A common theme that I see in a lot of secondary U.S. History classes is a pros & cons debate regarding historical events. 'Was it a good or bad thing that Truman dropped the Bomb on Japan?' In my experience, debates like these are framed by teachers in a way to try to get students to say 'Yes, we should not have dropped the Bomb on Japan.' Regardless of what the students (or historians) believe regarding the morality of an event, it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and we can't change it. One of my grandfathers served in the Navy in the Pacific Theater during WWII, and my other grandfather turned 18 the same day that we dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki. Having spoken with both of them, they (and it sounds like most Americans at the time) were overjoyed that Truman dropped the Bomb, because it ended the war. Like Jacob commented, we need to help our students contextualize events to get a better understanding of them. We think that a lot of things that occurred in the past (ex. slavery, dropping the Bomb, etc.) were terrible, but the people who lived through them viewed them differently. We need to learn the good & the bad of history in order to make the future a better place. Vilifying the past for political gains in the present is only detrimental to our progression as a society.
Thanks for sharing that interesting family story, Jake. My now deceased ex-father-in-law flew bombers in Europe until VE Day. He was sent back to America for a brief visit home, then was ordered to the Pacific to take part in the invasion of Japan. He was thrilled to learn that the war had ended before he had to get in another bomber. As for the judgments students are often asked to make: What I do in my classes is to ask students to make the arguments both pro and con. I don't require them to resolve the issue. I point out that on hard questions the arguments were usually closely balanced, and that if you weren't there, you lack the perspective - and the personal stake - of those who were. On the Revolutionary War, for example, I have them imagine twins, eighteen years old (about my students' age), one trying to convince the other to join the Patriot cause, the other supporting the Loyalist side.
Dr. Brands, one of the things that I have always admired about you is your ability to present the information so well that it gives your readers the ability to interpret the history for themselves. That being said I wholly agree with you and I'll give an example that I am going through now. Our state has introduced an LGBTQIA mandate in history classes asking to present information about folks who were either possibly or were members of that community. As an instructor of World History and US History until 1865, I cannot give a judgement on what people truly felt. There is also the difference of culture at that time that, to use your term, narcissism of present morals tries to place in such a convenient present day microcosm. So, let us give people information and the tools to let them interpret. While it may cause disagreement, the idea of history has always been driven by change. It's what we see that we identify in our work and how we help the public try to understand.
You're in a tough spot with the gender/sexual orientation issues. Today it makes sense to speak of someone as a member (or not) of a gay community. But to apply that label to people in a time when such communities didn't even exist, and certainly not in forms recognizable to us today, does a disservice to them as individuals in their own right, and to us as seekers of a clear understanding of people in the past on their own terms.
I really love this take on histories and biographies. I’m in a seemingly weird place of understanding and even holding some woke sensibilities while also being passionate about American history and, for better or worse, American exceptionalism. In general, I think we have to reserve judgement as much as we can. Or at least contextualize the events and characters. Anything short of that seems like ethnocentrism. I’ve gotten myself into trouble for defending Jackson’s admirable qualities. But what was lost on my friends was that I wasn’t co-signing every damn thing he did.
You were in the same position I was in. I knew the guy wanted me to denounce Jackson for his slaveholding and his Indian policy, while ignoring his contribution to America's territorial integrity (Battle of New Orleans) and to the evolution of democracy. I was prepared to discuss, even debate, each of these issues on their merits, but not to add them up for a single verdict on Jackson.
A common theme that I see in a lot of secondary U.S. History classes is a pros & cons debate regarding historical events. 'Was it a good or bad thing that Truman dropped the Bomb on Japan?' In my experience, debates like these are framed by teachers in a way to try to get students to say 'Yes, we should not have dropped the Bomb on Japan.' Regardless of what the students (or historians) believe regarding the morality of an event, it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and we can't change it. One of my grandfathers served in the Navy in the Pacific Theater during WWII, and my other grandfather turned 18 the same day that we dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki. Having spoken with both of them, they (and it sounds like most Americans at the time) were overjoyed that Truman dropped the Bomb, because it ended the war. Like Jacob commented, we need to help our students contextualize events to get a better understanding of them. We think that a lot of things that occurred in the past (ex. slavery, dropping the Bomb, etc.) were terrible, but the people who lived through them viewed them differently. We need to learn the good & the bad of history in order to make the future a better place. Vilifying the past for political gains in the present is only detrimental to our progression as a society.
Thanks for sharing that interesting family story, Jake. My now deceased ex-father-in-law flew bombers in Europe until VE Day. He was sent back to America for a brief visit home, then was ordered to the Pacific to take part in the invasion of Japan. He was thrilled to learn that the war had ended before he had to get in another bomber. As for the judgments students are often asked to make: What I do in my classes is to ask students to make the arguments both pro and con. I don't require them to resolve the issue. I point out that on hard questions the arguments were usually closely balanced, and that if you weren't there, you lack the perspective - and the personal stake - of those who were. On the Revolutionary War, for example, I have them imagine twins, eighteen years old (about my students' age), one trying to convince the other to join the Patriot cause, the other supporting the Loyalist side.
Dr. Brands, one of the things that I have always admired about you is your ability to present the information so well that it gives your readers the ability to interpret the history for themselves. That being said I wholly agree with you and I'll give an example that I am going through now. Our state has introduced an LGBTQIA mandate in history classes asking to present information about folks who were either possibly or were members of that community. As an instructor of World History and US History until 1865, I cannot give a judgement on what people truly felt. There is also the difference of culture at that time that, to use your term, narcissism of present morals tries to place in such a convenient present day microcosm. So, let us give people information and the tools to let them interpret. While it may cause disagreement, the idea of history has always been driven by change. It's what we see that we identify in our work and how we help the public try to understand.
You're in a tough spot with the gender/sexual orientation issues. Today it makes sense to speak of someone as a member (or not) of a gay community. But to apply that label to people in a time when such communities didn't even exist, and certainly not in forms recognizable to us today, does a disservice to them as individuals in their own right, and to us as seekers of a clear understanding of people in the past on their own terms.
I really love this take on histories and biographies. I’m in a seemingly weird place of understanding and even holding some woke sensibilities while also being passionate about American history and, for better or worse, American exceptionalism. In general, I think we have to reserve judgement as much as we can. Or at least contextualize the events and characters. Anything short of that seems like ethnocentrism. I’ve gotten myself into trouble for defending Jackson’s admirable qualities. But what was lost on my friends was that I wasn’t co-signing every damn thing he did.
You were in the same position I was in. I knew the guy wanted me to denounce Jackson for his slaveholding and his Indian policy, while ignoring his contribution to America's territorial integrity (Battle of New Orleans) and to the evolution of democracy. I was prepared to discuss, even debate, each of these issues on their merits, but not to add them up for a single verdict on Jackson.