I don't understand. When you only have 200 to 300 pages in which to condense 234 years of a nation's history (plus the events and circumstances that lead to its creation), you are going to have to be selective in what makes it into the history books. Using ideology to influence what makes it in and what does not is not a new practice. For example, most American history books these days ignore or minimize crucial historical events in favor of minority studies. I always thought it was funny that in my 8th grade history book they would have biography sections for American heroes, and George Washington's was no longer or more in depth than George Washington Carver's. Overall, the American history books I have encountered have used selective history to paint an overall negative view of our history and emphasize many minor events way out of proportion to their importance at the expense of actual major historical events that shaped the nation.
I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.
Bookmarks