The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Tom 1]

Tom, I think that in the U.S. there is more than one conception about the essence and significance of history, and what it is thought to be and what it is thought to be about will simply depend upon several factors, one of which is the extent and kind of education. Remember, we in the U.S. are a pluralistic nation, and that pluralism is in more than just one social vain.

On my own part, I can vouch for the idea that to one segment or strata of the U.S. population, history has nearly zero relevance and very little is known about it. This is the 'frame of mind' I had while growing up as a young boy, and I think this obtained in this way because I lived within what was more or less a non-intellectual family environment. However, once I became a Christian, became very familiar with the bible, and once I became educated in the Social Sciences a little later on, among other fields, my views have changed (and grown) quite a bit. It's now safe to say that I have a very different understanding about 'History' than I did 40 years ago.

It might be better to think of us in the U.S. as a melting-pot, as we've called ourselves. You're going to find more than just one or two, or even three, frames of mind regarding the significance of any kind of history here.

Peace.

I think there’s something to be said for not getting bogged down in the history of wherever you live, maybe that is what is part of what makes the US energetic and innovative and the EU more slow and steady. A country that is always looking forward can be more like that I suppose. But there are some problems with that too, there seems to be a need for the sort of review or wider acknowledgment of the legacy of some of the legal inequalities and so on that were part of the picture until not that long ago, and that can’t involve the majority unless there is widespread knowledge of that whole part of US history and how people were influenced by it. Otherwise you just get a string of seemingly pointless gestures like moving monuments and the like as in Chesterton’s post. Nothing is ever simple though, wherever people are concerned.

 

[Radagast]

wider acknowledgment of the legacy of some of the legal inequalities and so on that were part of the picture until not that long ago, and that can’t involve the majority unless there is widespread knowledge of that whole part of US history

That's the one part of US history that the schools cover in depth; everybody knows about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If that's the case then the melting pot isn't doing any melting.

Ok. A 'tossed-salad, then.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think there’s something to be said for not getting bogged down in the history of wherever you live, maybe that is what is part of what makes the US energetic and innovative and the EU more slow and steady. A country that is always looking forward can be more like that I suppose. But there are some problems with that too, there seems to be a need for the sort of review or wider acknowledgment of the legacy of some of the legal inequalities and so on that were part of the picture until not that long ago, and that can’t involve the majority unless there is widespread knowledge of that whole part of US history and how people were influenced by it. Otherwise you just get a string of seemingly pointless gestures like moving monuments and the like as in Chesterton’s post. Nothing is ever simple though, wherever people are concerned.

On a certain level, you're right, Tom. Unfortunately, the social and ideological complexities (and complications) that exist here often run deeper than simply those that may involve having only a superficial understanding of the U.S. in relation to its own social history.

 

[agapelove]

That's the one part of US history that the schools cover in depth; everybody knows about it.

US history is literally the most white-washed curriculum.

 

[coffee4u]

This is very true. I feel the modern world in general, but the New World states like the US, Australia, Canada, etc. have a profound lack of sense of the past. In a way, they have the same ideas as mediaeval Europeans, lumping everything beyond a century or so into a single 'ancient' time. This idea that these threads don't directly impact you is laughable, but a culture that doesn't celebrate their past ultimately forgets it. I feel there is far more of an historic consciousness in Europe, but I say that as an outsider. I recently saw attempts to put back up statues of Mary in Prague thrown down as the Hapsburg Austro-Hungary crumbled, and jockeying over the borders of old Hungary in eastern Europe; or how money used to depict old mediaeval kings there, too. National heroes are as varied as Skanderbeg, Barbarossa, Robin Hood, Boudicca, Caesar, etc. I think the New countries simply have too little history there, no old heroes, and there seems to be a clear starting point with colonisation or Independance, that what came before seems less relevant. It is psychological blindness.

I don't believe we are nearly so Australian centric as Americans are US-centric. from what I have seen, kids in the US are barely taught any world history or geography.

 

[Radagast]

US history is literally the most white-washed curriculum.

Actually, no, it's not. The whole focus of the US history curriculum is "bad things white people did."

Not necessarily in any accurate form, of course.

 

[Radagast]

I don't believe we are nearly so Australian centric as Americans are US-centric. from what I have seen, kids in the US are barely taught any world history or geography.

In one study, 44% of Europeans could locate Syria on a map, but only 28% of Americans.

Also, 39% of Europeans could locate Nigeria on a map, but only 23% of Americans.

And even in terms of locating US states, Americans do surprisingly poorly.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Speaking as an Australian, we've only been a constituted nation since 1st January 1901, that is to say 119 years. Prior to that the six Australian states were a bunch of separate British colonies (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia (which included what is now the Northern Territory), Western Australia and Tasmania). So we just don't have a European sense of continuity stretching back over the centuries.

An old building to us is one that is a hundred years old. I was talking to a client from work the other day and he said his house was built around 1918. To me that's old.

When we participated in the Boer War on behalf of Britain the late 19th Century, each state sent their own separate contingent eg. Queensland Imperial Bushmen for one example.

Sure there's the indigenous record stretching back thousands of years, but that generally wasn't recorded, and for most non-indigenous Australians, does not form part of our psychological sense of history. Obviously indigenous people feel differently but most of us have a different sense of origins.

So you're correct in saying that we don't have a strong sense of history.

This reminds me of a comment my old pastor made about some of the eschatological viewpoints that come out of (usually) Protestant circles. He commented that most of them come out of the USA, and that "I think they're a bit weird." He added, "The Europeans don't think that way, and they've had a much longer experience of Christianity."

So your comment about a "sense of history" applies to our perceptions of the church as well. I"m Catholic (by choice as an adult) but I would not have the same sense of church continuity that I think an Italian or Roman would have, with evidence of the church's past all around them.

The British had great success with federating 4 different colonies into Canada in the mid 19th (and later expanded), so they kept on trying it. So they federated Australia (with Fiji and New Zealand declining to join), the West Indies, the Central African Federation, and South Africa.

The West Indies and Central African Federation didn't last, not because they weren't economically successful (the CAF was highly successful in that regard) but on account of political issues.

South Africa is also fairly young, as we were only united in 1910. The Cape Colony was started by the Dutch in 1652, but the other three (Natal, Transvaal and the Orange River Sovereignty) only came into existence post 1830.

These were very different areas. The Cape for instance, had a non-racial franchise which the Apartheid government gradually stripped away, finally stripping coloured men of voting rights only in 1970. Natal however, was highly racist, called the bad boy of the dominions by Churchill, for their brutal suppression and burning of Zulu villages in 1906 over a minor dispute (which disgusted Gandhi). The other two were the former Boer republics, with recent animosity, and their former agrarian character burned by Scorched Earth tactics in the war, and clannish Afrikaans populations that feared the English Uitlanders.

The other 3 infected the Cape with racial issues it simply did not have, and the grievances and myths of the Boer were exported to the Cape Dutch, welding a new identity as Afrikaners, with a prickly attitude to the British. The Cape would have been better off if it had never federated I think, and there is actually a small group of Cape separatists. Churchill actually helped negotiate South Africa into existence as a compromise, to maintain a balance of English and Afrikaners, as Milner had originally intended to federate Southern Rhodesia and Bechuanaland into it, to secure British supremacy in the new Dominion. It was hoped the Cape would mollify the excesses of the others, but the opposite largely happened.

My Australian history isn't very good, but I assume the colonies federated there were broadly similar, and certainly not as varied as here.

So in South Africa, we also don't have a strong sense of history, but it is overlaid with powerful myths. In most of the country a house from 1918 would be considered old too, except in the Western Cape where most wine estates go back to the 1700s. There are deeper forces at play here. I remember reading how Australian politicians thought a Japanese invasion might help mould a better Australian identity through blood spilt. We must keep in mind that these are created identities and humans are naturally tribal, as any trip to a sporting event makes plain.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is completely accurate. The study of Aesthetics is the attempt to explain why one artwork is distinctly "better" than an another. Many scholars reject this attempt, but a minority do not. Check out the work of Harold Bloom if interested in the Western Cannon.

I read his appreciation of the King James Bible, and found him a bit pompous and not at all very objective. I agree though that some writing is simply 'better' in some sense, but I would rather look for it in the division between Imagination and Fancy made by Coleridge. The former creates meaning, the latter merely regurgitates; in a facile simplification.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think you're right that seeing the U.S. as a unit plays a part. It was seen less that way at one time, but the idea was made concrete by force of arms in the Civil War. So, I think we think of people moving west over the ocean, then moving west over the land till they hit another ocean. Kind of all one gradual event playing out.

And you mention popular heroes of expansion. Unless I'm forgetting some things, I think we just don't have much in the way of heroes or events involved in the Westward expansion. I mean heroes like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone arose during that time, but weren't really involved with the expansion. Maybe it was too gradual? Two exceptions are Lewis and Clark, who made the famous expedition. The other significant events I suppose would be the California Gold Rush, and the Mormons trying to start their own nation in Utah. I guess the way Oklahoma came to be is an interesting side note. They taught us about Lewis and Clark and the '49ers in school, they didn't tell us about the Mormons. Other than the whole expansion itself, there's not much specifically to protest. Of course things are moving fast and I wouldn't be surprised if I wake up tomorrow to find out they've banned reading about Lewis and Clark.

Oh wow, as soon as I finished that paragraph, I suddenly realized I didn't notice the water I'm swimming in - Texas. A revolution, and then a war, over a big chunk of real estate, and there were heroes, so that was a big deal. We're the only state of the 50 that requires its schoolkids to learn state history.

You've kind of opened the door for me to rant a little, and a rant goes good with coffee, so... I live where the Alamo is. The city is run by a city council which currently consists of approximately one conservative, and ten lunatic, wanna-be tyrants. In front of the Alamo there's a large stone cenotaph, a memorial to the heroes who fought and died inside the Alamo. My family name is on the cenotaph because an ancestor of mine died in the battle. Here's a pic so you can get an idea of the size of it:

The council is going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to move the cenotaph. I'm sure they'd prefer to just outright destroy it, but they probably couldn't come up with a justification for that, so they're going to move it to some nearby side street where tourists won't see it, except for the few who may happen upon it. I imagine tourists of the future who do see it will wonder "why didn't they put this thing in front of the Alamo?"

This is part of a larger plan. Right now, there's a little plaza area in front of the Alamo. It's an open relaxed space where you can mill about, sit on a bench or on the grass and have a snack. Admission is free so you could wander in an out of the Alamo. For a fee, if you want, you can have a guided tour where someone tells the story. What the city's going to do is cordon off the area in way that forces persons to be corralled though an entry way where they'll be forced to listen to a guide, who's going to be telling a new story. They city says it wants to present a "broader view" of the battle and surrounding circumstances. There is no broader view. This isn't mysterious ancient history. We know everything there is to know about what happened, from both sides, at least sufficient for any questions a casual tourist or local child might have. I believe they may be attempting to create a new myth.

I haven't heard of a single resident of this city who isn't opposed to the whole idea, if nothing else for the unnecessary waste of money, but the politicians know what history is best for us, so they're barreling ahead with the plans.

Wow. Puts a whole new meanimg to Remember the Alamo. This is the sort of thing that happens elsewhere too, where we are supposed to have a 'broader view' but it is merely substituting one myth for another, or inventing one from whole cloth.

What I mean with popular heroes of expansion is not just people like Lewis and Clark, or Custer; but people like Wyatt Earp, the romantic popular idea of the Cowboy, the Homesteader, the Lawman of the West, etc. Don't US towns hold like Founder's Day parades and the like?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't believe we are nearly so Australian centric as Americans are US-centric. from what I have seen, kids in the US are barely taught any world history or geography.

No, I don't think they are Australian-centric, but the general history knowledge is not as high as Europeans (in my experience). I like history and get frequent foreign doctors visiting us here, and try and talk about it with them.

We had a couple of Australians and the one had a jacket blazoned with the Eureka stockade flag. So I asked him if he was a Republican on account of it, to a blank stare. He said no, he just likes how it looks, after it was explained to him. His companion then said "that is such an Aussie thing to say". I know this is just anecdotal, but I have never gotten a deep sense of investment in history.

 

[Radagast]

What I mean with popular heroes of expansion is not just people like Lewis and Clark, or Custer; but people like Wyatt Earp, the romantic popular idea of the Cowboy, the Homesteader, the Lawman of the West, etc. Don't US towns hold like Founder's Day parades and the like?

On the political left in the US, there's a feeling that people are either totally evil or totally good; white people from the past are pretty much all in the former category.

From time to time, people get shifted from the "totally good" category to the "totally evil" one. That's been especially happening with feminists lately.

On the political right, of course, there tends to be an identification with "pioneers" and "founders."

 

[agapelove]

Actually, no, it's not. The whole focus of the US history curriculum is "bad things white people did."

Not necessarily in any accurate form, of course.

That's because US history is only made up of bad things white people did. If the government cannot even own up to it how can our textbooks? There are schools that still teach Christopher Columbus was a hero. The lack of context knowledge about social issues we deal with today is largely because of the distorted half truths in our curriculum. We leave out huge gaps of information when it comes to colonization, wars, slavery... just for the sake of preserving patriotism.

 

[Radagast]

We had a couple of Australians and the one had a jacket blazoned with the Eureka stockade flag.

It's complicated. In modern times, the Eureka stockade flag is largely a symbol of the militant Electrical Trades' Union (ETU) and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). It usually flies on construction sites.

For reasons similar to those in US politics, the CFMEU is drifting slowly to the right. That makes both the left and the right of politics distrustful of them, and results in the whole Eureka stockade episode being left out of the curriculum.

Even more embarrassing is the fact that several Eureka stockaders joined the US Confederacy when the CSS Shenandoah visited Victoria (they identified with rebels fighting a central government).

We Aussies tend to brush stuff like that under the carpet.

 

[Radagast]

It usually flies on construction sites.

Generally hanging from a crane:

 

[Tom 1]

That's because US history is only made up of bad things white people did. If the government cannot even own up to it how can our textbooks? There are schools that still teach Christopher Columbus was a hero. The lack of context knowledge about social issues we deal with today is largely because of the distorted half truths in our curriculum. We leave out huge gaps of information when it comes to colonization, wars, slavery... just for the sake of preserving patriotism.

I think that proves Radagast’s point, Columbus was a man of his time, not some cackling Bond villain rubbing his hands over the death of millions. The Western world is a lot softer and smoother than it used to be, and we have a much broader perspective of the past now that people, obviously, of the time we now look back on didn’t have. Columbus was a great man in the sense that his actions had a tremendous impact on human events, not that he was a ‘nice guy’ who cared about people. He was ambitious, an adventurer, and hardly as well-placed as we are to understand what the eventual impact of his actions on native peoples he was encountering for the first time might be. He thought he was headed for the sub-continent for one thing. If he had known he certainly wouldn’t have thought about it the way a person in the 21st C might. By the logic of retrospective judgement everyone from the first sentient primate to pick up a stick and bash someone with it to the inventors of nuclear fission must be irredeemably evil.

 

[agapelove]

I think that proves Radagast’s point, Columbus was a man of his time, not some cackling Bond villain rubbing his hands over the death of millions. The Western world is a lot softer and smoother than it used to be, and we have a much broader perspective of the past now that people, obviously, of the time we now look back on didn’t have. Columbus was a great man in the sense that his actions had a tremendous impact on human events, not that he was a ‘nice guy’ who cared about people. He was ambitious, an adventurer, and hardly as well-placed as we are to understand what the eventual impact of his actions on native peoples he was encountering for the first time might be. He thought he was headed for the sub-continent for one thing. If he had known he certainly wouldn’t have thought about it the way a person in the 21st C might. By the logic of retrospective judgement everyone from the first sentient primate to pick up a stick and bash someone with it to the inventors of nuclear fission must be irredeemably evil.

My point was not that history books should begin portraying Columbus as a genocidal maniac, but that if they're going to talk about him, they need to tell the full truth. We love to talk about his accomplishments and Thanksgiving but we place little emphasis on the devastating movements he lead against Native Americans, which is why the struggles of Indigenous people are still not fully recognized or acknowledged today. This is the same with slavery. I don't think textbooks should begin portraying past presidents as evil white supremacists who owned slaves, because likewise they were also just "men of their time". But why are we so afraid to talk about it? I think a large part of society's blindness to white privilege is due to the monopoly of strictly Anglo-American, mono-cultural viewpoints in education. If we're not aware of how history actually played out, it will just continue to replay itself.

 

[Tom 1]

My point was not that history books should begin portraying Columbus as a genocidal maniac, but that if they're going to talk about him, they need to tell the full truth. We love to talk about his accomplishments and Thanksgiving but we place little emphasis on the devastating movements he lead against Native Americans, which is why the struggles of Indigenous people are still not fully recognized or acknowledged today. This is the same with slavery. I don't think textbooks should begin portraying past presidents as evil white supremacists who owned slaves, because likewise they were also just "men of their time". But why are we so afraid to talk about it? I think a large part of society's blindness to white privilege is due to the monopoly of strictly Anglo-American, mono-cultural viewpoints in education. If we're not aware of how history actually played out, it will just continue to replay itself.

It’s an interesting question. I don’t think you can disrupt a culture’s narrative like that however without it leading to some other extreme. That’s where, I think, the nihilistic mentality of the most extreme version of an Antifa type worldview comes from, that kind of blind rage leading to some incoherent vision that it’s all bad and so should just be torn down and - then what? Mandela’s truth and reconciliation was perhaps the most deeply considered approach to a problem of this sort, but that only appears to have lasted for as long as there was someone of his character around to oversee it.

 

[Radagast]

I think a large part of society's blindness to white privilege

There's no such thing. There is a constellation of forms of privilege in the US, of which the greatest is simply $$$.

the monopoly of strictly Anglo-American, mono-cultural viewpoints in education

It's more accurate to say that there's a monopoly of anti-Anglo-American viewpoints, it seems to me.

And that's partly because everybody has to be portrayed as immaculate angels or as the devil incarnate; nobody wants to portray figures of the past as they were: flawed human beings.