The History on Trial - Book Report/Review Example

? History on Trial History on Trial About the book History on Trial is an appealing book that aims at telling the story of the debate that was presented over the establishment of the National History Standards in the year 1994 stemming from the perception of three expert academics who were strongly involved in the procedure. These are Nash Gary B. from UCLA, who is a prominent social historian; Dunn Ross E. from San Diego, who writes about Islamic, African, and world history. He was the first head of the World History Association; and Crabtree Charlotte, who taught curriculums at UCLA1. The lessons open with sections exacting the authors' viewpoint on the subject of history and on the key inclinations that have brought about the contemporary state of the authority2. They argue that the past is not set in stone, but is constantly reinterpreted by every succeeding age band. Much liberty is given to presenting these points, unquestionably in response to the grave public retort to the standards of history. The authors make a note that historians have time and again been hit for bringing new styles of looking at history3. The story then takes a turn as it is then brought up to present-day times. New History was entrenched in the social uproar of the 1960s, when it started to manipulate the lettering of history4. The authors dispute that when social history was written for the first time by minorities, gave augment to the multicultural movement that was a new way of exploration of the American and world societies from perceptions other than those exhibited by white upper-class males. The final four sections of the book feature the making and argument of the Standards of National History5. The strength shown in the book is that it allows the audience to scrutinize the development from inside and allows for some insight to be reflected on the enthusiasm behind these standards. Since the three writers are too close to the predicament to explore it fairly, the book presents a better first-person journalistic explanation than a history. However, as a journalistic description, it allows the audience to look in and observe tribulations in the attempt to set up the history standards (Kirkus 1997, 1). The “War” There is a war that is created in the writing of this book. This is about which version of history is supposed to be taught to students who are still in schooling institutions. The authors of this book try to remind their audience that history is still a very “hot” topic. Around the year 1994, this topic came to become part of front page news6. The reason why this subject became part of the limelight is that it strewed private and public discussions over which adaptation of history should be incorporated in schooling institutions in the United States. These discussions were heard from the halls of schools to those of the United States senate. Authors Gary Nash, Ross Dunn, and Charlotte Crabtree using their book “History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past” were part of this political spectacle as they detailed the conflict that exploded over the establishment of the standards of national history7. In the year 1991, the interest groups for the creation of standards for national educational were in full bloom8. With support from national political leaders within the Bush administration, and funding from associations such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, a syndicate of nine educational parties that integrated the National Council for History Education, the Organization of History Teachers, and the Association for Supervision, Curriculum, and Development commenced the critically acclaimed National History Standards Project. The three authors of the book “History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past,” journal the difficulties involved in the accomplishing of this task and make known the difficulty of creating standards in this value-laden project9. They make sure to record the clashes that resulted in a vivid manner so as to show the audience the difficulty that was witnessed during this process. Even though, the writers and instructors involved in this mission acknowledged its probability to develop into an ideological theatre of war, it seems definite that they did not look forward to the attacks that would follow the announcement of the standards in the year 1994. A collection of household names that included Lynne Cheney, who was the head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, attacked the honesty of standards and the people tasked to create it. Senator Slade Gorton from Washington denounced these standards at the United States Senate claiming that it was ideologically driven and was an anti-West monument that wanted to destroy the Nation’s memory10. Voting was carried out by the Senate, and a 99 to 1 vote saw to a recommended denunciation of these standards. This was a move that had little instrumental effect, but a rather stronger symbolic effect11. The events that took place during these times have no definite conclusion because even after the last acts witnessed in these debates, the matters at hand have not been concluded. The three authors that worked hard to bring us the accounts of the making of the standards of national history remind us that the fight to label the past still continues, although the battles have subsided regarding the standards of history. The final chapter shows that this battle was and forever will be a cultural war. They try to show that this war was fought before, was fought then, and will be brought up in the coming generations as each generation will try to give its own definition of what history is, what it means to them, and how they expect their interpretation will be given to the future generations(J.P.S 2011, 1). What other historians think about this book For many historians, the past is more composite far from what many people view it to be. They not only have to face the facts about what happened that is many a times in difference of opinion, but they must also settle on which of the many accounts that happened to different people and groups which will be part of their spotlight12. The things that took place during the Revolutionary War vary when reflected from the view of Gen. Washington or that of his army. The implication of slavery differs noticeably when taken from the perspective of a master, a white overseer, or a house slave. Historians are tasked to come to a decision about not only what took place, but also what happened to which party and from which party’s viewpoint13. Reviewers of the national standards are mocked in the paperback. The preposterous stature of Rush Limbaugh is given the podium to represent most of the reviewers. Director Lynne Cheney, in fact, politically goaded, as the writers point out, stands for the rest. It is not realized until the last page of the writings that the authors award that conceivably reviewers of multiculturalism may have some levelheaded concerns. This neglect to deal candidly and reasonably with critics of standards and multiculturalism is an imperfection in the book, as well as, in the process that it is recounted14. There are claims that the author’s discussions are not straightforwardly summarized. The claims that their arguments are more focused on how the world history standards should be rather than looking at history from the face of Western civilization and a reflection of the viewpoint of the other cultures involved in the recording of history15. In their book, they says that there are things that the authors felt that should have been included in the standards of national history even though the nation may not be proud of the things that is has done. It is estimated that over six thousand people participated in the drafting of the standards that were to be used to teach national history in schools. This includes people from different levels such as administrators, parents, teachers, business leaders, and scholars (Mcnay 1999, 1). Future of the National History Standards The future of the standards of national history was still uncertain as persons such as Rugg Harold lost in their efforts to create an inquiry based look into history in education. The result was that his books were banned from the use in school districts around the country for having a collectivist incline16. In the long run, Rugg emerged the winner as in the educational system being practiced today; there is only a small minority of instructors who still believe that it goes against the American standards to take a look into both sides of the controversy in history. A majority of instructors believe that it is important to show students how in the past, people had sharp differences and that sometimes bloody fights were the result. History is not only about getting the correct facts, but a never ending revision of the past, as well as, to understand that the past is about heroic and shameful deeds. Not all heroic people in history were of one age, color, class, or gender17. The legacy left by Riugg will remain useful to the educational standards to be implemented in future18. The best thing would be to include the studies done by previously ignored minority groups in history through the creation of a truly world-encircling world history. It is assumed that Americans will never agree on a single unified version of history as long as the country was democratic. Only authoritarian countries are in a position to take up an agreed upon version of history. These kinds of revision are the constructive suggestions that are required is the country is supposed to settle in a dynamic version of national standards. The importance of using technology and science to give details of some elements of has also been highlighted as a vital strategy19. Conclusion The authors make an attempt to make known the process that took place all through the making of the standards of national history. Their views and concerns are arguably addressed in this book in a manner that is captivating, indulging, and informative. The “war” described about the version of history that is to be instructed to students at the high school level shows the difference in the opinion that was exhibited by people from different cultures and backgrounds. This gives the audience a great deal to think about when it comes to the national standards used to teach history. Bibliography Henry, J.S. (2010) Progressive Era: Great age of reform. Retrieved on April 5th 2012: http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html. J.P.S. (2011). History on Trial. Harvard Educational Review. http://www.hepg.org/her/booknote/160 Kirkus. (1997). History on Trial. Kirkus Review. 1 August. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/gary-b-nash/history-on-trial/ Martin, K. (2012), Top ten new deal programs. Retrieved on April 5th 2012 from about.com: http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/new_deal_programs.htm Mcnay, J. T. (1999). History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past. Journal of World History. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_world_history/v010/10.2mcnay.html Read More