History on Trial : Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past

Rating:
Summary: The Historical Context of the Recent History Debates
Review: Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn have written a fascinating book that looks at the problems which occur when politics and the teaching history clash, as they inevitably will. The specific event described is the fight over the National History Standards which were established to give states and local school boards voluntary guidelines. The idea blew up when Lynne Cheney wrote an op-ed piece damning the standards. All three authors were involved in the project and bring their personal views and insights to the book in a helpful way.

The most interesting aspect of the book is both the historical and international aspects applied to the history wars. It allows the reader to put this recent battle into a more helpful historical perspective as many examples from the past are presented. The examples from the other countries are also useful in giving a global approach to the issues. This is how it should be for a book that covers the battles over what should be taught to children concerning U.S. and world history. A good book that shows the problems that begin when politicians get involved in the teaching of history.

Rating:
Summary: The Historical Context of the Recent History Debates
Review: Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn have written a fascinating book that looks at the problems which occur when politics and the teaching history clash, as they inevitably will. The specific event described is the fight over the National History Standards which were established to give states and local school boards voluntary guidelines. The idea blew up when Lynne Cheney wrote an op-ed piece damning the standards. All three authors were involved in the project and bring their personal views and insights to the book in a helpful way.

The most interesting aspect of the book is both the historical and international aspects applied to the history wars. It allows the reader to put this recent battle into a more helpful historical perspective as many examples from the past are presented. The examples from the other countries are also useful in giving a global approach to the issues. This is how it should be for a book that covers the battles over what should be taught to children concerning U.S. and world history. A good book that shows the problems that begin when politicians get involved in the teaching of history.

Rating:
Summary: an anti-intellectual book written by a leading postmodern wh
Review: Nash, Gary, History on Trial, Culture War and The Teachings of the Past. Nash, obsessed with race, class, and gender concerns and grieving over the severe beating taken by the National History Standards writes this book telling why the critics, he stigmatizes as "right wing extremists", were wrong. We are not told how this is squared with the acknowledged fact that the Standards were sufficiently deficient to require revision. The book is slow reading and the constant application of the thumb screw, the rack , and the carving knife to the facts is distracting as well as embarrassing. Omissions are revealing, e.g., Nash neglects to tell us that the Council for Basic Education (CBE), which was formed to review the original version of the Standards, was not exactly an impartial "referee." Nash, the primary director of the Standards project, was given veto power over the composition of the two CBE review panels, and he used it to keep serious critics, such as John Patrick Diggins of CUNY, off the panel. In this book Nash continually displays his animosity to the Great Satans of America, i.e. patriotic organizations such as the DAR, SAR, VFW, and the American Legion. It is an anti-intellectual book written by a leading postmodern who follows an "off with their heads" approach to anyone not who does not pay homage to his rigid orthodoxy of politically correct views on race, class, and gender matters. B. Rice Aston Fieldwood Houston, TX

Rating:
Summary: A classroom teacher analyzes the ongoing history war.
Review: The author's state that Historians did not do anything for the schools from around 1956 to 1986. This is not so, The Historians through the American Historical Association did a number of projects for the schools such as the Service Center for Teachers of History, The History Education Project as well as a number of other innovations. What Nash and the others are saying is that no national committee was in action. The historians attempted to have programs to help the teachers not set policy which seems to be the intent of the national standards. Anyone interested in the historians attempts to aid the schools by improving instruction and not formulating policy should read my doctoral dissertation:Clio's Disciples, Historians, Social Studies Educators and the Schools- 1956 to 1986.

Rating:
Summary: A classroom teacher analyzes the ongoing history war.
Review: The dedication reads simply, "This book is dedicated to the nation's history teachers". Being a member of such an oft-maligned group, this reviewer could not fail to read every word of History on Trial with critical interest. Nash and company give a fascinating overview of the debates that have raged regarding the teaching of America's history and continue to torment our national conscience today. As a history of history alone the book would be worthwhile. The primary controversy explored involves the uproar that arose over publication of the national history standards. These had been developed by the National Center for History in the Schools, established and funded by the NEH, headed by Lynne Cheney from 1986-1992. While some of the writing does seem a defense of the embattled authors being assaulted by right-wing conservatives, both critics and defenders of the NCHS are quoted liberally. In fact, it is noted that there were few defenders in the early days of the attacks. The reader is allowed to make up his/her own mind. The initiative to develop standards came at a time when many were charging that our nation's schools were failing. George Bush had developed the Goals 2000 plan and education committees, governors, state legislatures, and local education boards began to seek solutions. The problems were not with the idea of setting standards, but with a perceived emphasis on social history and historical interpretation skills at the expense of rote memorization of traditional names, dates, and events. The US history standards were the most viciously attacked. Critics did not want teachers to discuss failures or faults with the system. They preferred glorification of national heroes (adult, white males) and national institutions. In World History, critics objected to what they considered excessive inclusion of contributions from Asian, African and Latin American nations to the detriment of the traditional Western Civilization emphasis. Surprisingly, the standards received little criticism at the elementary and middle school level. Critics included Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lynne Cheney (once an ardent supporter) and Lamar Alexander. The attacks were leveled largely not at the standards themselves, but at sample lesson plans that accompanied them. Many critics did not seem to have read the standards. Having been a participant in the implementation of these controversial standards in a secondary public school US History classroom, using materials that had been developed by the NCHS, this reviewer can assert that the war is ongoing. However, the very conflict-laden nature of the teaching of history is one of the characteristics that keeps it so vital and interesting. For hope, all readers should look forward to the final chapter, "Lessons from the History Wars". This should be required reading for all potential history teachers now in college classrooms.

Rating:
Summary: Marvelous
Review: This is the kind of book I'd like to have written - the kind of book that would really clarify a lot of public debate, not to mention academic work done in the discipline of history, if it were widely read. It does three things at once: meticulously defend the proposed U.S. National History Standards against their often savage right-wing opponents; make the case that history teaching is an important forum for the working out of cultural anxieties; and provide a chronicle of debates over historical meanings and teachings since the founding of the Republic, and earlier. A really well-written and important work, both for history students and teachers and for the interested public (of which, readers will realize, we are all a part).