Agenda-driven history

I have frequently insisted that history is one of the most worthless subjects in school. There are a lot of people who like to insist that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There's a fairly significant problem with this argument. We don't have an accurate understanding of history.

When I was in school, it was painfully obvious that we were not provided with an accurate depiction of history. Take a look at World War II. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, so we bombed Japan, sent Japanese citizens to internment camps, and went after Hitler. When you really take the time to think about it, this portrayal doesn't make any sense.

The Civil War is another good example. My teachers talked about how slavery was a major factor for why we went to war alongside economic differences. The South seceded and a war broke out. Secession is not the same as declaring war, and my teachers made no mention of the reasons for the North to go to war.

Since then, we have changed the official narrative behind the Civil War. Now, it is wrong to acknowledge any causes other than slavery, and the North did not go to war over slavery. You don't have to be a historian to know that there's a serious problem with the new narrative.

It's actually pretty clear what's happening with history. We start with what we want students to think. Then we frame history in a manner that helps promote this viewpoint. This means we emphasize anything that will help ensure students think what we want them to think. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is conveniently omitted.

In the case of World War II, the extent of the actions we took against citizens of Japanese descent and the abundant forts in the West don't make sense from the context provided in schools. It's a little easier to understand once you realize that the Japanese held American soil and engaged in multiple attacks in the mainland. Our treatment of Japanese citizens was definitely inexcusable, but it's a lot easier to push that narrative if you can downplay the actions of the Japanese.

As far as the Civil War is concerned, there are a lot of concerns relating to slavery and racism. We are trying to portray the Civil War in a manner that we hope will maximize opposition to slavery and racism. This is why there is no mention of black slaveowners or white slaves. Although there was a definite racial component to slavery, it doesn't help the agenda if they acknowledge that slavery is not strictly a racial concept.

Honesty is not just about avoiding outright lies. It also means that you are not deceiving students or trying to lead students to an inaccurate understanding. Agenda-driven history requires the amplification of certain items and omission of others. It's about providing an intentionally skewed narrative to force a viewpoint onto students. Agenda-driven history, by its very nature, can't be honest history.

Not too long ago, we saw the emergence of the 1619 Project. Historians quickly pointed out a number of historical inaccuracies. This was followed by the project winning the Pulitzer and the development of curriculum based on the 1619 Project.

Admittedly, I haven't read the 1619 Project. I shouldn't have to. Just listening to the purpose of the 1619 Project raises serious concerns. The project was intended to reframe the founding of the United States around the arrival of the first slaves. This clearly indicates that this is driven by an agenda. Portrayals will be skewed. It can't possibly be an honest portrayal of history.

Some conservatives tried to counter the 1619 Project with the 1776 Commission. This was an absurd reaction. Like the 1619 Project, the 1776 Commission openly shared their agenda. The fight shouldn't be over whose agenda is being forced onto children. The fight should be against using intentionally skewed history as a means of widely manipulating the views of citizens.

An underestimated problem with how we handle history is that it opens a door for radicalization. Anyone who is in any way capable of thought will see glaring issues with how schools portray history. In some cases, students will seek out sources that will help make sense of history. These sources don't have to be honest. They just have to be more plausible. Considering the dishonesty of the teaching profession, it's not difficult to invent an exploitative narrative that's more plausible than what we are told in school.

Personally, I would love to see an end to agenda-driven history. Even if we have good intentions, we shouldn't be manipulating the views of students. As I have already explained, I don't even want to teach children that slavery is wrong. Instead, we should let the truth lead them to that conclusion. If we really wanted students to learn from history, I would prefer that we start telling them what really happened.