11.13.05
U.S. History: Our Worst Subject?
Bruce Craig, director of the National Coalition for History, writes about the Congressional concern over the teaching of U.S. History in the September issue of the American Historical Association’s Perspective. Titled A Continuing Congressional Concern: ” U.S. History—Our Worst Subject” - Craig recaps the Senate Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions conducted a hearing on yet another American history bill, “The American History Achievement Act” (S. 860) hearings.
Perhaps most disturbing to me is the 10-state pilot program or maybe the fact that this has to be legislated. American history teaching is now being legislated. Should I be happy the government is finally looking into the teaching of history and finding money to assist educators? Or should I be unhappy that the government thinks only American history needs to be legally enforced?
Skimming the article sends out warning bells that I should be morally outraged at something. The problem is, I’m not sure what I should be outraged about. This needs to be researched more thoroughly in order to completely understand what the bill is about and why it was brought before the Senate.
For the written testimony of the witnesses, please visit http://help.senate.gov/calendars/all.html and click on the link for the hearing on June 30, 2005 (with the title “U.S. History: Our Worst Subject?”).
Aha, a little further down is this paragraph:
While congressional appropriation committees appear to be supportive of funding American history-related programs, their focus continues to be on American history and only on what is characterized as ‘traditional’ American history (that is, political and diplomatic history that focuses on key individuals and events). Continuing efforts over the last five years by the National Coalition for History (NCH) and other professional history organizations including the American Historical Association to include ancient, world, or comparative history (or even ’social’ history in the definition of ‘traditional’ American history) have not resonated well with members or their staff. Nevertheless, our advocacy efforts will continue.
There’s the outrage, as I suspected it’s the emphasis on American history to the exclusion of other histories which all intertwine at some level. America wouldn’t be America without Europe or Africa, just to name 2 heady influences.
The Greeks thought it was all relevant and tied together, so they taught everything as connected. James Burke had it right with Connections, one of the most fascinating looks at how things that appear to be unrelated really aren’t. History should be taught this way too. (Maybe that’s the reason I’ve struggled with choosing a specialty.)