History

"...to be a Senator or member of Congress."  How often have I seen this?  It rankles me a great deal.  It shows an incredible ignorance of American government.  The latest example of this comes from a book written by a retired college professor of history.  Shouldn't every American, maybe from the age of 11 or 12 up, know that Congress is made up of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate?  (Note I wrote "Shouldn't," not "Doesn't.")  Therefore, a US Senator is a "member of Congress."  So, if one of our college professors displays such a lack of knowledge of our own government, doesn't it lead to more questions about a lack of knowledge?  And what is this guy teaching his students?

In the same book is a reference to Aaron Burr as a Federalist, twice!  He was a Jeffersonian Republican, running Jefferson's Presidential campaign in 1800 against the Federalist candidate John Adams and nearly sneaking in the back door as President himself, as a Democrat Republican.
 
And the author writes, Jefferson and his Republican followers "sought the impeachment" of Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.  Actually, Chase was "impeached."  But he avoided removal.  That the principle of impeachment isn't fully understood is also shown in "having Congress impeach one federal judge."  First, the House of Representatives is the body that "impeaches," that is, brings formal charges against.  Second, this federal judge was not only "impeached," but was removed by the Senate in the subsequent trial.

Perhaps I quibble.

Back in another lifetime, when I taught in the high school, a committee of teachers chose an abysmal textbook for the World History courses.  (I refused to participate, that is, pick the book and work for free; reviewing a number of textbooks takes a lot of time.  Perhaps with a school and school district that showed more appreciation for its employees......)  Two of the most egregious errors I remember (and I'm sure there were more of them that I just don't recall) were these.  Italy was shown as fighting on the wrong side in the First World War.  How did that happen?  I always joked, "No wonder the Italian army didn't do so hot.  It didn't know which side it was fighting on!"  There was also a photograph of a temple in Japan, a pretty famous one.  The rather lengthy caption explained its importance to Shintoism.  The problem was that this famous temple was in India and was Hindu!  Of course, if the teachers didn't recognize these mistakes, who cares?  The problem with such errors is that they lead to questioning of other "facts" in the books.  If these are wrong......

For that matter, some textbooks also make specious conclusions/arguments.  For instance, how many of them teach students that "Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal pulled the US out of the Depression."  It's not at all clear that he and it did.  There is a lot of evidence that the Depression was deepened and lengthened by FDR's New Deal.  (At a social gathering, for whatever reason, I made this statement and some guy said, "You must be kidding!  Everyone knows the New Deal ended the Depression"  I repeated my assertion and he added with apparent disbelief, "And you teach history!?!?!"  It's too bad the guy had a teacher who didn't know much beyond the textbook.)

Another one that draws strange looks is when I question that "Hitler came to power because of the Treaty of Versailles."  Well no, he didn't.  He used it as a prop, a foil to drum up opposition to Weimar and support for the National Socialists.  But I can make a pretty strong case that it was the Depression, not the peace treaty of the First World War; that is, no Depression no Hitler.  "And you teach history!?!?!?"  Ha Ha Ha......

Actually, I learned all this in my college history courses, maybe not the specific instances, but to question, to challenge the accepted views of history.

While I'm on the subject of history, let me recount one thing.  For the past few years I have assigned a term project that simulated the NCAA basketball March Madness tournament.  I picked, say, in Michigan history, 20 people of significance to the state.  Choosing/Limiting to 20 was not easy.  I had to make some of my own value judgments, but that's OK; it's my TV show.  And seeding them was tough, too.  Each semester there were some changes in the brackets.  Students seemed to like the Madness brackets project more than a term paper, etc.  I wonder if they actually realized, while completing the assignment, they were writing 20 or 25 or, in some cases, more pages.  The overall winner, the UCLA of Michigan Madness, might be guessed.  It has been Henry Ford, by a significant margin.  This past term I had several students, from different classes, choose "Rosie the Riveter," the symbol of women working in the Arsenal of Democracy in the Second World War.  I found the choice interesting, if not compelling. The rationale wasn't always convincing, perhaps more hyperbolic than definitive.  A few other personalities, one or two here and there, were also selections.  And, although grading them takes a long time, it's pretty easy to see who just copied stuff from what they found on the Internet, nothing of much depth or analysis.  Still, it's fun for me.