Rewriting U.S.A History?

"indoctrinating children by promoting rightwing views on religion, economics and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery."

Clearly, to assume that there is only the possibility of a given narrative is as erroneous as to assume that a given map is the only one possible. Histories are not innocent stories but always ideologial constructs.


What do you think is going on here? :detective:

It is hard to mount any defense for slavery or the destruction of the native North American peoples.

I do not think that is a fair or a balanced view.

Some say these "injustices" are not given appropriate coverage others that they are overemphasized.

We used to of course paint our heroes lily white and our villains the darkest black (both countries and historical figures). The trend now days is a more nuanced presentation (in art, movies, literature and history). Once one begins to present all sides of an issue, you are always subject to the charge of being biased or unbalanced in one direction or the other.

I make no apologies for being American. I am proud to be an American. I feel privileged to be an American. I think many people in the world wish they did live in America or a country like America. I think the history books my children read and are taught from should reflect our proud history and heritage not unduly dwell on our shortcomings and historical mistakes.

I think a lot of Americans still view America as the land of opportunity where anyone who wants to make the effort, be flexible and work hard can succeed.

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"

It is hard to mount any defense for slavery or the destruction of the native North American peoples. There is a sense in which however that is only a small part of the American story and there is much that is positive to be expressed. It really is a question of emphasis and balance.

The clash between the Native American peoples and Europeans coming to the New World was in a sense a clash of civilizations, not unique in history, not unique in nature and part of the evolution of human culture. Civilizations and societies encounter and clash and often one is destroyed and the other flourishes.

Slavery in history was almost universally accepted and practiced. There is a sense in which the application of modern morals and notions of human rights and human dignity to the actions and characters of the past is inappropriate. Viewing the past through the lens of the present invariably leads to distortions. The founding fathers are accused of being slave holding hypocrites, the settlers moving west for a better life of being murderers and robbers. I do not think that is a fair or a balanced view.

Some say these "injustices" are not given appropriate coverage others that they are overemphasized. It is hard to get agreement on what is a fair and balanced view or presentation. In general I do think America was and is at the forefront of the promotion of representative government, human rights and human dignity and at the forefront of the worth of the individual, innovation and discovery.

We used to of course paint our heroes lily white and our villains the darkest black (both countries and historical figures). The trend now days is a more nuanced presentation (in art, movies, literature and history). Once one begins to present all sides of an issue, you are always subject to the charge of being biased or unbalanced in one direction or the other.

"Fondly do we hope, feverently do we pray, that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth" Lincoln.

If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.
Madeleine Albright

I make no apologies for being American. I am proud to be an American. I feel privileged to be an American. I think many people in the world wish they did live in America or a country like America. I think the history books my children read and are taught from should reflect our proud history and heritage not unduly dwell on our shortcomings and historical mistakes.

There are perhaps two books from opposite sides of the spectrum: "A Peoples History of the United States" and "A Patriots History of the United States" which illustrate quite well the potential divide in historical emphasis, view, and presentation. Perhaps we should read both.

the view of American exceptionalism should be discussed in the schoolbooks.

Is this notion similar or comparable to that of Herrenvolk?

Apparently, the controversy is about whether the view of American exceptionalism should be discussed in the schoolbooks..

Triumphalism is the attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, religion, culture, or social system is superior to and should triumph over all others. Triumphalism is not an articulated doctrine but rather a term that is used to characterize certain attitudes or belief systems by parties such as political commentators and historians.

Nothing to do with race so far as I know. America is the most racially diverse county in the world. (Another facet of American exceptionalism).

The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up." But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in What's the Matter with Kansas and tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party.

Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.

On the face of it some of the changes are innocuous but critics say that closer scrutiny reveals a not-so-hidden agenda. History students are now to be required to study documents, such as the Mayflower Compact, which instil the idea of America being founded as a Christian fundamentalist nation.

Tell you the truth, I think the thing that is really missing in American culture is a sense that we're all in it together. The pursuit of happiness and individual liberty, the way it is construed in American culture, is inherently self-seeking. Without a willingness to really listen to the other, even if I don't agree with him or her, and to try and find some common ground, how can there be any progress? Actually, coming to think of it, Obama said that, and he is being demonised by the right like no other President before him.

Sorry, rambling on here. But today, I don't feel hopeful about the future.

Thomas Jefferson was attacked by ministers who accused him of being an "infidel" and an "unbeliever." A Federalist cartoon depicted him as a drunken anarchist, and the president of Yale warned that if Jefferson came to power, "we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution." A Connecticut newspaper warned that his election would mean "murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced"

Cool. Could we then undersdtand the term American Exceptionalism as not referring to the American people as exceptional, outstanding, fine and superior?