February 22, 2010
Cutting History in Half? Some Schools Proposing U.S. History ‘Begin’ at 1865
John Armor
Last week was "Presidents Day." We used to know it as George Washington's Birthday. But in the Nixon Administration it was changed to Presidents Day, to fold in Abraham Lincoln, save one federal holiday, and maybe to make a small number of Americans think better of Richard Nixon, because he was, after all, President of the United States.
The point, of course, is that George Washington was unique. There have been many men, and two women I can think of right away, who were great military commanders, leaders who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. There have been many men, and some women, who were great leaders of governments in time of crisis. There have been a small number of men who played a critical role in creating their own, successful nations. Washington did that, of course, as the President of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
But in the history of the human race there has been one, and only one, person who accomplished all three of these goals in his lifetime. That person was George Washington. It is the reason for the slogan about him which developed during his public life, and became the common description of the man after he retired from all public service and power and returned to Mount Vernon to live out his years. "First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen."
The de-emphasis of the study and consideration of George Washington and his times ought to be of concern today. And that brings us to brain-dead, so-called educators in California and North Carolina. There may be other states on this potential list of academic shame, but these two I know for sure. School officials in both states are presently considering whether to cut American history in half. The proposal is to teach American history only from the 1865 forward. The people who declared the nation to be, fought the war to establish it and wrote the Constitution to establish it, would disappear from the history books.
As students of history know, most of it is ballistic. Once you know where and how a nation began, and the direction and speed it took, you can predict accurately where it will arrive in time. That is, absent any cataclysmic events that can change the whole equation. Every gunnery sergeant who has ever served knows what this means, including those who served under Capt. John Paul Jones on the Bonne Homme Richard. But what can anyone know about the future of the United States in the absence of knowledge about how and when it began?
The proposal of these so-called educators would be rank foolishness even if the United States were a small nation, with limited impact on world events and limited leadership by example. When you include the facts that the U.S. was the first nation to create a written Constitution, and that Constitution has outlasted every other written constitution among all the 186 nations which have constitutions, the proposal of these educators is downright madness. The history of governments on Earth, not just the history of the U.S., demands that students have a passing familiarity with how and why we created our system of different branches of government, checks and balances, and limits on governmental power, all of which were brand new to the Framers.
Let's use some examples: Would a history of England be fatally defective without a study of the Magna Carta? Would a study of Rome be fatally defective without a study of Julius Caesar? How about a study of Athens which left out Pericles? Or, to choose negative examples, how about studying the USSR and leaving out Lenin? Or studying Germany while leaving out Hitler? Students can learn from bad examples what not to do, correct?
My understanding is that the proposed abandonment of the beginnings of U.S. history is driven by consideration of new history text books which have been dumbed down and have left the guts of American achievements on the cutting room floor. It might be worthwhile for all of you to find out whether this pernicious idea of crippling U.S. history has reared its ugly head in the text books, classrooms, or school boards in your state. If it has, don't get mad, get even. Throw out such books and such "educators" and return U.S. history to its essential place in U.S. classrooms.
This is as naive as thinking history begins with one's own birthday.
posted by: Dorothy Smoker
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 09:42 AM
This country's history started at the start of the "New World". I guess they have the right to change history just as they have the right to do whatever they want to do without any responsibility whatsoever. Since there is no history anymore - at least to speak of, and it starts at 1865 - does that mean we don't have to hear laments about slavery anymore?
posted by: Phyllis
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 09:48 AM
NO. Period.
posted by: poptoy
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 11:04 AM
No George Washington=no United States. He was the glue that held things together during those oh so dark days. If it had not been for him there would be no country for the liberals to despise and revile.
That generation brought about the greatest nation in the world with far seeing vision and safe guards. If this nation of ours is so rotten to the core then why do we have so many people trying to get in?
posted by: DUANE
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I live in CA and would like to know who to contact to stop this.
We have to stand up to this and other things that are dumbing down our students.
posted by: Polly
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 03:09 PM
The study of history has already deteriorated -- as have the studies of English, grammar, spelling, reading, reading comprehension, rudiments of writing, basics of arithmetic, etc.
What's next?
And why is anybody surprised?
posted by: AJ
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 08:35 PM
This is being proposed on purpose. The Civil War and its aftermath marked the beginning of the large, central state in American life. Most everything before, including the Founding, looks like a Conservative's dream. Therefore, it must be expunged, just like in 1984 or Soviet Russia.
posted by: john
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 09:09 PM
To back up "john", before 1865, the United States were; after 1865, the United States was. Lincoln used the Civil War as a reason to consolidate the federal Leviathan, almost as if he understood the Cloward-Pivens thesis well before it was written.
As a former teacher, former because I refused to turn my students into drooling, passive thinking morons, what worries me most is that the dumbing down accelerated by the All Children Left Behind Act will mean that children will not have the mental acuity or the intellectual curiosity to ask why the arbitrary cutoff of history.
Ave atque Vale
posted by: Chuck Moody
Monday, February 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Read 'A Patriot's History of the United States' By Professor Larry Schweikart
posted by: Chase Chalus
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 04:40 AM
