INTRODUCTION: American inventor and entrepreneur, Henry Ford, is famous not only for his astounding success in making the automobile available to nearly every American family, but also for his famous quote: "History is bunk." Many historians, offended by Ford's abrupt dismissal of the subject, defensively retort that history is not bunk and set out to prove their "case" regarding the relevance and significance of the study of history. The reader may be surprised to learn that on one level, I agree with Ford. A few years ago while browsing the titles in the history section of my local bookstore, my eyes fell upon James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Instantaneously, I snatched the book from the shelf and began frantically shuffling through its pages. Presently, I realized that Loewen had elucidated the exasperation of countless teachers of American history, and I could barely wait to get the book home where I could pore over his words without interruption. A sociologist by trade, Loewen articulates brilliantly the effects upon a society when its citizens are ignorant of their history and shines an almost blinding light on some of the most sacrosanct American historical legends. By and large, Americans do not consider themselves ignorant of their history. Yet, most are still under the influence of grammar-school indoctrination in the "discovery" of America by Columbus and the myth of George Washington's confession to his father that he, indeed, could not tell a lie and did, in fact, cut down the cherry tree. Sadly, in the technologically-obsessed twenty-first century, any knowledge of history beyond these mythical snippets is considered "onerous" or simply "extraneous" to the "real" world. Overwhelmingly, what I hear from my college history students is that high school history was boring, irrelevant, and largely taught to them by teachers who had little or no passion for the subject. The classic situation is the high school coach who is hired to supervise athletic programs on the condition that he/she teaches a designated number of social studies courses of which history usually comprises the majority. In my own experience, high school history was taught by male coaches who authoritatively lectured about U.S. history as a parent would a child, then barked commands, like: "All right, everybody be quiet and write the answers to the questions on Page 29." While we submissively complied, the coach sat at his desk, clipboard and pencil in hand, diagramming football plays, resentfully offering obligatory answers to any questions we might ask. Nevertheless, some of us, thanks to stimulating college instructors, learned to love history. We studied the subject in the context of the social upheaval and cultural transformation of the 1960s and 70s. Moreover, in awe-stricken wonder at the relevance of history to our lives and our world, we vowed that our teaching of it would be passionate, vital, and illuminating. We could not wait to incite a similar voracity for historical knowledge in our students. So upon all of the above I reflect when I hear Henry Ford's proclamation that history is bunk. I believe that rather than simply defending against Ford's comment, the diligent historian must analyze it more deeply. First, we must ask ourselves what would cause someone to proclaim that history is bunk? What more should we know about Ford that might shed light on his dismissal of history? Is it not extraordinarily relevant to understand that Ford was passionately anti-semitic and an ardent admirer of Hitler? In fact, when Hitler penned his infamous Mein Kampf, a portrait of Ford rested on his writing desk. What might happen if this detail were included in conventional history texts? Might it not lead to discussion of the reality that Ford was only one of hundreds of corporate tycoons during the 1930s who admired Hitler and helped finance his rise to power? And if Ford was only one, who were the others? Why did they support Hitler? How did they become admirers of the most treacherous butcher in modern history? And what happened to their support for Hitler during World War II and after? Does their identification with his cause have anything to do with the turn of events following World War II or even the unfolding of events in the early twenty-first century? Are there implications that connect with current events such as the fact that at this writing, the sitting American president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, a contemporary of Ford, was one of those numerous corporate financiers of Hitler? These are questions that historians are obligated to ask, and I do, and in History Uncensored, I offer answers to those questions-or at least plausible explanations which may not be "right" in the conventional sense, but which provide an alternative not found in "official" versions of American history. This work is unequivocally controversial, and it is meant to be, but as one of my students remarked after a lively discussion of its contents: "We may not agree with you or this curriculum, but we will never forget this course." For me, the impact of the questions raised is far more momentous than my students' or readers' agreement with my answers. At the opposite end of the spectrum from Henry Ford is the philosopher, George Santayana, whose famous quote is ubiquitous in history books and holocaust museums: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Unfortunately, some students use this quote to attempt to validate the irrelevance of studying history. The logic goes something like: "Well, the only thing I learn from history is that people learn nothing from history." At that point, I am quick to challenge the student to tell me what he/she personally has learned from history. Almost always, the student discloses that she has learned a great deal from history but also confesses that it feels meaningless if the rest of society does not also learn similar lessons. At that point, I hasten to remind the student that one cannot compel society to learn from history, but one can learn one's own lessons from history, and since society is comprised of individuals, what each person learns from history has the potential to make an enormous difference in society. I personally feel great empathy with the student who argues in this manner because he is articulating frustration with a society that does not value historical knowledge. College and university budgets incessantly decrease funds for humanities and social sciences while increasing them for engineering and technological programs. Academia appears to be screaming loudly that only the present and future matter. Whenever a tragic event occurs nationally, one of the most telling and frequently-repeated mantras is "we want to put this behind us" thereby revealing our collective belief in the irrelevance of the past-a place where dark, painful events are buried, never to be unearthed and examined for their meaning and relevance. In my opinion, the relegating of history to an antiquated closet of insignificance is not only intellectually unsound but fundamentally dangerous. A people ignorant of their own history are easily deceived and exploited. For example, our Founding Fathers wrote and spoke profusely of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment concept of inalienable rights. It permeates our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. For them, the term was synonymous with human rights held by each individual by virtue of nothing more than his/her existence. That is, one possesses inalienable rights because one breathes air and walks on the earth. Currently, however, members of the Bush Administration, including former Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, argue that government bestows the rights guaranteed in the Constitution upon its citizens. In almost every history class I teach, I ask students to explain the origin of their rights as American citizens. Typically, most assume that their rights are "given" to them by their government. It is a rare student who has ever considered that if the government can "give" these rights, the government can also take them away. Few traditional history textbooks clarify the concept of inalienable rights which has contributed, in my opinion, to several generations of Americans who assume that the rights they daily enjoy and take for granted are somehow bestowed by their nation's leaders. It is important to understand that history textbooks are the products of corporate media, and corporate media, whether it be CNN, the New York Times, or Bedford St. Martins Publishers is much more concerned with selling a product than agonizing over accuracy. This is why hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans, no longer acquire their daily news from mainstream sources but rely on alternative sources on the internet to inform them of local, national, and world events. Moreover, as Loewen explains in Lies My Teacher Told Me, public school systems are not interested in making waves in terms of questioning the accuracy of history textbooks. Particularly in an era of backlash against the teaching of the theory of evolution or sex education, educators are loath to scrutinize American history textbooks which teach, as virtually all traditional ones do, that the United States of America is the most tolerant, moral, non-aggressive, and benevolent nation on earth. Insufficient detail, if any, is offered regarding Native American genocide by European settlers or the rabid racism that motivated them from the moment they set foot on the continent. Few textbooks analyze the persecution of labor and social justice movements by the
|
