State Representative David Bly, MN District 25B

Not too long ago I had a conversation with my Uncle Ted about the teaching of History. He wondered why the teaching of History has to change, what is the difference between Social Studies and History and why there is so much disagreement about what ought to be taught. This is a topic others have asked me about. I have long been interested in history and on occasion have had the chance to teach it at the ALC. In my study of history, it’s my sense that it always changes. I think of famous displays of photos I’ve seen from Soviet history where politicians who have fallen into disfavor were erased entirely from public record or around the globe how we struggle whether to or not to name public buildings or streets after people. In Northfield recently there was disagreement about what to name the new Northfield Middle School.

Years ago I discovered an interesting story dealing with this issue in a book, published in 1951, by mystery writer Josephine Tey. In her book “The Daughter of Time” she has her detective, Inspector Grant, forced to take time off from work while recuperating in the hospital research the reputation of Richard III. A friend inadvertently brings him a challenge with a portrait of Richard III, which he studies and finds he can’t reconcile with the commonly accepted history of the tyrant king accused of murdering his successors, the young princes in the tower. The detective, who considers himself a good judge of a face, can’t accept that the man captured in the portrait could have been the murderer. He explores the history, and reads Shakespeare’s play. He learns that, almost all that is conventionally accepted about Richard III was written by his enemies. More friendly appraisals or even more neutral ones were never considered.

The detective begins to apply his skills, which also are as it turns out the skills of good historian to the search for a more accurate picture. Searching anecdotes, letters and any recorded data he might have his assistant find for him he begins to piece a very different picture of the maligned King, as well as a list of likely suspects for the murder.

Today one can find several websites and societies dedicated to the restoration of King Richard’s reputation. Now it is true that a society for this purpose existed before Tey’s novel it gained much greater attention by this popularization.

History because it is a story attempting to tell the truth must rely on observations of past and present, and therefore point of view. But it also cannot be ignored that history has as its charge not only to discover the truth but to make the truth. It has become a tool to instruct, to imbue others with a point of view, a set of beliefs that someone wants them to have, because it serves a political or educational or literary or even financial purpose.

It is this dual nature that causes us trouble and difficulty as we think about how and what to teach. Today we not only have novelists re-imagining history but also Hollywood. Oliver Stone has been taken to task several times for his interpretation of our common story. Several filmmakers who have tried to tell the story of Christ run into angry criticism from all sides. As political winds change so does history, and at times the changing winds of history can change politics. Historians and politicians know this. They also know that who controls the national story controls what is perceived as the truth and the direction we ought to head in. Both sides use historical figures from the past to give life to their beliefs and values. These folks want to see history as decided and concrete as granite.

This could be seen in the debate recently over Social Studies Standards right here in Minnesota. Because the notion of these standards is based on the illusion of concrete facts verifiable data when history is an open book not a closed one, it is a search for answers that often reveals more questions. The very idea that we can or should teach everyone the same point of view and then test them, on that point of view ignores nature.

There is disagreement for example about the values that founded our country some argue that it was ‘resistance to taxation’ that prompted the colonists to rebel against the mother country; while others say it was rejection of the arrogance of power and aristocratic values supported by the belief in the divine right of kings countered by a belief in natural law and the equality of all men regardless of inheritance. Whether taxation or the right to self-govern is the reason or both becomes an issue when politicians want to persuade the public of a certain point of view.

Some argue a national story, which teaches virtues and values through the stories of our great leaders is a necessity to pass on the moral values every citizen should hold, an idea promoted by William Bennett author of “The Moral Compass” and “The Book of Virtues” who proposed to tell us how to teach others moral behavior while he was indulging in ruinous behavior himself, uncaring or oblivious to the impact of his behavior on his personal credibility and the acceptance of the validity of his beliefs.

Author and radio personality, Sarah Vowel, was recently asked about why she was interested in history and why so many young people find the study of history boring. Her answer revealed a different approach to Bennett’s laudatory moral stories and his own denial and compartmentalization of his behavior. She said that too often the history books have excluded the whole picture of a person, which leaves the reader with the sense that these people in history were not real people. They could not have had real struggles. She uses the example of Thomas Jefferson, and argues that the story of the author of the Declaration of Independence is not diminished by the reality that he had slaves and took advantage of his power over them, but rather his story is enriched when we know that he had these real struggles balancing the highest ideals with baser realities. It is good for us to know the world is messy and full of harsh conflicts and in spite of it we can strive for ideals that make us better and challenge our failings and inconsistencies.
Some argue we can’t tell children the whole truth, but I am often surprised how quick young people are to pick up when they are being told a half-truth. I think they find history boring when it doesn’t ring true to them, when they know it is something removed from real life and what they experience, like a list of facts or names of dead people they must memorize. I believe when they are confronted with moral dilemmas and they can see themselves struggling with a question of what to do, they are very interested.

Dick Fox, a history teacher in Belle Plaine, who unfortunately passed away recently, understood this well. I visited his class a couple of times during my campaign and he explained the importance of making history real to his students to confront them with struggles they could relate to. During my campaign, Dick came up with a slogan for me to usethat was based on his observation that our leaders are taking us in the wrong direction by following the guiding principle of ‘what’s good for me is good for you.’ Dick said we have to replace ‘me’ with ‘we’, and pursue a path that considers the common good and the common story. He believed all of his students contributed a valuable perspective on our common story. He wanted to hear what they had to say.

What I learned from him is that we all long for the concreteness that a certain history might offer us, as we long for certainties in life. We wish that the past would give us a clear path to the future. But the closer we look we discover that the past is almost as murky as the future. There is little we can know with certainty, so we must rely on each other’s point of view. It is the collective story that is important not the single story. But the collective story can only exist by the recognition of many very singular individual perspectives and stories. We must be open to change and open to each other, and yet hold to our experience and our beliefs. Where there is conflict we must share our points of view and from that dialogue forge a path to the future for all of us.