:: KipperCat :: =^. .^=

:: Sunday, June 29, 2003 ::

:: posted by John ::

History: Why does the Textbook Keep Changing?

I haven’t had a chance to get my hands on the latest history text being studied for adoption in Texas yet. Sight unseen, I am confident that they will be very different than the ones that I read while going through elementary and high school thirty plus years ago. I am equally certain that I will find elements that I have strong issue with. History is like that, a subject we all get a taste of (some like it most end up either hating it or at the very least very glad when they are done with it) and then get on with our lives. History, however, does not go away and when it raises it head everyone has an opinion even if not the best informed opinion on the subject.

The problem with history is that it is so alien to the hard sciences and mathematics. Science examines the framework and fabric of our universe; internally and externally. Mathematics provides one of the principal tools in these investigations. In both cases the broad outlines of “how” things are done and the meaning of what is discovered is generally accepted. The scientific method of inquiry holds sway over both realms. History is not like that; never has been never will be. The quest for “objective” history is more futile than the one for the Holy Grail; the Grail most likely existed (abet in a form unrecognizable to most of us). “Objective history is a scepter that has never existed no matter how hard the hand of human kind has tried to create it.

History is an interpretive discipline. A creditable writer of history researches “the facts”, and then proceeds to interpret what all the facts mean for the reader. I stress creditable and discipline in this process because there is a lot of “history” that is poor in its research and represents poorly organized opinion rather than useful interpretation. I’ll get back to these in a minute or so. Let’s look at facts; they are or should be the skeletal structure on which a reputable writer of history builds in order to have anything to interpret. For sake of discussion (someone else can bring in the dictictionaries) let me define a “fact” as it relates to history this way: something happened and multiple and diverse verification can be obtained and studied by anyone interested in doing so. Example: in 1648 the warring states of Europe signed the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years war. Copies of the treaty still exist, so not only “who signed” but also what they signed is available for examination by anyone interested in doing so. In 1776, by act of Congress, the delegates in Philadelphia declared their independence from Britain, listing the reasons for this action. Both examples can be substanciated by anyone that cares to seek out the actual documents, or exact copies that can be read for study. Now, what do these two “facts” mean? Are the two related to each other in any way, and if so how and why? Determining that is interpretation; “what does it mean?”. This is where most of the arguments involving history start; what does it mean?

Taking the example of 1776 and our Declaration of Indpendence, this event has been interpreted and re-interpreted many times. Back nearly four decades ago, when I ran into this in high school American History, the whole thing was pretty clear cut. The colonies are seeking independence from the British Crown over lack of reprentation and taxation ("no taxation without representation"). Not much to argue about. I went off to college and the subject got boader and a little more complicated. At that time (the mid-sixties) the "ecconomic" school of history was in full swing and there were many well written articles and books stressing that the population most interested in independence were the merchants and investors (here) that were frustrated with British trade laws requiring all exports to go through England or one of the crown colonies. Not only was this costly, but it ment that the cargo was subject to British tarifs and trade laws. It was easier to smuggle and avoid the whole mess; and much more profitable! An expanded meaning was creeping into the "no taxation without representation". The motives of some of our prime movers in the American Revolution started to appear less noble and somewhat more self-serving. When this interpretation hit the school text books, about the time I did my studen teaching; it was not well received at all! Someone had snuck in and "changed" history.

This process continues. As new information becomes available and new scholars find different approaches to view "what happened", interpretation continues to changes. Recently, there was a brief blip in the press as the President and some of his chief associates began tossing around the expression "revisionest history". My take on that is "get used to it". Re-interpretation is an on-going process. What we should all hope for is that those the doe the writing and "revision" adhere to my first two requirements; discipline and fact. Discipline, to rigorously research the facts of currrent events and fact as that foundation on which interpretation is based. Without these two qualities, the product will only be uninformed opinion and best left for the radio and television talk shows that are longer on argument than they are on fact.

:: -- John 6/29/2003 05:51:00 PM [+] ::
...