And it's not really their fault, either.
This fall I'll be starting graduate school at San Diego State University, going for an MA in History with the goal of becoming a community college professor. It'll be a tough road- and I don't just mean my schooling. There's a good chance I'll be hired as an adjunct professor, and if so, a 25% chance I'll be on public assistance considering how little adjuncts are paid. It'll be tough, but it will be worth it.
"And that concludes today's lecture about US-Nicaraguan relations during the pre- and post-revolutionary years through the lens of gender. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go rummage through a garbage can because I haven't eaten today."
But if you had told me ten years ago this would be my current path, my fifteen year old self would probably laugh at you. Because back then, I still viewed history the way most people do: a long list of dates and proper nouns to memorize. A bunch of names, places, and events that told me about the past, but not much else. Even the war stories that were supposed to be "exciting" for male students held little interest for me. There were some things here and there that captured my attention, but history as a whole? Gracias, pero no.
In the time between then and now, however, my view on history has changed thanks to a variety of chances to see it in a different light. From great teachers and professors, to the community college debate circuit, to underground hip hop (especially Immortal Technique), I was given the chance to learn that history is so much more than a list of numbers and words to memorize.
One of the most oft-repeated sentiments about history is that learning about our past helps us understand the present. It's one of the most cliche sayings about history, but also one of the truest. Knowledge of history allows us to give context to the world around us. As a culture, we don't like learning about the past because we confuse knowing about the past with being stuck in the past (just look up all those feel-good graphics floating around on Facebook about never looking back and always living in the present). But we miss out on so much of the world when we don't understand where everything came from.
To give an example, in my Top Everything of 2014 post my "Actual News Story of the Year" choice went to the US beginning to normalize relations with Cuba. Now, to someone whose only knowledge of the history of US-Cuba relations is "Castro took over in a revolution and then there were missiles and the trade embargo happened because... communism?" are missing out on a lot of important information
The most important information: the Cuban rebels were known for their beards,
and were actually called Barbudos (bearded ones) by much of the press.
To give an incredibly brief summary of US-Cuban history, things started with the Spanish American War that began in 1898 between the US and Spain over Spain's territories. The US won, and in 1903 the Platt Amendment was passed to make Cuba a "protectorate" (read: colony without using the word "colony") of the US. That meant that whenever Cuba did anything to stand up for itself, and/or did anything to go against US interests, the US would intervene. Those who came to power in Cuba had to be loyal to US interests, or they would be overthrown.
Revolt was common, but none truly succeeded until the 1959 Revolution, Fidel chief amongst the figures in the revolution. Fidel's leadership after the revolution involved both good and bad: he mobilized literacy and healthcare campaigns in the countryside, changed the economy from the ground up to an egalitarian model that created a lot of gains for those who had been at the bottom, and overall created a strong socialist state that helped the people who needed it most. On the other hand, he was a repressive dick who didn't allow the slightest bit of dissent or non-state approved voices. But, however repressive he was, he wasn't any worse than Fulgencio Batista, his US-backed predecessor that he overthrew in the Revolution.
The Cubans that came to the US immediately after the 1959 Revolution were largely wealthy elites (which is why Cuban Americans are known for being staunchly conservative). And, with their wealth and disdain for Castro, a strong anti-Fidel lobby was born. The influence of the first wave of Cuban immigrants in favor of blacklisting Fidel's Cuba, and the lack of wealthy opposition, meant that the embargo with Cuba hadn't gone anywhere even a couple decades past the Cold War. Politicians who tried in the past were met with fierce opposition from these first wave Cuban immigrants, while not having much of a political base of support in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba (plenty of people are for it, but no one has been for it strongly enough to lobby and organize around it as a cause).
So the embargo remained until the present, where most first wave Cuban immigrants have now died off, and both their descendants and later Cuban immigrants simply don't hold the same anti-Fidel opinions the first wave of immigrants did. With less of a lobby around to fight against normalizing relations with Cuba, it has finally become a distinct possibility to do so.
Though we all know Pitbull's hardline pro-party outlook
is the most important Cuban American lobby of all.
is the most important Cuban American lobby of all.
Knowing just those four paragraphs of information drastically changes how we can look at, and think critically about, the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. There is so much more to this situation than "Cuba and the US didn't get along, communism is bad, trade embargo!" And it brings up a lot of questions, the proper examination and answering of which are far beyond the scope of this post.
Beyond simply understanding the present, understanding history means we also have extra information that allows us to make more informed decisions when going into the future. To stick with this same example, I support the idea of normalizing relations with Cuba. But what will this normalization of relations look like? Because using historical precedent, we see that when the US and Cuba had strong ties, the US was using Cuba like a colony. That raises questions that need to be thought about moving forward, questions that we won't think to ask when we aren't aware of the comprehensive history behind a certain issue. And right now many students in K-12 aren't taught a comprehensive history that challenges them to think critically.
To be clear, I don't think the watering down of history is some grand conspiracy that everyone in the K-12 education system is involved in. Rather, I think it's a combination of a variety of factors,
none of which involve a bunch of shady Illuminati-types sitting around a table and laughing manically to themselves.
Yet, intentional or not, we have to teach history in a way that feels relevant and important to those learning it. Otherwise, we are doomed to continue hearing students talk about how "boring" history is as their actual history is being ineffectually taught (or in some cases, like with ethnic studies in Arizona, even denied) to them. More students like the ones in the program I mentor for, or even fifteen year old me, will continue to avoid history. And there is no way we should want that to happen. History is too important.