What Is "History"?

What is History?
By Denis Mueller

"All I want are facts, only facts are important," said Mr. Gringold. Gringold is a teacher in a Charles Dickens novel "Hard Times" and his statement begs the question as to what facts are important and which are not. History is a collection of facts in which some events are determined to be more important than others. The historian chooses which facts are to be empathized and what will be excluded. The very act of choosing which facts, or stories, expresses a point of view.

When we mention President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, what comes to our mind? One, is that he was a great man; he must be because his face is chiseled onto Mount Rushmore. TR is the trust buster who fought against big business and presided over what historians have come to call the "progressive era". Schoolchildren are taught that he rode up San Juan Hill and became an American hero. This is all true, to a certain degree, but what is missing from the story? What could be said about Teddy Roosevelt that might reveal him in a different light, or for that matter, the era of the Progressive movement.

One way to look at the Progressive era is to illustrate that it wasn't so progressive for everyone. More black people were lynched during this era than at any other time in our history. One reason is that the historians of that era propagandized the racist view of the re-construction period, a viewpoint which helped legitimize groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. These academics were not neutral. Roosevelt in the 1900 election argued against independence for the Philippines, which we had just acquired during the Spanish-American war, by calling the Philippine independence movement, "a syndicate of Chinese half-breeds." Yet Roosevelt remains a darling of historians of that era, despite being a racist. Why weren't they disturbed by these racist implications? The answer is simply that this is their view of the world as well.

A common argument put forth by the academics who largely control history is that one must avoid bias by saying we should not judge people of that era through a modern lens. If this is true, why did people like Thomas Paine challenge the moral legitimacy of slavery? Paine certainly saw the evils of slavery and he is from that era. The point I am trying to make is: which facts one chooses to illustrate is important in our understanding of the past.

Samuel Eliot Morison is considered an important Columbus scholar. Morison chose to emphasize Columbus the navigator and ignore Columbus the mass executioner. Both are true. In many ways, which facts are presented is more important than what is told. If I lie, or make an honest misstatement, that is easy to check. But if I omit something entirely, that is much harder to find out about. News reporting works this way and, to make matters worse, news reporting is devoid of context.

The 1890s are referred to as the "gay 90s". But it wasn't so wonderful for the Italian, Jewish and Polish immigrants who found work in the textile, steel and rail industries. The 1920s are called the "Roaring Twenties," but large sections of the population were very poor. So it all depends on who is telling the story and what they choose to express as important.

There is no such thing as objectivity. In fact, the lie of objectivity leads to misunderstanding. Why did the 1960s happen? Did they just burst on the scene? No, for years pressures had been building up. The hegemony of anti-communism led directly to the fiasco of Vietnam. The civil rights movement had been building for nearly 25 years, but the objective journalists and historians refused to question their own beliefs, so they were surprised when it happened.

Americans have been criticized endlessly for their lack of historical understanding. I disagree. What should be criticized are not Americans, but the valueless and irrelevant history that is taught by our schools. People want to know about their history. Sources:

Howard Zinn, The Politics of History