[MB.]

This topic is split from another thread: Link

I'm very concerned about what I'll call historical affirmative action: the belief that there are implicit biases in historical writing that must be challenged through rewriting history (mainly, textbooks) to accentuate those, supposedly, marginalized elements (Haitian revolution is a classic example- also possibly Ethiopia). I can personally attest that this is happening amongst high-school text-books as they are being rewritten in several Canadian provinces, where the explicit agenda is to emphasize "stories" that are alleged to be marginalized by "traditional" political-economic history. Naturally I spent a lot of time in ethnographic and sexual history classes wanting to commit suicide from boredom so that plays into my position.


You [Paradigm] are absolutely right though: this topic may be best explored in a separate thread. It was the way you alleged that Ethiopia is ignored that "triggered" me, if you will, in this case, and that very well may have nothing to do with the objective of your topic. I'll move this stuff around to a new thread, I would like to continue discussing the idea further.

Original thread stuff that may now be out of context:

Which text books are you thinking of? I am displeased when people write knee-jerk things like that. No doubt if you were taking a class on, say, the history of religion or history of Africa there would be mention of Ethiopia. Would you expect to find the Ethiopian church extensively discussed in a book about the history of the American revolution, for example?

In The History of Africa, The Quest for Eternal Harmony, by Molefi Kete Asante (2007), a general history of Africa written by a professor at the University of Philadelphia and published by Routledge which I happen to have on my shelf, a quick glance at the index reveals that Ethiopia is mentioned on nearly 30 pages, roughly the same number of pages dedicated to Egypt.

Is this a clear demonstration of the supposed bias you're critiquing?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I just find it shocking that such a distinguished ancient and long-lasting dynasty warrants barely a mention in Western history books.

This is precisely why Abyssinia/Ethiopia receives barely a mention in Western history books. It really did not play a role in Western history, and the level of intensity of Western contact with Ethiopia was minimal, in contrast to the vast swaths of Africa colonized by the Europeans. Even China and Japan typically have more content in a Western history book for the same reason. The first point at which Ethiopia is typically mentioned in more than passing is during the 1930s when the Italians invaded.

One shouldn't expect much material in an African History book, or an Ethiopian History book, about the reign of Cnut the Great and his North Sea Empire, for instance.

[Paradigm]

Which text books are you thinking of? I am displeased when people write knee-jerk things like that. No doubt if you were taking a class on, say, the history of religion or history of Africa there would be mention of Ethiopia. Would you expect to find the Ethiopian church extensively discussed in a book about the history of the American revolution, for example?

In The History of Africa, The Quest for Eternal Harmony, by Molefi Kete Asante (2007), a general history of Africa written by a professor at the University of Philadelphia and published by Routledge which I happen to have on my shelf, a quick glance at the index reveals that Ethiopia is mentioned on nearly 30 pages, roughly the same number of pages dedicated to Egypt.

Is this a clear demonstration of the supposed bias you're critiquing?

Obviously if you're specifically studying Africa you'll read about it. But it's not the sort of thing you encounter in High School history textbooks, despite the incredibly relevant way it factors into Biblical and church history.

[MB.]

You need to be more specific! What text-books are you thinking of? Which high-school grades? Which classes? I cannot stand blanket statements like this provided without evidence.

[Paradigm]

You need to be more specific! What text-books are you thinking of? Which high-school grades? Which classes? I cannot stand blanket statements like this provided without evidence.

Dude, I don't know what the title of my High School history textbooks were, okay? All I know is that this stuff wasn't mentioned, and no one I know learned about it growing up. I'm not going to placate your pedantic interrogation over a simple casual observation.

[MB.]

So in other words your critique is based on the deficiencies in your high-school education? You were never taught about Ethiopia and the Solomonic Dynasty in your, I'm guessing, American social studies classes? Clearly evidence for cultural bias? This is ridiculous, Paradigm.

[Paradigm]

If you insist on such a pedant about it, sure. I was just trying to open things up, but sure: I'm another stupid American who didn't have the benefit of your vastly superior education system, oh wise one. Happy? For fuck's sake! Get over yourself.

[MB.]

There's so many variables here and your evidence is anecdotal so I'm not sure where to start. I definitely recall discussing Ethiopia- as you and Baluba Jones mentioned, in reference to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia- in the (apparently vastly superior, indeed) IB History 12 class I was in back in 2004. I have no idea what the historical/geographical/sociological pedagogical system of the young Paradigm was, so I can't comment on why you never learned about this. Apparently, however, there was something terribly deficient in the system that was supposed to educate you.

I'm an educator, so I'm very interested in pedagogy, especially at the high-school level. I'd actually like to learn more about the American system.

I'll give you a personal anecdote that surprised me, for example. I was in Chicago recently talking to some friends and I was curious what their experience was regarding the "pledge of allegiance" that I've heard about in the US school system. My friends verified that this is real and indeed that they were expected to perform it every day, although it naturally became a joke by the end of their high-school experience. I was blown away by this because it sounds really draconian and stupid.

I recently retook the AP World History exams as part of a teaching requirement, and although I cannot recall Ethiopia specifically being mentioned, there's plenty of reference to religious history, Africa, and the history of colonization of which Ethiopia obviously plays a significant part in. Most likely one would learn about Ethiopia in a year long AP world history class, for example, at the high-school level. An overview of the course can be found here.

I'm surprised you're so defensive about this- do you feel generally that the American education system is crap when it comes to historical learning?

[Paradigm]

I'm surprised you're so defensive about this- do you feel generally that the American education system is crap when it comes to historical learning?

I'm only defensive about it because you came in acting so pretentious and aggressive. I was just trying to share something I found out about recently that I found fascinating, and you imputed some sort of agenda to me that was far from my intent. Yes, I think the American education system could use a lot of work, though I should mention that my roommate went to school in France, and he never learned about this either until I told him about it. As it happens, my High School history book was one of the few that mentioned any African history outside of Egypt. It had about a paragraph each about Kush, Ghana, Songhai, Mali, and Timbuktu. But no mention of a dynasty stretching across nearly 3,000 years from Biblical times until the 20th century.

[MB.]

But no mention of a dynasty stretching across nearly 3,000 years from Biblical times until the 20th century.

I just find it shocking that such a distinguished ancient and long-lasting dynasty warrants barely a mention in Western history books.

I can't shake the feeling you do have an agenda here, namely, to demonstrate that Ethiopia (along with the Haitian revolution, no doubt) is intentionally ignored by "Western" history.

[Paradigm]

Believe what you want. I just came here to share something I found fascinating, which I doubt many other Americans are aware of. I certainly don't think anything I said warranted you coming in here and rudely shitting over everything I say just because I happen to be curious about something. In any case, I was hoping for a lively discussion about Ethiopian history, in which I might possibly learn something in the process. But now that you've ruined it with condescending insults, it might as well just get deleted.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

This trend also applies to literature and writing classes. I have friends who teach a variety of the following classes: Japanese literature, English literature, and critical writing classes. Each of them has told me that their departments have instructed them to spend an increased amount of curriculum focus on marginalized elements: the person who teaches Japanese literature was asked to cut several kabuki and bunraku texts in favor of obscure and little-known works that focus on homosexuality in Japanese society in the 17th century.

My friend, who teaches critical writing classes, showed me his syllabus, which consists of links to blogs written by "marginalized" people. His curriculum material used to consist of topics for critical writing like 1950s Civil Rights era writings by people other than MLK, Jr., American slave narratives from the 18th to 19th centuries, Suffragette writings, and so on. He was explicitly asked to cut much of that out, use more recent material, and use a list of materials approved by the university's diversity committee. One of those blogs is written by a "marginalized" person who is a black supremacist. One of the writing assignments the diversity committee specifically asked to be included for that blog was "How does this person's struggles shape them into a voice for change?" My friend told me he was given little choice about some of the curriculum changes by the department head himself, but that he refused to include the latter assignment.

An old friend of mine who is now teaching English literature on the other side of the country teaches a Medieval literature class. She inherited the class from another professor who moved on. Without changing the description of the course, she decided to turn the focus of the class into "problematizing homosexuality and transgenderism and queer theory in Medieval English literature." I felt like this was unfair to students who, in the US, depending on if they've got in-state or out-of-state status at their university, can easily be paying thousands of dollars per class, had signed up for an English literature class and instead received a gender studies course. She ended up changing the course description, but I felt this was academically questionable. There's nothing wrong with gender studies at any Western university, but some professors, administrators, and other bureaucrats on various boards and committees sometimes get carried away with enthusiasm for something and try to change certain subjects to fit whatever bias they might have to the detriment of the intended achievement objectives for that course. The inverse of this would be schools and colleges across the country being taught by instructors with a personal bias against evolution.

[The Immortal Goon]

I certainly did not learn about Africa in American high school. Not in any real context anyway. I learned about it in relation to the slave trade as a block continent.

There are a few things to remember about the United States when it comes to this though.

The first is that, for the vast majority of the United States, there is no education system. Even in most states, there isn't a funded education system. For the most part, aside from very large block grants for things like the American with Disabilities Act, school lunch, and whatnot, there is no real system in place.

As an example, I went to high school in rural Oregon. Being a poor county, there were 800 kids in a building designed for half that. I had my health class in a nearby barn, underneath the bleachers was considered a classroom; one of the janitor's closets was converted into a small class room; and in middle school there were only forty math books of my level to go to a few hundred students so we had to do what we could during class and leave it there (no homework!). My civics book was from the 1950s or 60s and explained how multi-party systems bred communism and the like. This is a long way of saying that more modern historiography in the classroom where I went to school simply was not a possibility.

The 1970s had yet to happen, though I went to school well after then, and the concept of any kind of global history simply didn't exist.

If it's of interest, the state of Oregon made common its school funding so where I went to school is a completely different place now and, by my standards, very modern. Attempts like Common Core were made during the Obama administration to make a more standardized curriculum that wouldn't have these gaping holes (predictably Republicans decided it was communism).

---

The other factor, at least in regards to the United States, is that African history and identity is contextualized through the United States experience. From what I've observed (though I've never made a study of it) European nations and the Commonwealth are little different in that their experience with Africa is a little more, "hands on."

In the United States the history of Africa is contextualized via the slave trade and the people of African descent in the United States. As a post-slave society (like much of the Americas) most blacks are unique in that there is no specific, "homeland," for them. There are very few Sierra Leoners, Ivory Coasters, or Gambians in the same way that there are Germans, Irish, and Swedes; or Lakota, Chinook, and Apache; or Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. This is partially, as I'm sure you know, a deliberate attempt early on to erase the specific identities of blacks. And, stemming from this, the black culture that emerged was very much influenced by the Pan-Africanism of Marcus Garvey and others that developed a different culture that included Africa, but was hardly specific or particularly embracing of it. The one foray into African colonization was Liberia, where it was mostly American blacks attempting to "civilize," African blacks to act like American blacks. Naturally this was a venture largely ignored by European Americans.

So American students, without a specific curriculum, in some cases chronically underfunded (especially those including a lot of black students that might take more interest in it); and without a direct American involvement to any specific place in Africa, it becomes very difficult to contextualize.

In the most broad possible sense one could argue that Africa is intentionally ignored in these cases. More than anything though, it's ignored for the same reason that the Pacific Islands tend to be covered more in the United States than they are in Ireland. This is to say, there's more of a direct contextualization for the students.

Things are changing now, but it's a slow process. From what I understand there is a common World History curriculum in most high schools now that deliberately attempt to bring these issues up.

[MB.]

The BC Ministry of education has astonishingly abolished History 12 and instead replaced it with the following:

Social Justice 12

Comparative World Religions 12

Genocide Studies 12

Contemporary Indigenous Studies
12

There's also Econ, Law and Philosophy choices, although those always existed.

The last class students will take that is a mandatory history class is 20th Century World History 11.-- now mind you, this likely encompassed much of the old History 12 curriculum, but to specifically REMOVE a general history 12 class and replace it with someone's fucking wetdream social justice (literally) classes is baffling.

This fucking infuriates me to no end. I come from a War Studies program: where is the War Studies 12 course?

As TIG mentioned, "History" now = World History.

As an advocate of the western heritage model I find this pretty upsetting.

[The Immortal Goon]

I can't say that I'm exactly a proponent of the Western Heritage model. I think it's important to know, but I think it's also important to know the full context.

I've actually applied to work at a British school or two abroad, and they will consistently reject me because most of my formal education was done in Ireland (they don't say this directly, but it's made pretty clear).

In this sense, at least, we are still grappling with decolonization. My instinct is to immediately examine previous institutions, how they were affected, and fine means of resistance against imperialism (in the broad sense) while your British scholars would be far less inclined to do that.

I realize your fear is that everybody will fall into an anti-imperial (and thus anti-western) model, and I don't necessarily disagree with you—I think you always need to look at both.

In a much bigger scope, I think that the kind of postmodernist thinking that encouraged historians to look at social history as a dominant field of study has let loose specters that even adamant proponents of such disciplines would condemn. I suspect, though cannot prove, that a lot of the political rhetoric that stems from people's feelings being more important than actual provable historiography or data comes from this.

But who knows...

[Ter]

History in general is usually the first subject to be reduced or abolished.
I have seen that happening in Europe also.
I feel sorry for the new generations that have to take social and gender shite studies instead.

I do not know if there are obligatory curricula in the American school system (secondary level) but I did notice that the American International schools that I know overseas have much more emphasis on soft/social subjects than other international schools.

[MB.]

I don't think this current approach does anything for the communists either: the genocide studies and History 11 classes single out:

—
indigenous peoples and cultures
—
Beothuk extinction
—
Armenian genocide
—
anti
-Semitic pogroms
—
Soviet Union and Ukraine (Holodomor famine)
—
Japanese occupation of Korea and China
—
the Holocaust
—
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
—
Rwanda
—
Sudan
—
Guatemala
—
Yugoslavia

and

the rise and rule of authoritarian regimes:
Sample topics:
•
Chile and Pinochet
•
Cambodia and Pol Pot
•
Cuba and Castro
•
Soviet Union from Lenin to Gorbachev
•
North Korea and the Kim Dy
nasty
•
China and Mao
•
Germany and Hitler
•
Italy and Mussolini
civil wars, independence movements, and revolution:
Sample topics:
•
Soviet Union, 1917–
21
•
China, 1945
–49
•
decolonization
•
Iranian Revolution
•
guerilla warfare in Central and South America
•
Vietnam, 1945
–75

I think you always need to look at both

Absolutely.

As for the Western Heritage vs World History, I don't see this as either or at all. I feel that as a historian it is my duty to be familiar with both. What particularly upsets me is outright deletion of one and the elevation of the other. A superior course would actually start introducing these historiographical concepts, you know, maybe explaining to the students that history is a process and historiography is hugely important--- oh, except there is no history 12 course in which to do this. I just wrote a letter to the minister asking about why they abolished history 12.

they will consistently reject me because most of my formal education was done in Ireland

The British (read: English) still aren't over 1916.

I think that the kind of postmodernist thinking that encouraged historians to look at social history as a dominant field of study has let loose specters that even adamant proponents of such disciplines would condemn... I suspect, though cannot prove, that a lot of the political rhetoric that stems from people's feelings being more important than actual provable historiography or data comes from this

I don't think you're too out to lunch here. It's a sticky subject since the discourse is currently so asinine, but in general I agree with you. Cultural relativism, critical theory, the Annales school, post-modernism-- without trying to sound like a neoconservative barbarian, these systems of thought have clearly devalued what we might call "historical fact" with the result that "your opinion is just as good as mine."

Now, there's certainly something to be said for critical analysis of a subject- some of the best historical studies I have ever read were carried out by thoroughly ethnographic micro-history critical theory advocates (mainly, proponents of Foucault and Clifford Gertz). However, the totalizing focus on these areas has, I contend, resulted in a staggering general historical ignorance, since, after all, the facts are merely relative and their use invariably political. The evidence that in my province there simply is no history 12 course seems to confirm this trend. Clearly, the ministry believes it is more valuable to teach interdisciplinary subfields such as Genocide studies rather than history generally. Ironically, when I'm teaching history at the university level- possibly as a result of these changes- I have found that English majors make the the best historical arguments, due to a superior training in regards to textual analysis.

There is also the worrying rise of "secret" history and the reaction against "mainstream" history which we should probably discuss, another disturbing trend. Due to a general low level of historical understanding, it is possible for hucksters and quacks to produce their own "analysis" (need I mention- Steve Bannon?) which the student will be unequipped to respond to.

I have been personally told by educators in the secondary system that the "old white guy history" is effectively dead, and that what is important now is exploring the "stories" of the historically marginalized. My response was incredulous, firstly because the notion that grade school history over the last thirty to forty years (in this province anyway) was anything like "old white guy history" - we weren't exactly reading von Ranke and H. G. Welles- is ridiculous. Frankly I can't imagine why the ministry doesn't feel actually teaching historical science matters anymore.

[ThirdTerm]

The Solomonic Dynasty ruled Ethiopia from around 950 BCE until 1974. There were a few interruptions in between, such as Italy's conquest of Ethiopia during WWII, but in a nearly 3,000 year history, that's a blink of an eye. They trace their origins to King Solomon through the Queen of Sheba, who is said to have given birth to their first king, Menelik I. They were thus ruled by African Jews for nearly a millennium, before their conversion to Christianity in the apostolic age. It is said that Ethiopia was converted by the apostle St. Bartholomew, thus establishing the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church as one of the first Christian churches. It is unique among Christian churches in how seamlessly they blend Judaism and Christianity. They follow a mostly kosher diet, and their faith centers around the Ark of the Covenant, which they claim is still held in one of their churches, brought over from Israel by the Queen of Sheba. I just find it shocking that such a distinguished ancient and long-lasting dynasty warrants barely a mention in Western history books.

It's primarily because the knowledge of historians is limited and they are only familiar with their nations's histories. I think there is nothing wrong with British historians writing history purely from a British perspective, while completely disregarding African history. Courses in "Western Civilization," which was once a common component of undergraduate curriculums, have almost disappeared as a requirement in the US. The Americans need to reinvent their history without giving too much emphasis on the Romans and the Greeks, as if the United States were a new Roman Empire. Ian Morris, Professor of History at Stanford University, represents Western triumphalism common in these courses.

[The Immortal Goon]

As for the Western Heritage vs World History, I don't see this as either or at all. I feel that as a historian it is my duty to be familiar with both.

Certainly. And one cannot diminish Western Heritage either even as a type of World History. I understand the impulse to not seem like gloating, but the fact is that at one point within the last century (and arguably still) the Western nations run things. There is a reason that China practices a German ideology and their premier wears a tie.

There is also the worrying rise of "secret" history and the reaction against "mainstream" history which we should probably discuss, another disturbing trend. Due to a general low level of historical understanding, it is possible for hucksters and quacks to produce their own "analysis" (need I mention- Steve Bannon?) which the student will be unequipped to respond to.

I agree with this. I just stopped doing the general education classes at my Uni, which are run by the history department. One of the books that we taught was something of a casual history—something you'd likely find in an airport bookstore. At the beginning of the year there would always be opposition to it, but I always thought it was useful as the paper associated with it was to go through her sources and evaluate whether they were persuasive or not. More often than not, students found the book persuasive to begin with but had serious doubts about the sourcing and conclusions drawn from it at the end. I found it extremely valuable as that's the kind of source most people get their history from.

If I had to do anything, I think it would be getting students to critically looking at citations and learning an academic distance. I remember having to learn to do that in graduate school when I had to learn the history of the Orangemen—a group of people I grew up thinking of as basically Nazis that didn't get enough power to exterminate the people that they wanted to exterminate. I still don't think highly of them at a gut level, but I know how to put that aside now and look at information critically without that emotion to it. If I could give my students a fraction of that I'd be a success.

I have been personally told by educators in the secondary system that the "old white guy history" is effectively dead, and that what is important now is exploring the "stories" of the historically marginalized. My response was incredulous, firstly because the notion that grade school history over the last thirty to forty years (in this province anyway) was anything like "old white guy history" - we weren't exactly reading von Ranke and H. G. Welles- is ridiculous. Frankly I can't imagine why the ministry doesn't feel actually teaching historical science matters anymore.

It's like we agreed, you need to have the tension there of knowing the Western stuff along with everything else. There are weird things to come out of trying to build a global history. One thing I find is that when I teach World History, same with most, I end up relying on China to mean, "Asia." The reason is obvious enough—I grew up in Western History and the Chinese have a history that can kind of roughly translate to Europe whereas the history of Bhutan is mostly lost to me. In essence, most well-meaning World people are essentially teaching European history with a shroud around it anyway.

In a world with more funding and care and whatnot, we could learn to look at various sources and historiographies. But they're not as interested in that...

...Of course, in a perfect world, everybody would be learning about moderate paramilitary nationalism in Ireland from 1890-1918 and I would have no end of job offers.

Instead I'm getting fucked having come into this wretched profession a generation too late.