Why does history still matter? How do our current beliefs shape the way we interpret history? Here is another interesting example of current circumstances affecting the way we think about and talk about the past.
What is the purpose of learning history? How can different nations use their history to accomplish different goals? What are the consequences of telling history in a one sided way, self promoting way?
This article helps us contrast the distinct views Great Britain and Germany have taken toward viewing their own histories. Is one superior to the other? How would we measure success in this regard? Should countries use history to promote patriotism?
“Neil MacGregor, the former director of the British Museum, has bemoaned Britain’s narrow view of its own history, calling it “dangerous and regrettable” for focusing almost exclusively on the “sunny side”.”
“Speaking before the Berlin opening of his highly popular exhibition Germany – Memories of a Nation, MacGregor expressed his admiration for Germany’s rigorous appraisal of its history which he said could not be more different to that of Britain.
“In Britain we use our history in order to comfort us to make us feel stronger, to remind ourselves that we were always, always deep down, good people,” he said. “Maybe we mention a little bit of slave trade here and there, a few wars here and there, but the chapters we insist on are the sunny ones,” he said.”
“He said Germans had given expression to their the worst chapter of their history in extensive memorials and Mahnmale (‘monuments to national shame’). “It’s telling that in English we don’t even have a word like ‘Mahnmal’,” he said. “The term is just too alien to us.””
In addition to recent debates around the Confederate flag and statues and memorials to confederate war heroes have been arguments around the names of buildings on college campuses and the ways in which we should remember past historical figures who have recently become unpopular. How should we view or judge historical figures? With the standards of today? Or of their time? Important figures often leave complicated legacies that make it difficult to characterize them simply.
The case of Woodrow Wilson is an interesting one. He helped built Princeton University into much of what it is today in addition to having been a US President. At the same time he held deeply racist views and acted on those views and helped resegregate the federal workforce. How do we reconcile our views on such a person?
Below are some interesting articles on the topic.
The first one briefly summarizes the issue. The following ones are opinion pieces.
Princeton will keep Woodrow Wilson’s name on buildings, but also expand diversity efforts
Here are four opinion pieces on the question
Erasing Woodrow Wilson’s name is not that easy
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/opinions/zelizer-woodrow-wilson-princeton/
Woodrow Wilson’s racism isn’t the only reason for Princeton to shun his name
The Case Against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/the-case-against-woodrow-wilson-at-princeton.html
What Woodrow Wilson Cost My Grandfather
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/opinion/what-woodrow-wilson-cost-my-grandfather.html
Yale Removes Calhoun Name: We Can’t Erase History or Erase It
“One of the goals of chopping away at history is to simplify it into a simple battle between the good, who remain, and the evil, who are wiped away. But that’s not the way history works, nor is it the way politics works.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444919/yale-removes-calhoun-name-foolish-erasure-history
Interesting article that addresses the issue of the practical value of learning history.
“It isn’t enough for a commander in chief to invite friendly academics to dinner. The U.S. could avoid future disaster if policy makers started looking more to the past.”
“For too long, history has been disparaged as a “soft” subject by social scientists offering spurious certainty. We believe it is time for a new and rigorous “applied history”—an attempt to illuminate current challenges and choices by analyzing precedents and historical analogues.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/dont-know-much-about-history/492746/
“This is how history is made — or rather, how the hue and cry of the present and near past gets lodged into the long-term cultural memory or else is allowed to quietly fade into an inaudible whisper. Public education has always been a battleground between cultural forces; one reason that Texas’ school-board members find themselves at the very center of the battlefield is, not surprisingly, money.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html
This article raises a lot of interesting questions and issues.
The use of documentary evidence to reconstruct past events, motivations and the movement of people raises the question: How do we learn about the past? When there is a gap in the historical record, it’s impossible for us to know certain things. Documents were also used to trace modern day descendants of these slaves who were sold.
This article also raises questions about whether we, presently, have any responsibility for the past actions of our institutions or governments. Can we make amends for the past? Can a moral “debt” be paid off monetarily? Through remembrance? Plaques?
Lastly, this raises the question of what history is worth knowing? When learning history we have to make choices about what to include and what to exclude in addition to the choices we make around interpretation.
You should also read some of the comments for this article because they communicate diverse opinions about these questions.
“In 1838, the Jesuit priests who ran the country’s top Catholic university needed money to keep it alive. Now comes the task of making amends.”
“Meanwhile, Georgetown’s working group has been weighing whether the university should apologize for profiting from slave labor, create a memorial to those enslaved and provide scholarships for their descendants, among other possibilities, said Dr. Rothman, the historian.
“‘It’s hard to know what could possibly reconcile a history like this,’ he said. ‘What can you do to make amends?'”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/georgetown-university-search-for-slave-descendants.html?_r=0
The Planet Money Podcast recently did two episodes on this question. You can find the links here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/04/21/525058118/episode-766-georgetown-louisiana-part-one
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/04/26/525769269/episode-767-georgetown-louisiana-part-two
“The war ended on April 30, 1975, with the fall of Saigon — now Ho Chi Minh City — to the Communist north, two years after the withdrawal of U.S. ground troops.
“The warning signs from history are all too clear. Failure to learn from the past has disastrous political consequences. Such ignorance is not simply about the absence of information. It has its own political and pedagogical categories whose formative cultures threaten both critical agency and democracy itself.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/the-violence-of-forgetting.html
“Since Egypt’s 1952 revolution, when a group of army officers overthrew the monarchy, the public education system has been an extension of the government. Textbooks and curriculums offered pro-government narratives, conveniently omitting facts or tweaking the truth. But now, the politicization in the schools has reached new heights, marked by efforts to erase or play down opponents’ contributions to history.”
What does this article tell us about the role of history in creating a national identify? What does this tell us about how current circumstances shape our perceptions of the past?
Is it ever ethical to censor scholarship or the media? What if the three million figure was accurate? Inaccurate?
Is it ethical to make illegal debates and scholarship questioning the death toll of the Holocaust (it is illegal in much of Europe but not in the United States)?
“Where does the truth about the numbers lie? The three million figure was popularized by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League in 1971, the country’s first president and the father of the current prime minister. Mujib, as he is popularly known, is a revered figure, particularly within the Awami League. But his biographer, Sayyid A. Karim, who was also Sheikh Rahman’s first foreign secretary, viewed the number as ‘a gross exaggeration.'”
“For others, however, questions are necessary on this and other aspects of the 1971 war, including the widespread killings of members of the Bihari ethnic group, who supported the Pakistanis during the conflict, by Bengali nationalists. We should question this because nationalist narratives about the past often serve contemporary political interests, and we should beware of an orthodoxy being used to silence dissent.”
TOK Topics 