To many educators teaching something that is positive about American history is considered to be intellectually dishonest. Today Kevin suggest that to teach our history in any way that is “positive” is to teach in a vacuum free of “critical thinking.” Whatever. His idea of “critical thinking” is hard to imagine, but I can guess. To teach the American Revolution intellectually and to challenge students students to “think critically” Kevin probably thinks that the emphasis would be on Women, Blacks, and Indians. Are they to be left out? Of course not, but the spirit and heart of the Revolution was unique and dare I say… um, “Exceptional.” No, TRUE, few women, blacks or Indians participated (as very few owned enough land to vote), but the fact that so many white males were at a time when Monarchies and Aristocracies dominated the globe, it was radical, revolutionary and “Exceptional.” I contend that Kevin and others simply cannot crawl out of that “Presentism: box they exist in.
But it is about emphasis that we as educators take. Educators do not lie (well I hope not) they simply pick and choose what is important. I do it, we all do. Am I saying my way is best? No. To teach something from a limited point of view is exactly that, limiting. I agree with Kevin that teaching solely American Exceptionalism leaves much to be desired. However, for today’s educational biases where the opposite is the norm, I wish to pull a Howard Zinn and say that since we have a significant majority who teach American History from the left, as if American Exceptionalism is the Boogie Man, I want to emphasize that we did establish something good and that we did create a Republic that was unique and at that time, 1789, something exceptional. We have enough educators ranting about much the opposite. Too much.
So therefore, if its okay for some to claim that they can be an “activist” as there is a need or a void as Zinn has argued, than I say so be it and I will do the same.
By the way, the very first reading I gave my APUSH students was the introduction to Zinn’s “A People’s History…” and along with it the introduction to “A Patriot’s History.” It resulted in wonderful and “critical thinking” level synthesis from the students for an opening to the class.
PS- I’m sure some of you are thinking, “Sure it was!” I did not say a word, I let them discuss and in the end, some valued Zinn and some did not. I was the “guide on the side” and that was best. Sure I had an opinion, but I stayed out. I doubt most teachers do.