The Presence of the Past

Rating:
Summary: Americans aren't all stupid!!
Review: Recent history has found academicians at battle regarding the function of teaching history to young Americans. Conservative elements of our society continue to embrace the notion that history should serve the function of instilling patriotism and upholding the sacred cows of American mythology. More rational types have found that history, as taught in school, tends to alienate students, particularly women and minorities, since textbook learin' doesn't connect with their experiences and hardships. Compounding these difficulties, there is a tendency among many people to believe that Americans are largely an ignorant lot, happily devouring TV programs and films that rewrite history to serve as entertainment. Rosenzweig and Thelen's Presence of the Past provides a statistical analysis of these problems. Interviewing 808 Americans of varying background, race, class, and location; the authors find that Americans are not as ignorant of history as we might expect. The respondents' relationship to the past is generally unrelated to the knowledge (or lack thereof) they attained in school. Instead, people tend to relate to history through familial connections and personal hobbies. Rosenzweig and Thelen find that "Respondents rarely mentioned the triumphal national narrative favored by those who...advocate history as a means of teaching patriotism" (116). People of all backgrounds found themselves having the closest connection with history when they were at family gatherings or museums. Even more encouraging was that people universally condemned most television and film representations of history. Indeed, one woman complained that "The media are fascist liars" (99). The study thus comes down firmly on the side of a more open-minded, inclusive approach to the teaching of history in school. Respondents generally found history in high school to be "boring", "irrelevant", "fake", "distant", "propaganda", and "biased" (111). Minority respondents stated they found history class to be a pointless recitation of "facts" about the great white men of history. If our students, who are increasingly black, brown, and yellow, are turned off by history in school, how can we possibly expect them to become good patriots? Although the study is useful in this exploration, several aspects of it are rather disappointing. Rosenzweig and Thelen fail to record the experiences of Asians, formulating some lame excuses in Appendix I: "We could not readily come up with a cost-effective way to sample...The data on (Chinese) concentrations are not readily available...We faced the additional problem of locating...interviewers...who could conduct interviews in Mandarin" (227). Although the lack of funds can be understood, the lack of interpreters cannot. Many Chinese-Americans speak English, and while it may not be their first language, I have a hard time believing the interviews would have suffered much. Also, the U.S. has sizable populations of people of Japanese, Korean, Filipino, and Vietnamese origin. The concentrations of these populations are by no means difficult to find. The Asian-American community is growing rapidly in both numbers and affluence, and the exclusion of their ranks in the study is inexcusable. The population of Oglala Sioux interviewed is also problematic. Concentrating their data on Native Americans solely in this extremely economically depressed area throws an inordinate amount of bias into the study. The Pine Ridge Sioux interviewed have had a long and bloody history with the U.S. government. These are the folks who took down Custer's army, who were massacred at Wounded Knee (twice!), who began the American Indian Movement, and who live in one of the poorest counties in America, where the average yearly wage is in the neighborhood of $5700. The authors may have "thought readers might find the perspectives of the Pine Ridge Sioux particularly intriguing" (226), but it is hard to know if the Oglala experience is representative of the majority of Native Americans'. Perhaps the study could have been better served by focusing on the Navajo, who comprise by far the largest percentage of Native Americans. Similarly, the Navajo are not in as dire a situation nor have such a negative attitude towards American history as their Sioux counterparts. These complaints aside, though, the books is a note of optimism in an American history world that is suffering through a painful identity crisis. While professors may lament the state of education today and complain that people's notions of history are twisted by movies and TV, the study shows that people don't respect or agree with these images of the past. Instead, people find solace in their family's history, or in the history of their race and culture. People develop their own ideas about history through their personal relationships and through their various hobbies. People are also well aware that they are being propagandized in their elementary and high school history courses. The result of this is that people have little respect for "history with a capital H", that endless regurgitation of facts, dates, places, and names that have so little significance in explaining the realities of our modern world. Rosenzweig and Thelen's detailed statistical study shows that we cannot continue to teach "H"istory as a means of instilling patriotism; it simply isn't working. Instead, we must focus history back onto the people themselves and look at the varied and exciting histories of individuals, groups, and cultures in American who have strived for recognition and respect. The times, they are a'changin, and the world of history has got to keep up.

Rating:
Summary: Americans Love Affair With History
Review: Shocking news entered historian's ears as they listened to their life work being destroyed. The traditional teaching methods that have made up the whole of American history in the classroom, have lost the interest of their students, and created a lack of historical perspective in their citizens. How could students and others be uninterested in the identity and leading themes of their glorious nation? We must remain true to our methodological heritage, and breed a proud national identity. The history wars begin. The news that Americans are uninterested and disconnected with history is proved untrue in Rosenzweig and Thelen's, "The Presence of the Past". With a more broad and alternative survey of historical thinking, the authors point out that Americans have a love affair with the past, and incorporate it into their everyday lives. History is not dead, just the way it is taught is. In a 1500 person survey, including both the majority culture, as well as African Americans and Oglala Sioux, the book, "The Presence of the Past exhibits the importance that history plays in the lives of Americans. In conjunction with this, it shows a consensus of boredom with the traditional teaching methods of classroom history. Using a collaboration of questions and conversations, the book shows how Americans are in love with the past, as well as its study. Family history plays an important role in maintaining immortality for the aged, and shapes the present and future of the youth. In conjunction, Americans find history classes boring, and containing tedious lists of facts portraying an inaccurate past, that they fail to learn. Only nonfiction books and moviesfall below high school teachers on a survey of trustworthiness. In turn, Americans can't tell you the economic, and political causes of the Great Depression, however, could tell you exactly how it affected their parents, or grandparents, and in turn their own lives. After surveys such as the one taken by Rosenzweig and Thelen, Historians and teachers found that the uses and importance of history is changing. This creates a threat to the job security of history teachers, and a significant amount of fear for historians. In finding a solution to the changing role of history within American society, two schools of thought prevail. Some want to return to a more strict traditional teaching method, focusing on national identity, and facts, while others seek more hands on, and alternative ways of teaching. Rosenzweig and Thelen point out that the public doesn't want, or respond to traditional methods found in history classes, and desires change. The authors found through their survey that Americans respond to hands on history, such as that found in museums, and war reenactments. People seek historical truth for themselves, by going to museums, and interpreting the facts on their own. They in turn want to leave behind the biased realities portrayed by history teachers and movies, and move toward something they think is more accurate. The authors use this information and come to a two-part conclusion. Rosenzweig and Thelen seek a break with tradition. They want professional historians to get off their pedestals of authority, and teach context and foundation. The interpretation sector of history study becomes combined and shared with the students, rather than having one provided for them. Hands on history, using more primary sources, and trips to historical sites would substitute long textbooks, and the teaching of an absolute interpretation. Rosenzweig and Thelen conclude that people practice, and incorporate history into their everyday lives. Unbiased, accurate history means a great deal to Americans. People want to know the past, and be able to interpret it for their life experiences in the present. It is the responsibility of the historian to work with these people, since the people and their families are what make up the history we study, and the book, "The Presence of the Past".

Rating:
Summary: Defining Down History
Review: There is much to learn from Presence of the Past but notnecessarily what the authors have in mind. Rosenzweig and Thelenpurport to give us good news about the historical consciousness of the American people, finding that most Americans are, in some way, "connected to the past." They do this by defining down the definition of history to mean things like talking with relatives, keeping a diary, collecting antique motorcycles, and even attending Bible classes. History teachers become the heavies because they insist that students regurgitate historical facts about which average Americans express a profound lack of interest (although paradoxically they also say that they would like their children to have the same experience).

It's as if those who bemoaned the mathematical illiteracy of the American public were suddenly challenged by a survey noting that virtually all Americans could read house numbers, tell the time, and make change while using a calculator. These hypothetical respondents would probably also criticize their teachers for burdening them with irrelevant information.

Because the majority of the Americans surveyed for Presence of the Past have little sense of history outside their family or group, their knowledge of broader history is both sketchy and distorted. Rosenzweig and Thelen celebrate the fact that Americans put more trust in museums than in books for their knowledge of history, but such a faith only demonstrates naivete about museums. (In the wake of the Enola Gay fiasco at the Smithsonian and a subsequent symposium of articles in the Journal of American History, one JAH reader noted that the "true tragedy" was that "both sides believed that the people who saw the exhibit would be swayed, unquestioningly, by the 'facts' presented to them and that the visitors would not stop, even briefly, to think of possible biases in the exhibition itself, let alone about WWII-i.e. that they would think critically. Unfortunately, because of the state of education in this country, I agree with them.")

Using such a low common denominator to define history also reveals that those with the most congruent view of the past are "evangelicals" (defined by Rosenzweig and Thelen as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals). Thelen notes that the appeal of evangelical religion is so powerful "that it seems the most likely common ground on which some respondents from different cultures can recognize each other." "What," asks Rosenzweig, "does a largely secular group like historians have to say to them?"

The authors' greatest fear is that the "privatized and parochial past" of their informants will not support history as "a vehicle for social justice" or inspire people "to work for social change in the present." Not to worry. Ignorance, parochialism, and naivete are a fertile soil for those who wish to use "history" as a tool to promote social and political agendas. "Black Athena" and its kin are only a recent example.

Awareness of one's own past is helpful (we often call it maturity), and extending understanding of the past to the lives of one's relatives is even better. But without an appreciation of the broader past, democracy is in danger. Much of what passes for present truth is, in the words of C. S. Lewis, "merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age."ÿ

Rating:
Summary: Defining Down History
Review: There is much to learn from Presence of the Past but notnecessarily what the authors have in mind. Rosenzweig and Thelenpurport to give us good news about the historical consciousness of the American people, finding that most Americans are, in some way, "connected to the past." They do this by defining down the definition of history to mean things like talking with relatives, keeping a diary, collecting antique motorcycles, and even attending Bible classes. History teachers become the heavies because they insist that students regurgitate historical facts about which average Americans express a profound lack of interest (although paradoxically they also say that they would like their children to have the same experience).

It's as if those who bemoaned the mathematical illiteracy of the American public were suddenly challenged by a survey noting that virtually all Americans could read house numbers, tell the time, and make change while using a calculator. These hypothetical respondents would probably also criticize their teachers for burdening them with irrelevant information.

Because the majority of the Americans surveyed for Presence of the Past have little sense of history outside their family or group, their knowledge of broader history is both sketchy and distorted. Rosenzweig and Thelen celebrate the fact that Americans put more trust in museums than in books for their knowledge of history, but such a faith only demonstrates naivete about museums. (In the wake of the Enola Gay fiasco at the Smithsonian and a subsequent symposium of articles in the Journal of American History, one JAH reader noted that the "true tragedy" was that "both sides believed that the people who saw the exhibit would be swayed, unquestioningly, by the 'facts' presented to them and that the visitors would not stop, even briefly, to think of possible biases in the exhibition itself, let alone about WWII-i.e. that they would think critically. Unfortunately, because of the state of education in this country, I agree with them.")

Using such a low common denominator to define history also reveals that those with the most congruent view of the past are "evangelicals" (defined by Rosenzweig and Thelen as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals). Thelen notes that the appeal of evangelical religion is so powerful "that it seems the most likely common ground on which some respondents from different cultures can recognize each other." "What," asks Rosenzweig, "does a largely secular group like historians have to say to them?"

The authors' greatest fear is that the "privatized and parochial past" of their informants will not support history as "a vehicle for social justice" or inspire people "to work for social change in the present." Not to worry. Ignorance, parochialism, and naivete are a fertile soil for those who wish to use "history" as a tool to promote social and political agendas. "Black Athena" and its kin are only a recent example.

Awareness of one's own past is helpful (we often call it maturity), and extending understanding of the past to the lives of one's relatives is even better. But without an appreciation of the broader past, democracy is in danger. Much of what passes for present truth is, in the words of C. S. Lewis, "merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age."ÿ

Rating:
Summary: A refreshing look at popular history
Review: While some Americans claim that history is dead, others have a tremendously wonderful association with the past and what it means to them. Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen have recently attempted to wipe the slate clean as far as "bad" history goes, and show Americans that perhaps our most exciting field of study is that in which we are most closely involved. Through the voices of Americans located in all areas of our nation, Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life shows how the authors Rosenzweig and Thelen tackle and attempt to answer the very difficult question of "What is History?". While the duos methodology and procedure seem extremely well thought out, the outcomes fall a tad short of expectations and conclusions. Between the years 1990 and 1994, Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen, along with an assemble survey team from Indiana University, undertook a seemingly haunting task of finding out how Americans truly felt about history. Through their telephone interviews with just under 1,500 inhabitants of the United States, they found a variety of interesting and somewhat revelationary mentalities sprinkled around our nation. Due to the fact that most Americans feel somewhat ambivalent towards the subject of history, Rosenzweig and Thelen were seemingly set on proving that slighted thesis wrong through their 30 minute interviews with those that would take the time to talk to them. The focus of the survey questions centered around the connective factor that Americans felt towards history, particularly their own, and Rosenzweig and Thelen seemed intent on proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt. In attempting to provide a sound criteria for establishing a respectable survey focusing on Americans true feelings for history, the authors receive a variety of very personal responses, but perhaps cross the bridge into superficiality in doing so. A strong focus of the survey centered on questions asking the level of involvement that Americans had with virtually anything "historical", whether that meant looking at a picture or talking about history with another person. Other categories of historical involvement included areas such as family reunion participation, watching programs about the past, and historical hobbies. While the conclusions that the authors make about the feeling of the past are refreshing and passionate, they have a tendency to be a bit repetitive and surface oriented. Perhaps the strongest findings of the survey center around the basic definition of history. To most Americans history is not something that one reads from a textbook, but rather something that is truly tangible and experiential, that which affects the soul and lifestyle. With the positive assertions and conclusions that Rosenzweig and Thelen make, there is also a level of mistrust prevalent in quite a few Americans minds, particularly those that are not of European descent. The misuse of history is a common thread of connection to those that indentify themselves with either African American, Native American, or Hispanic origin, and that mistrust definitely stems from the past. While these demographic groups are the subject of an auxiliary survey, some groups are left completely out of the study, with a somewhat weak rationalization from the authors. Asian Americans were not asked the same questions in the numbers that the other groups were, with the explanation that a representative group could not be found by the survey team. While this might have been a realistic problem, perhaps the authors could have worked on an alternate solution. In evaluating the conclusions of Rosenzweig and Thelen and their national survey, one must decide for themselves if a basic definition of history is complete enough to ascertain the importance of history to most Americans. If looking as a few pictures and watching a movie about history is enough to label history as being somewhat important, then Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen do an absolutely wonderful job of showing us that history in alive and well in 1999. American truly feel a personal connection to history through families, friends, and experiences. Given these conclusions, one can determine that perhaps that is one of the true meanings of history to all of us, an everyday, living history that we can connect with and "feel" in a true sense. However, if what you are looking for is an in depth investigation into historical roots and popular experience, coupled with detailed analysis , perhaps Rosenzweig and Thelen fall a little short of the mark. Nevertheless, the refreshing and sometimes surprising responses given by some Americans make this book well worth the time spent to find out just how most people feel about our most intriguing discipline: history. perhaps our most exciting field of study is that in which we are most closely involved. Through the voices of Americans located in all areas of our nation, Presence of the Past: Popular uses of History in American life shows how the authors Rosenzweig and Thelen tackle and attempt to answer the very difficult question of "What is History?". While the duos methodology and procedure seem extremely well thought out, the outcomes fall a tad short of expectations and conclusions.