Very thoughtful. One of the possibilities, though, that I don't really see an allowance for in this post (or in Lepore's writing) is a situation in which "a balanced narrative" doesn't produce a "shared narrative." There seems to be a tacit logic at work where it is assumed that empirical truth and civic concord are naturally going to found in the same place, and that we can reach that place by identifying the extreme positions on either side of us and keeping them more or less equidistant from us.
Self-consciously centrist (and I'm not using that word as a pejorative) history pays too much attention to the locations of the extremes, in my opinion. Centrist history tends to assume that one extreme is responding directly to the other, so that one side's error is a complement or mirror image of the other side's error—leaving a wide field in the middle that is "complicated" and "messy." But a lot of history that centrists would see as extreme isn't written as a response to the other extreme: "1619" wasn't written to counterbalance "1776" or vice versa. The authors of the essays in the NYT 1619 project or the book version wrote for the most part out of ongoing research projects or lines of thinking that they had been pursuing for many years prior to 1619's publication; similarly, the 1776 report that hurriedly slapped together a "response" mostly reiterated ideas that have long been espoused on the right with or without the existence of the 1619 project to play off of. It may look like these two extremes are simply reacting to one another—if 1619 says "tall," 1776 says "short"—but most of the time they build their narratives through internal conversation rather than by trying to counter one another.
The situation this leaves is that, while both can be wrong, they are not likely to be wrong in complementary and opposite ways—one cannot find the truth by keeping one's eyes on the extremes and trying to "balance" them. Being too heedful of the locations of the extremes means one is trapped in a cycle of always trying to explain why neither side is totally right, rather than focusing on finding the truth in the first place.
This is an incredibly thoughtful comment, which I greatly appreciate. As very briefly noted in the post I am not committed to the idea of a single shared narrative. Let many flowers bloom. What I am interested in as a historian and educator is that they not be unnecessarily reductionist.
I agree with you that we are placing too much emphasis on what many believe to be "extremist" narratives. As far as I can tell this has little to do with what is actually taking place in the classroom and I suspect it doesn't reflect how most people understand American history. I actually don't see the 1619 Project as an example of this. I see it as an outgrowth of the success of social history and the incredible amount of African-American history that has been published over the past few decades. We are much better for it.
Perhaps I am overconfident that a shared past is possible or that it may have some benefit to our civic discourse. I worry that history can do little more than reinforce smaller communities that will remain in conflict with one another.
Another thoughtful post, thanks. When I write about historical events, I’m often faced with Bob Seger’s question: What to leave in, what to leave out? One could, in theory, write about every single event in US history but the book would be so long no one would read it, if it were even ever finished. So every historian/author picks a theme for their book. I’ve noticed when perusing history titles in the bookstore lately that many books have a deliberately controversial theme, trying to “break new ground”, but instead by being overly selective on what they leave in and what they leave out, they really are doing history education an injustice.
I disagree with your characterization of the 1619 project as "one that reduces the United States to an arch villain." You seem to be both sidesing and creating a false dichotomy in this piece, and a lot depends on how you define "the United States". Are you speaking of the government and its policymakers, the dominant culture, the powerful elite, or are you including all groups of Americans who have resided in the United States? If you're speaking about the United States as only meaning the first three things then you could argue that's what the 1619 reduces the United States to, but if you understand the United States collective noun as being the latter of those who are Americans then there's much patriotism that can be found in it. To mention 2 specifically, Nicole Hannah-Jones and Wesley Morris's articles in the original project, at least the way I interpret them based on reading rather than it's right wing charicatures.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I don't believe that is how I characterized the 1619 Project. Unfortunately, many people have reduced it to such a characterization, but the project, especially the book, is much more sophisticated. When I refer to the United States I am referring to it in the broadest sense. I thought I had made the point about inclusiveness clearly enough in the post.
I am actually challenging the tendency to frame history education today in terms that are mutually exclusive. I see this, to use your own words, as a false dichotomy.
I don't think broadening the narrative is the problem; it's the solution, even though the process can be complicated. The problem is an old one: the desire to narrow the perspective to only one view, whether positive or negative. (The people taking a negative view are not, however, those making laws about history teaching in schools, who I regard as far more dangerous.) To quote Ty Seidule, "I want more history, not less." The more voices, the better, sharper picture we will see. The necessary work both to make and interpret the picture should be a pleasure, as well as a responsibility.
Another very nice piece---and another book for my extensive and expanding Mt. ToBeRead.
The most disturbing thing is the "weaponizing" of history into a cudgel with which to beat "the other." The second-most disturbing thing is the defensiveness with which serious and substantial criticism is met, as though anyone is immune to making errors or being criticized.
I agree. There is certainly nothing new when it comes to the weaponizing or politicization of history and history education, but I do hope we can find a way to move beyond the vitriol to a more substantive discussion.
Very thoughtful. One of the possibilities, though, that I don't really see an allowance for in this post (or in Lepore's writing) is a situation in which "a balanced narrative" doesn't produce a "shared narrative." There seems to be a tacit logic at work where it is assumed that empirical truth and civic concord are naturally going to found in the same place, and that we can reach that place by identifying the extreme positions on either side of us and keeping them more or less equidistant from us.
Self-consciously centrist (and I'm not using that word as a pejorative) history pays too much attention to the locations of the extremes, in my opinion. Centrist history tends to assume that one extreme is responding directly to the other, so that one side's error is a complement or mirror image of the other side's error—leaving a wide field in the middle that is "complicated" and "messy." But a lot of history that centrists would see as extreme isn't written as a response to the other extreme: "1619" wasn't written to counterbalance "1776" or vice versa. The authors of the essays in the NYT 1619 project or the book version wrote for the most part out of ongoing research projects or lines of thinking that they had been pursuing for many years prior to 1619's publication; similarly, the 1776 report that hurriedly slapped together a "response" mostly reiterated ideas that have long been espoused on the right with or without the existence of the 1619 project to play off of. It may look like these two extremes are simply reacting to one another—if 1619 says "tall," 1776 says "short"—but most of the time they build their narratives through internal conversation rather than by trying to counter one another.
The situation this leaves is that, while both can be wrong, they are not likely to be wrong in complementary and opposite ways—one cannot find the truth by keeping one's eyes on the extremes and trying to "balance" them. Being too heedful of the locations of the extremes means one is trapped in a cycle of always trying to explain why neither side is totally right, rather than focusing on finding the truth in the first place.
Hi Andrew.
This is an incredibly thoughtful comment, which I greatly appreciate. As very briefly noted in the post I am not committed to the idea of a single shared narrative. Let many flowers bloom. What I am interested in as a historian and educator is that they not be unnecessarily reductionist.
I agree with you that we are placing too much emphasis on what many believe to be "extremist" narratives. As far as I can tell this has little to do with what is actually taking place in the classroom and I suspect it doesn't reflect how most people understand American history. I actually don't see the 1619 Project as an example of this. I see it as an outgrowth of the success of social history and the incredible amount of African-American history that has been published over the past few decades. We are much better for it.
Perhaps I am overconfident that a shared past is possible or that it may have some benefit to our civic discourse. I worry that history can do little more than reinforce smaller communities that will remain in conflict with one another.
Another thoughtful post, thanks. When I write about historical events, I’m often faced with Bob Seger’s question: What to leave in, what to leave out? One could, in theory, write about every single event in US history but the book would be so long no one would read it, if it were even ever finished. So every historian/author picks a theme for their book. I’ve noticed when perusing history titles in the bookstore lately that many books have a deliberately controversial theme, trying to “break new ground”, but instead by being overly selective on what they leave in and what they leave out, they really are doing history education an injustice.
I disagree with your characterization of the 1619 project as "one that reduces the United States to an arch villain." You seem to be both sidesing and creating a false dichotomy in this piece, and a lot depends on how you define "the United States". Are you speaking of the government and its policymakers, the dominant culture, the powerful elite, or are you including all groups of Americans who have resided in the United States? If you're speaking about the United States as only meaning the first three things then you could argue that's what the 1619 reduces the United States to, but if you understand the United States collective noun as being the latter of those who are Americans then there's much patriotism that can be found in it. To mention 2 specifically, Nicole Hannah-Jones and Wesley Morris's articles in the original project, at least the way I interpret them based on reading rather than it's right wing charicatures.
Hi Dyson,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I don't believe that is how I characterized the 1619 Project. Unfortunately, many people have reduced it to such a characterization, but the project, especially the book, is much more sophisticated. When I refer to the United States I am referring to it in the broadest sense. I thought I had made the point about inclusiveness clearly enough in the post.
I am actually challenging the tendency to frame history education today in terms that are mutually exclusive. I see this, to use your own words, as a false dichotomy.
Thanks again for reading the post.
Another well-written post, many thanks.
I don't think broadening the narrative is the problem; it's the solution, even though the process can be complicated. The problem is an old one: the desire to narrow the perspective to only one view, whether positive or negative. (The people taking a negative view are not, however, those making laws about history teaching in schools, who I regard as far more dangerous.) To quote Ty Seidule, "I want more history, not less." The more voices, the better, sharper picture we will see. The necessary work both to make and interpret the picture should be a pleasure, as well as a responsibility.
Thanks and well said.
Excellent. Life is complicated. So is history.
Thanks for reading, Michael.
Another very nice piece---and another book for my extensive and expanding Mt. ToBeRead.
The most disturbing thing is the "weaponizing" of history into a cudgel with which to beat "the other." The second-most disturbing thing is the defensiveness with which serious and substantial criticism is met, as though anyone is immune to making errors or being criticized.
I agree. There is certainly nothing new when it comes to the weaponizing or politicization of history and history education, but I do hope we can find a way to move beyond the vitriol to a more substantive discussion.