Americans Don’t Want to be Disabused of Their Historical Misconceptions — Historical Interpretation
Christopher Columbus “discovered” America. NOPE
Pocahontas married a British settler because she fell madly in love with him. FALSE
George Washington admitted to chopping down his father’s cherry tree in a display of his integrity and character. NEGATIVE
There are tons of historical misconceptions in American History. Why?
History is subjective. It just is. Historical narrative is written by human beings, and all human beings have their own biases and prejudices that color how they interpret events and sources. Because of this, there are many different interpretations for single historical events. People tend to find and believe whatever narrative best fits with their own personal political or social world view, and reject the rest as historical revisionism or just outright lies put out there to further some agenda or belief. There are many historical schools of thought out there. I could get into the minutiae of historiography, but I’m pretty sure none of you would want to read that. There have been great efforts to make History as a field more scientific in nature by setting standards for research and methodology, thereby creating some type of objectivity in how historical narrative is created. But at the end of the day, people are interpreting sources and events, and their own beliefs, culture, and biases shape their narratives. To paraphrase 20th century historian Carl Becker: writing history, by nature, is an interpretive enterprise, and not everyone does it the same.
So, yes, the narratives of history that are currently being produced stray from older versions. That doesn’t mean they are false. Pretty much all of American History was written from a white, male, Anglo perspective which focused mostly on the political, military, “Great Man” school of thought. With the expansion of social and cultural history and the inclusion of the stories and voices of groups that were largely ignored in older, more traditional historical narratives, many widely held beliefs are being challenged. Misconceptions are being revealed. Blatantly false narratives are being challenged. And lots of Americans can’t handle that because they see it as an affront to themselves. American History is amazing. It is also brutal and ugly and challenges our perceptions of who our ancestors were, and by extension who we are. History is not meant to be a feel-good affirmation. And if it is taught fully and truthfully, it isn’t. It is a combination that should induce both shame and pride, joy and sadness, horror and awe. You may ask how that is possible. But that is the paradox of American History.
Teaching history well includes teaching the student how to contextualize events, how to recognize bias, how to analyze primary sources on their own for comparison to the sources being read, and how to think critically to determine the value and accuracy of whatever source they are reading, be it primary or secondary. As a history teacher, I want my students to know the content, but I see my greatest obligation as teaching my students how to think for themselves based on the materials I place before them. I encourage my students to question and challenge the traditional historical narrative, but urge them to do so when they have the ability to provide evidence and argument other than just “because I think so.”
The argument today over whether and how to teach Critical Race Theory and the role racism has played in shaping America is a product of how politically polarized we have become. American History and American classrooms are being weaponized by groups to further political agendas and create “culture wars” in a nation that is quickly becoming more and more diverse racially, ethnically, and religiously. Some Americans don’t want to entertain the idea that the version of American History they were taught was not a complete version. Many don’t want to consider the role and contributions of groups who are different than they are. But American History is only going to continue to expand, change, and become more inclusive as new sources are uncovered and social historians delve much deeper than the political, military, Great Man theory of history. And if more inclusive history bothers you, you’re going to be pretty unhappy moving forward, based on the research trends in the world of History academia.
