I mentioned in my first post that I am a grad student two times over at the moment. I'm in the final (hopefully) stages of my dissertation and its drafting before the editing process begins, but I'm also a new grad student in the field of History. Weird as it may sound, I decided to apply to a Masters program in History with the hopes that the rigorous training I encountered during my undergraduate studies and also my first Masters, would help guide me to the type of writing and investigation that I craved in order to help give my dissertation more depth and focus.
To state that I'm feeling overwhelmed by the reading and short writing exercises would be an understatement. I'm taking three courses this semester, all thought-provoking in their own ways. But the course I'm starting to find that is having the deepest impact is my overview to the history profession. This course asks questions about what history means to others, how history is created, and what it means to be a professional historian. Tonight's reading (well it's due tomorrow, but you know...better late than never) hit more home than I anticipated.
Bruce A. VanSledright's 2011 monograph The Challenge of Rethinking History Education. On Practices, Theories and Policy a multifaceted approach to discussing the field of history and how its been taught, combined with case studies, educational research studies, secondary sources on history as a field, as well as many others. What I found so profound was the ways in which VanSledright broke down the thought processes of history teachers who are seeking to rethink and challenge the typical nation-state narrative. I have always loved history, but I took issue with it on a variety of levels. As a biracial person, the portrayal of historical figures as heroes of heroines appeared to me dubious. As adults, we realize that most people are far more dynamic and complex than a simple battle between good or well-intended persons and bad or evil, corrupting persons. Discussing the question of President Jackson and the events leading up to the Trail of Tears, I was struck by how bad a taste was left in my mouth with the mention of the "people's President". Viewing Jackson as a man of his time, I would not say that he acted in any way that would be seen as abnormal. In fact, I would go as far to say that the infamous chief justice who ruled that the Treaty of New Echota (1835) was fraudulent (based upon the fact that the "representatives" of the Cherokee nation were self-appointed and entered into contract without the behest or approval of actual officials within the tribes), was much more so the odd-man-out. Even President Washington discussed the "Indian problem", claiming that they were in need of socialization/ indoctrination into American ways.
As we enter into the last stretch before what is a very raucous and hotly debated presidential election, I think it warrants that we take pause to consider the ways in which the constructed concept of America, the History of the US as promoted and disseminated to created an overarching nation-state narrative and myth, is not one that has aided in bridging ongoing rifts within American society. If anything we should be asking ourselves what is significant about being American? Are we a land of immigrants or isolationists? Or perhaps both? Whatever the range of your personal opinion, what we need now is more dialogue, fewer assumptions and more outlets for people of various backgrounds to freely discuss concerns, grievances, etc. Now would be an excellent time to identify shortcomings, potential strengths, achievements (both big and small), and the ways in which we have not provided for our communities.
If we continue to stick to the nation-state building narrative, without any degree of questioning, America will not be made the better for it. So many claim that to critique or question the concept of America as promoted within US history courses is also to become "un-American" or to be against the very vein of American identity. I call bullshit. The concept of American identity is constantly changing, a fact which I believe is really at the heart of many people's discomfort. The average viewpoint of Americans during Jackson's time would reflect a minority of the population today. Even a return to the 1960s would offer a different dynamic in the social, economic and political mindset of many Americans. The fact that there is such a campaign to retreat into a now-fossilized concept of the nation-state narrative reflects not only the divide between persons of varying viewpoints (and an attempt to dominate again the creation and sustaining of the narrative), but also the presence of America in a position of change and on the threshold of continuing change. I would go as far to say that this crux or crossroads is not solely an American but a global predicament, one that has slowly developed during the conflicts, bombings and warfare of the past one and a half decades.
I have no answers. I feel as if others would have that response. But approaching this from a position of negative philosophy, I will say that more hate, intolerance, and personal attacks on anyone of a differing opinion is simply broadening that gap between "liberals" and "conservatives". But listening is difficult, it's underrated and undervalued. Obstinate behaviors abound, over-generalizations and assumptions are the norm. I only hope that, through questioning the actions of the world around them, the subsequent generations will take heed and not underestimate the severity of the issues at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment