as quickly as some here. It has been an interesting thread.

‘The chief duty of the historian is to judge the actions of men, so that the good may meet with the reward due to virtue, and pernicious citizens may be deterred by the condemnation that awaits evil deeds at the tribunal of posterity.'-Tacitus

‘The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts.'-Henry Adams

+1 Kevin

To add to Adams, you might want to ignore the facts that conflict with your "truths".

Since this is the AWI Board, all we need do is look at the hagiography surrounding George Washington. He never told a lie? Really?

Being raised Catholic, and going to Catholic schools, I'm very familiar with the "Lives of the Saints".
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when some of the Saints were dropped from the calendar, because basically, they never existed. This caused outrage among some because they really wanted to believe in them. The facts violated their truths.

Extrabio, again, you are confusing history with the past. They are not the same. History is a literary art form (with its own muse, Clio) while the past is its subject.

Kevin, yes, those quotes are relevant -- but opposed, I think. I would go with Tacitus over Adams.

But Adams is sort of saying that each of us brings his own perspective to the facts -- their selection and interpretation. Humans can not be objective, really, especially about humans.

Parson Weems was deliberately creating a hero for the new nation. Societies do that. America decided it wanted a black hero and so MLK was elevated. And appropriately so -- he deserves his day -- but that did require deemphasizing his plagiarism and his womanizing. The best biographies of MLK do not exclude those blemishes, but curricula intended for secondary schools generally (and appropriately) do. It would not be USEFUL to REMEMBER those things.

Sorry, guys, but your idea of what history is and what historians do is flawed, not so much wrong as inadequate.

Is an analysis of the fall of South VietNam and of Saigon more USEFUL today than it was a month ago?

No.

Are you trying to make a comparison between the present situation in Afghanistan with Saigon in 1975. That is a futile comparison as they are not the same thing.

Sorry, guys, but your idea of what history is and what historians do is flawed, not so much wrong as inadequate.

If I were you I would reflect and reevaluate your own views on history and what you have posted as links in this thread before casting aspersions on others.

Kevin, two things in history are never the same; each situation is unique. Yet there ARE similarities.

I reflect regularly, one might say almost constantly, on the discipline(s) -- history and teaching -- that I have devoted the past 55 years to. Hopefully to good ends.

YouTube link

Doc, we are arguing semantics I suppose. History is defined as "a chronological record of significant events." We can discuss all day the relationship between significance, relevance, and usefulness. To me, those things greatly depend on your academic focus. My PhD is not in history. It is in Economics. What historical events I presently find useful to remember are probably not the same as yours. So to paraphrase Pontius Pilate, "What is history? Is mine the same as yours?"

If it is indeed a chronological record of significant events, the answer is yes, of course. If it's an art form, then no, it is not.

Extra, yes to all of that, except, isn't "significant" as subjective as "useful"? The chronological part is objective, I guess, although we do have sharply different standards for recording time (AD vs CE, for example).

So what was the most significant event of 1776, the Declaration of Independence or the publication of THE WEALTH OF NATIONS? Of course both were of enormous significance, but there are different perspectives. I think I read somewhere about the period of the Crusades, or some portion of it, and that the only mention a Muslim history made of that war was that the pilgrimage route to Mecca had become blocked. So significance also depends on viewpoint.

The Crusades was a series of wars, not just one.

Do you know why the Crusades began in ca 1097?

The fact that the Crusades are numbered suggests there were more than one.

Manzikert

Quiet.
I'm watching "Ford vs Ferrari".

And I am working out "truth" vs "fact" and whether Henry Adams is just kidding.

Manzikert

Eastern Roman Emperor Alexis was losing too much territory to the Moslems, the battle of Manzikert being an example of the problem, but not in its entirety, and he appealed to the pope for assistance in facing the threat.

The pope figured the best way to field a western army to march to the east to assist the Eastern Romans was to give it a religious base. That got the troops on the road east and began the series of wars with Islam.

'Ford vs Ferrari' is an excellent movie, very well done. It's a favorite.

My son has a Shelby Mustang…

Kevin, yes, except the Crusades were a COUNTERATTACK; they did not BEGIN a series of wars with Islam. The whole history of Islam from Mohammed on was conquest, with Christendom being the main target; Persia second.

The main target was the Eastern Roman Empire, not the west. The Eastern Romans absorbed attacks from nearly everyone and it was they who finally badly defeated the Persians paving the way for the Moslem onslaught which they could not stop.

And the Crusades were a series of wars by the West against Islam. And Christendom was not united since the Great Schism of 1054 that split Christianity in two-the West under Rome and the East under the Patriarch in Constantinople.

The Crusades launched from Western Europe didn't come about until the 1090s. Manzikert was in 1071.

The West launched the Crusades as their attack against Islam. The Eastern Romans might have considered it a counterattack, but it was the West's first venture to the east since before Rome fell. That began a series of wars in the east launched from the west, including the Fourth Crusade which attacked and took Constantinople in 1204, an act which belies any religious foundation/excuse for the Crusades.

When I'm feeling puckish, I take Runciman's History of the Crusades and open it at random.
On any given page, you can find the following factions.
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Two different antagonistic other Crusader states
Byzantines
A Jewish remnant "state"
Three different Turkish factions
Shia Fatimid Egypt
Later in the third volume, at least one Ilkhanid Mongol
Assassins (the original ones)
Druze
Armenian
And that's the abridged listing.
Not much has changed, has it?

I'm only a casual reader of the Crusades. But as I recall, the immediate reaction to Manzikert was a call by the Byzantine emperor for some Western mercenaries, mainly Franks (Normans). As far as Alexius was concerned, the Crusades were NOT what he wanted. Do he sent them on their way to the Holy Land as quickly as possible, just to get them out of the Empire.

And it was not a monolithic Muslim foe the Crusaders faced, but a variety of mainly Turkish Muslim states. Some of the Muslim states were quite happy to have a buffer Christian state separating them from the other Muslim states.
And it was a Christian Crusade (the Fourth) that accomplished nothing but destroying Constantinople in 1204.

Let's not hold up the Crusades as an ideal for Christians.

I knew Carroll Shelby would persevere. He grew potatoes on Mars, after all.
I also dearly wished someone would punch Beebe in the nose.

Getting back to the OP, James Loewen has just passed away. Lies My Teacher Told Me author would have enjoyed our discussion. "Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat the 11th grade".

John and Kevin, yes, but in the grand view the relation between Christianity and Islam has always been hostile. Of course both religions boast diverse factions, and of course secular interests express themselves through religious structures. But the history of Islam from Mohammed's day until, roughly, the two failures to take Vienna, almost a thousand years, was one of encroachment by Islam upon Christian territory. The Crusades should be understood in the long view as a Christian counter-attack, which ultimately failed.

I assume you guys have read Bernard Lewis' WHAT WENT WRONG?

For many centuries, the world of Islam was in the forefront of human achievement--the foremost military and economic power in the world, the leader in the arts and sciences of civilization. Christian Europe, a remote land beyond its northwestern frontier, was seen as an outer darkness of
barbarism and unbelief from which there was nothing to learn or to fear. And then everything changed, as the previously despised West won victory after victory, first in the battlefield and the marketplace, then in almost every aspect of public and even private life.

In this intriguing volume, Bernard Lewis examines the anguished reaction of the Islamic world as it tried to understand why things had changed--how they had been overtaken, overshadowed, and to an increasing extent dominated by the West. Lewis provides a fascinating portrait of a culture in
turmoil. He shows how the Middle East turned its attention to understanding European weaponry and military tactics, commerce and industry, government and diplomacy, education and culture. Lewis highlights the striking differences between the Western and Middle Eastern cultures from the 18th to the
20th centuries through thought-provoking comparisons of such things as Christianity and Islam, music and the arts, the position of women, secularism and the civil society, the clock and the calendar.

Hailed in The New York Times Book Review as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies," Bernard Lewis is one of the West's foremost authorities on Islamic history and culture. In this striking volume, he offers an incisive look at the historical relationship between the Middle East and Europe.