[voice of instructor, Gayle] So... welcome to our second class meeting this semester and our, this is our first online lecture. Today we have three goals to accomplish, up here, we want to understand the debates and controversies that currently center around the teaching of history We're going to define history and distinguish between two disciplines: history and social studies... a lot of you don't realize that they're looked at totally differently and we're going to understand the historical debates and controversies as well as the dialog and compromises that have influenced the way we teach history by taking a chronological tours through what many of us in the History profession have come to call "the History Wars." Now the way things are going to be on these lectures is that these are going to be the goals up here for the lectures, and these will be the goals for when we get together on Elluminate. So, you'll always see what goals these are so you can be thinking about these goals as the lecture goes on. So.. we're going to start with goal number one. We want to understand the debates and controversies that currently center around the teaching of history. And, by doing that, we're going to look at this cartoon - which some of you have seen before - called, "The war at home" And some of it's hard to read, so I'm going to read it for you. I want you to be thinking about why this is a debate. So. "When I went to school, I learned George Washington never told a lie, slaves were happy on the plantation, the men who opened the West were giants, and we won every war because God was on our side. But where my kid goes to school he learns George Washington was a slave owner, slaves hated slavery, the men who opened the West commited genocide, and the wars we won were victories for U.S. Imperialism" "No wonder my kid's not an American. They're teaching him some other country's history." Okay. Now, I've had this cartoon for a long time and it still is a great hook to begin a class with because I think it tells you very much about the debate. So can someone tell me what it says? The debate that's going on here? >>male student: Well, there's two versions of history. >>Gayle: One version is... which version is this version? >>student: Visualist? >>Gayle: Okay. And most Americans, the public - this is the public view of history. And I don't think - if any of you have had conversations with your family or friends, this is what what they're going to tell you history is largely. Okay? And what's this version? >>student: Revisionist? >>Gayle: It's what's largely being taught in the school. It's revised, or "revisionist" history where historians look at the same data that older historians looked at, and they interpret it differently based upon their own training. So this "War at Home" this "War at Home" which I think is just... beautifully labeled... says the main controversy, plus dialog and compromise equal the essential ingredients of good history teaching. So today I want to talk about what controversies, how we have to dialog, how we have to compromise in these debates about what is "good" history teaching and what is "bad" history teaching, or in general, what's history? Nobody even agrees on that. So... I'm going to argue today that debate and the controversy, as well as the dialog and compromise are those essential ingredients of teaching good history. Okay? Debate and controversy sparks human interest and helps them understand the immense complexity of history. So if you're not teaching controversial, complex history, your kids are going to be bored. Because facts and dates mean nothing to them. But controversy and complexity does. Debate and controversy encourages students to become historians, because we have to force them to examine all that information. And then debate and controversy allow our students to enter a lively dialog about history and helps us understand the role of compromise in history. Now does anyone know why the word "compromise" is a particularly loaded word in this, in 2012, in this political world? >>student: Well there's an election that's going to be happening soon >>Gayle: Right. Let's go back to the 2010 election, when the Tea Party came in to the Congress, what did they say? >>student: "No compromise" >>Gayle: "We're not going to compromise" right? And many historians said, "well gosh, you're not going to get anything done then because the whole history of politics is compromise" And I would invite you to reflect on what has been accomplished in the last two years with Congress, they've pretty much stymied because there is a group now who refuse to compromise. >>student: And that group is happy doing nothing >>Gayle: Well that group is happy doing nothing... why? Because it shows that the federal government is doing nothing. And you know, if the Democrats were in power it'd be exactly the same way... This is not a party - it's the way parties work, whether Democrats or Republicans, they're going to stymie, okay? What is interesting is an off-side here: is when Obama ran for President, he ran on the spirit of compromise and alot of my friends who are very, very left wing, very radical have been very angry with Obama. And I've said he's done exactly what he said he'd do - he said he was going to compromise, he was going to try to get both sides of the aisle... he didn't talk about what he would do if he didn't, because he thought he could. Okay... so he campaigned saying compromise is all about who I am, I know how to work with the Democrats and the Republicans and it hasn't worked out that way. So one of the things I want you to see is how important compromise is to the study of history and to the study of politics. But debate and controversy is not just about what's being taught in our schools, it's also about how teachers are perceived today. So... I want you to look at this video... which I'm sure many of you will like... and I think you've already seen, Jim, because Adam sent it to me... "A message from your kids' teachers" Jimmy Kimmel: "National Teacher Day has been around since 1953, and it seems like a nice gesture until you realize that there's also National Donut Day that gets more attention (audience laughter) I didn't even know there was a National Teacher Day until... today actually, but, it doesn't get as much attention as it should, but hopefully things are starting to change thanks to awareness campaigns - like this one, from the National Association of Educators... I'm a teacher I'm a teacher I'm a teacher I work hard every day In the classroom and out. To educate your kids Your kids Your stupid, stupid kids Who don't listen who don't pay attention they text under their desks, okay they're lazy they don't care they're horrible! and fat super fat! because you let them eat crap Lunchables? Really? You have fat, dumb kids. Not all kids. Not the Asian kids. Your kids. You - raised them poorly. And now I'm suppose to fix it? YOU fix it. You know your "little genius" can't even name a foreign country? One country in the whole world. "Pandora"?? Pandora's not a country! It's a made up planet from a movie! But your kid thinks it's real. Because it was in 3-D That's how stupid your kid is. And it's my fault? Because I should have taught him better? Ha! Blame the teacher! Haul my ass in for review, huh? But it's all worth it when I get that big, fat paycheck! 800 dollars a week Maybe I'll take a vacation this year to Motel 6 guess we'll have to hold another bake sale Oh! Bake sale! Yay! Like your kid needs another [beep] brownie! Any hoo! National Teacher's Day Remember We'd don't suck YOU suck! A message from your kids' teachers. [audience applause] >>Gayle: So the message of this video, I think, tells us that there are controversies between not only what the public wants to be taught... there are controversies about how and who is a good teacher. How is good teaching, good history teaching taught? And who is a good history teacher? So there are a lot of controversies going on in the community today about teaching. So, the well-known historian, Columbia Professor Eric Foner, whom many of you know because you've read some of his books, sheds more light on the debates and controversies in his book, "Who Owns History." It points to a widening gap between two groups. He says there are disagreements AMONG historians about how history should be studied and intrepreted Traditional historians who believe in the traditional "great man" view of history And what's that - the "great man" view of history? >>student: "Great white hope" >>Gayle: Great, white men... okay? who are also, they are not just white men... who else are they? Are they poor? >>student: No >>Gayle: They're wealthy, okay? And are they Catholic? or are they Protestant? They're Protestants - that's part of the American... okay, so "great, white men" is the Protestant, wealthy, white man's view... it's usually a gentleman... okay ... does anyone remember or know what the definition of a "gentleman" was, until the 20th century? Someone who doesn't work. Okay? So someone who doesn't work - because if you were a "gentleman" you didn't get your hands dirty - you hired somebody else, or you had slaves to do your work for you, or servers to do your work for you. You kept the books, you did all the things that kept your hands clean. But a gentleman and this is a great story about Ben Franklin, he actually was a printer, as many of you know, and to many degrees was an inventor, and he was not considered a "gentleman" clear until his 50s when he retired from everything, and became a man of leisure and became an ambassador. That is considered to be a "gentleman". That's not 20th century - a way of looking at a "gentleman" but it is an early interpretation. So between traditional historians and revisionist historians, who believe history must be revised as we respond to new questions, new information, and new social, cultural and political realities So this might mean you're gonna look at old data, at old information, but you're looking at it from a different social, cultural and political context. Okay? So the essential controversy is, as the 20th Century progressed, many historians began to disagree began to disagree about whether or not reviesed interpretations were legitimate history. And we're going to see that play out into the 21st Century as well. Then, disagreements between the public at large and historians about what is and is not history and how that history should be taught. And you saw it played out in the cartoon. So, the public wants a traditional history that reinforces the supremacy of our national identity, our democratic spirit, our superior place in the world accorded to us by God, and our predominance in the world, which again you see in the hard hat "War at home" cartoon. But the hard hat's presense in the "War at Home" cartoon is what many people have come to identify as American Exceptionalism. This is Newt Gingrich, explaining American Exceptionalism. "I think this is very important. I want to talk very briefly about American Exceptionalism and then apply it, very directly, to one example of how big the change needs to be. "Despite the fact that our current President has managed to avoid explaining on at least four occasions that we are endowed by our Creator, the fact is what makes American Exceptionalism different is that we are the only people I know of in history to say power comes directly from God to each one of you. You are personally sovereign. So you're always a citizen. You are never a subject. Now the founding fathers wrote this because they said we hold these truths to be self-evident. This is not a philosophy. It's not an ideology. It's not a theory. It's a set of truths, as they understood it, about the nature of being human. That we are human within a fabric created by God. And that these rights are unalienable. That means no politician, no bureaucrat, no judge can take them away from you. Now it's important to understand this because the gap between the America the founding fathers created and the system currently down today in Washington is extraordinary. We're in grave danger of decaying from citizenship to being subjects. We're in grave danger of the center of power, of sovereignty, leaving you, the people, and going to the Washington bureaucrats. If you look at the Gibson Guitar case the other day, where 26 armed federal agents intervened in factories to discover whether or not there was illegal Indian wood... Well, this is bizarre... this is a system run amok. And so it's important. The one example I want to give you is the courts, because I think this is a topic that is totally appropriate for us to deal with and (other speaker: "time's up") And I think it's very important for us to get to it and I hope..." Now, if you want more detail on American Exceptionalism you can see Condoleeza Rice's speech to the Heritage Foundation, just three months ago... it was excellent. It's an hour long, but it's excellent, so I can't show it in class. I believe teaching