When I was in high school, one of our assigned books in English was Julian Barnes’ The Sense of an Ending. Given that high school seems very distant eight years removed, it is fair to say I don’t remember much about English reading assignments. However, what does stick out to me from the novel are two distinct quotes, each referring to the place history has in our lives and culture.
My initial reaction is astonished, perhaps perplexed, by the notion that history, and the retelling of history, contains any form of certainty. In my experience, history leaves much room for interpretation, and multiple people of the past were witnesses to the unfolding narratives that make up our history. So one person’s version of history is separate from another, which indicates history cannot be quantified nor certain. Not at least without the exclusion of major voices.
The second quote is “history is the lies of the victors,” which illustrates one of the most fundamental flaws of the general American history education. Either by design or unintentionally, American history curricula continue, to this day, to ignore the real truth of how America came to be. White supremacy still dominates the portrayal of American history. Whether deliberately or not, it is deceitful and insidious to our children to uphold and transmit that version of history. We need a new approach before we destroy even more minority lives and livelihoods.
Lack of Nationalized History Standards
Currently, there is no federal mandate for how history curricula are developed, instructed, and utilized in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. Individual states, for the most part, have sole discretion to construct syllabi and decide what history appears in their textbooks.
As of 2017, only twelve states mandate Black history be taught in elementary schools. As far as Black history goes, most students begin their knowledge with “Black people were enslaved by white people,” a sentiment that erases culture and identity. More tragically, many history curricula do not take into account how systemic racism transmitted beyond the end of the Civil Rights Era.
Additionally, states have wildly varied cultures that are reflected in educational practices. Some states teach history differently based on cultural presumptions. A prime example is the difference in language between “The Civil War” and “The War Between the States.” While neither of these explicitly mention slavery, the latter implies the war was between “two countries” and the primary point of contention was states rights. There is not only a tonal difference, but also a difference that suggests two completely different understandings of slavery’s role in America in the past and how it shaped our present society. Even absent teachings like this, most schools’ history curricula are underwhelming and deny the history of violence inflicted by white colonizers, or descendents of colonizers, on minority populations.
Another example of an incident left out of many history programs because of what it reveals about white supremacy is the Tulsa Race Massacre. In 1921, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a violent mob of white residents destroyed a district known as “Black Wall Street” over a two day period. Hundreds of Black-owned businesses and homes were burned to the grown, killing several hundred Black residents and leaving thousands more homeless. I am embarrassed to admit this, but I did not know of this horrific event until my college years. It most certainly was omitted from my education because of the portrayal of white violence. But, no one person or group of people, especially not the oppressors, should ever come to the conclusion that overlooking this part of history is somehow protecting our country’s creed. If anything, it confirms the proposition that white supremacy still has a chokehold on American society.
It is impossible to discuss the lackluster history programs available to students without mentioning white people’s near eradication of indigenous societies, cultures, and languages, which continues to this day. With all of this combined, students will inevitably walk away from these lessons misinformed and with dangerous preconceived notions that America treats all people with unconditional love and support. This attitude has led to civil strife in the past and the present. The solution is to create a national standardized history program.
A Model for American History Curricula
In November 1994, the National Center for History in the Schools at the University of Southern California released a publication entitled “National Standards for United States History.” This 271 page report redefined what history teaching could look like in America. Instead of a mindset which requires students to adhere to mechanical memorization of facts and figures, the scholars who collaborated to release this report proposed we give students the tools to engage in comprehensive historical analysis. Broadly, this meant to identify problems people confronted in the past, ask why those problems occurred, analyze the various viewpoints and interests of other people, evaluate alternative proposals, question whether the solutions taken at the time were indeed sound decisions and why, and bring historical perspectives to bear on informed decision-making in the present. This process encourages conversation and discourse, two hugely critical characteristics of functioning civic-minded citizens.
This was a revolutionary idea, to disregard the “stick to the facts” approach that has crippled students and citizens alike. This effort began in the 1980s, when lawmakers endorsed scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds in this effort. According to Gary Nash and Charlotte Crabtree, two leading scholars on this team, policymakers funded them to create curricula that showcased a more inclusive history. Despite the fact that national standards have not been adopted at a broad level, it is still worth fighting for today.
Breaking Down the Criticisms of the National Standards Approach
Naturally, in a country like America, where individuals have been told to prioritize their “freedoms” over the civil rights and liberties of other Americans, the national history standards approach has some critics. Notably, Rush Limbaugh told his TV followers that the standards were created by a secret group at UCLA. Other critics suggested it would further divide politics, it would leave out white people’s stories, and it would erase traditional and celebratory ideas of America.
The history standards culture war highlights competing feelings of patriotism and the question of how to instill the ideal of citizenship in young Americans. These arguments against standardizing history are not new. The controversy surrounding the 1994 report are, in fact, replays of similar controversies in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. People in those days were offended at the concept of an “unbiased viewpoint” and instead wanted their children to learn about “true Americanism.” In essence, the standards approach, or reformist history, equates to unpatriotic history, to un-American history.
The kind of history that national standards teach is hard to absorb because it is uncomfortable. Especially for a descendent of a colonizer, there is a deep-seated aversion to hard history because the implications, for both the past and the present, that emerge from the conversation are painful to reckon with. It is difficult to comprehend the inhumanity and violence that define this country’s foundation. It is hard to teach the ideology of the white supremacy that justified it. Perhaps most of all, it is agonizing to learn about those who abided by the violence.
It is substantially easier to support a Disney version of history, one in which suffering is short, heroes and villains are easily recognizable, and life always improves for every person. Our antipathy for anything else, as outlined by the arguments made in the context of criticism of the national standards movement, stems from a sentimental nostalgia for a fictitious past. When we miseducate in this way, by choosing to adhere to a false narrative of inspiration, we minimize minority voices, the ability to identify critical issues of our current time recedes, and divisions are exploited.
The Real Reason Why We Need National History Standards
However, there is no better model for improving America and its society than the national standards model. This model not only encourages civic participation, but it was a long-run collaborative effort that occurred between teachers and historians at every educational level in this country.
The model is a sustained effort to topple white supremacy. When historical fiction is upheld, we make bad public policy, we choose to ignore the reality of the inequities in American society, and we set the stage to make the same mistakes in the future. When we tell students to utilize their critical thinking skills in the standards model, differences are discussed, barriers are broken, and a path towards healing is strengthened. The victors do not always have to tell lies, and “what is told in history” does not always have to be told by the victors. We have the chance to change the narrative.
