'Rewriting American History' By Frances Fitzgerald

Our history is what defines our character, shapes our social views, and gives us a sense of pride in how far we have come. The trouble with history is that it is presented to us as children through the interpretations of historians and textbook editors. This means that every few generations school children are introduced to "their particular version of America", they focus on different events and ideas from the past, and develop their own way of thinking about our history and the world in general. In "Rewriting American History" Frances Fitzgerald describes the differences between history books from her childhood and the newer ones from the nineteen-seventies; the examples show how the changes in content and perspective of junior high school
His focus is on the political views, pedagogical approach, presentation and content of the two generations of schoolbooks.

In the fifties American history was taught with "weighty volumes", which "spoke in measured cadances: imperturbable, humorless, and as distant as Chinese emperors." It seems like the textbooks were collections of generally agreed-upon facts with an emphasis on glorifying American heroes such as Columbus, John Smith and Daniel Boone. This choice of content reflects the conservative ideals of a united, postwar America in the fifties. It 's easy to see how the views of society can influence the interpretation of history in contemporary textbooks.

In contrast to the older books, the author gives examples of content from some of the more modern texts. The focus has shifted from old American heroes to modern leaders and ideas like conservation and the Civil Rights Movement. Newer books also "hint at a certain level of unpleasantness in American history." This is of course the writers personal opinion, but it sparks the question: Is this unplesantness a form of bias or just the result of a change in content? Aren 't the modern books just focusing on a different, less flattering part of our history, which was not mentioned in the fifties? That would mean that publishers have gained more freedom in what they can include and discuss in their
He compares the modern books to the older ones by saying, "In these books, history is clearly not a list of agreed-upon facts or a sermon on politics but a babble of voices and a welter of events which must be ordered by the hitorian." While the second part of that quote uses subjective language, it still paints a good contrast between the two pedagogical approaches. The textbooks in the fifties were solid and unquestioning, while the new books analyze and question history. The educational approach is significant because it influences the students view of America and its history. A lecture of facts creates a static vision of America and a sense of permanence, while the new learning techniques teach the student to consider multiple interpretations of the same facts. I think that this is a huge step forward in the learning process because it uses a familiar subject like history to teach students real world tools like critical thinking and objective analysis. This means that even though history keeps getting revised for every generation of school children, the process is moving in the right direction toward a better and more clear understanding of our