In a previous incarnation I was a professional historian, so I was intrigued by conservatives\u2019 charge that the new AP History Framework for high school students has a leftist bias, depicting \u201ca nation founded on oppression, privilege, racism, and heedless exploitation of the environment.\u201d As it happens, a chief architect of the Framework is a former colleague of mine; in fact, I edited his first book. In a lengthy defense of the Framework, this gentleman makes these points (emphasis mine):<\/p>\n
My response:<\/p>\n
Framework Fractures<\/strong><\/p>\n The Framework has 200 separate historical \u201cconcepts,\u201d so it is not difficult to quantify its priorities. Of the 200, 28 refer to Indians and 27 to slavery and race, versus only 5 to the creation of America\u2019s \u201cfounding documents,\u201d the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Only one \u201cconcept\u201d discusses the actual drafting of the Constitution; that is clearly inadequate.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On ante-bellum immigration,<\/strong> students are told:<\/p>\n \u201cSubstantial numbers of new international migrants — who often lived in ethnic communities and retained their religion, language, and customs — entered the country prior to the Civil War, giving rise to a major, often violent nativist movement that was strongly anti-Catholic and aimed at limiting immigrants’ cultural influence and political and economic power.\u201d<\/p>\n A more even-handed formulation: \u201cDespite its Protestant roots, the U.S. was willing to receive millions of indigent Irish Catholic immigrants who \u2013 notwithstanding sometimes violent nativist resistance \u2013 fared much better in the U.S. than they would have by remaining in Ireland or moving to England.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Regarding World War II<\/strong>, students are told,<\/p>\n \u201cWartime experiences, such as the internment of Japanese Americans, challenges to civil liberties, debates over race and segregation, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb raised questions about American values.\u201d<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n \u201cThe United States and its allies achieved victory over the Axis powers through a combination of factors, including allied political and military power, industrial production, technological and scientific advances, and popular commitment to advancing democratic ideals.\u201d<\/p>\n So here we have a rather anodyne statement that the U.S. and its allies won the War, and a denigration of that extraordinary achievement on the grounds that the War \u201craised questions about American values.\u201d No mention of the 407,000 American troops killed, which by the way was four times the number of Japanese Americans interned. Destroying the Nazi and Japanese empires, and rebuilding both nations along democratic lines, affirmed American values.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Regarding Ronald Reagan and the Winning the Cold War<\/strong>:<\/p>\n \u201cPresident Ronald Reagan, who initially rejected d\u00e9tente with increased defense spending, military action, and bellicose rhetoric, later developed a friendly relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, leading to arms reductions by both countries.\u201d<\/p>\n Actually, it was Reagan\u2019s military buildup, in the face of strenuous liberal opposition, that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Empire \u2013 not his \u201cfriendly relationship\u201d with Gorbachev.<\/p>\n The Framework\u2019s Not so Gilded Age<\/strong><\/p>\n The Framework misconstrues the relationship between capitalism, economic growth, immigration and poverty reduction. Students are told:<\/p>\n \u201cFollowing the Civil War, government subsidies for transportation and communications systems opened new markets in North America, while technological innovations and redesigned financial and management structures such as monopolies sought to maximize the exploitation of natural resources and a growing labor force.\u201d<\/p>\n If I were grading this and in a good mood, I would still give it a \u201cD.\u201d There are at least three problems. First, \u201cgovernment subsidies\u201d did not open new markets; people did \u2013 entrepreneurs and their employees, encouraged by subsidies. Second, monopolies are not \u201cmanagement structures;\u201d they are market structures and were quite rare in the gilded age. Third, \u201cmaximize the exploitation of natural resources and a growing labor force\u201d is tendentiously pejorative.\u00a0\u00a0 A \u201cgrowing labor force\u201d did not willingly cross the Atlantic in order to be \u201cexploited.\u201c<\/p>\n Next,<\/p>\n \u201cThe industrial workforce expanded through migration across national borders and internal migration, leading to a more diverse workforce, lower wages, and increase in child labor.\u201d<\/p>\n Wages did not decline in the late 19th<\/sup> century; in real terms they rose 130% between 1865 and 1898. Living standards were boosted by a host of technological breakthroughs that go unmentioned in the Framework \u2013 telephony, electricity, elevators, phonographs, light bulbs, indoor plumbing, packaged foods, catalogue stores, interstate shipment of frozen meat, and (a few years later) autos and airplanes.<\/p>\n LBJ\u2019s Not So Great Society<\/strong><\/p>\n The Framework sidesteps the abject failure of Washington\u2019s \u201cWar on Poverty,\u201d obliquely noting that \u201cpublic confidence and trust in government declined in the 1970s in the wake of economic challenges\u2026.\u201d The accelerating inflation of the 1970s was more than a “challenge;” it was a protracted disaster for ordinary Americans engendered by the statist policies of LBJ, Nixon, and a Democratic Congress. Real median household income declined between 1969 and 1982 despite a huge increase in the number of working wives (female labor force participation rose from 42.7% to 52.6%). The Framework notes that \u201ceconomic inequality increased after 1980\u201d but ignores the broad prosperity engendered by the Reagan \/ Volcker program of monetary restraint, tax cuts, and deregulation; median household income rose 12% from 1982 to 1989.<\/p>\n Bottom Line<\/strong><\/p>\n The product of a great deal of thoughtful effort, the Framework is well intentioned and a pretty good start. However, it inevitably reflects the scholarly priorities and political biases of professional historians and should be substantially revised to meet the needs of high school students who wish to take a college-level American history survey course.<\/p>\n Copyright Thomas Doerflinger 2015. All Rights Reserved.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a previous incarnation I was a professional historian, so I was intrigued by conservatives\u2019 charge that the new AP History Framework for high school students has a leftist bias, depicting \u201ca nation founded on oppression, privilege, racism, and heedless … Continue reading