American Christian History Institute - Principle Approach - Christian History - Home Schooling: "That there would be no America if there were no Christianity;
Why Christians are so important to God in respect to 'His Story' and government of men and nations;
How responsible they are for the quality and conduct of American education, government and economics; and
How to restore America's historic Biblical method of reasoning to the home, church and school, the three constituents of Constitutional Liberty"
This stuff is everywhere over at Carlos's blog. David Barton is speaking at D. James Kennedy's domminionist conference--you know, the one where they want to take over the country and rule it as a Christian nation?
Meanwhile, Barton and his minions are everywhere. See, Christian conservatives don't like my profession. Evidently, historians have not awarded conservative Christians enough standing in our nation's history. Or something. Hell, I can't figure it out.
I guess that most Conservative Christians share this idea of "his-story" which means that we are all just little pawns in God's big play. America, after all, as you see above, would not exist without Christians. My Native American friends will love that. They love talk that God focusses all his attention on white christians and ignores their little forays into genocide, ethnic cleansing and slavery. they love it when their own history is reduced to scenery on the larger stage, and their suffering is ignored or simply dismissed as "sin."
Ultimately what bothers me is the methodalogical approach of all of these people. As the website here shows, they start with their conclusion: America a Christian nation and Christians at the heart of all good stuff--and then start working backward. Had I done that for my dissertation, I would have flunked.
The same issues come up in the discussions on evolution. Conservatives everywhere are saying things like "that is just a theory" which is also what I hear about my interpretations of the past. It is as if conservative christians have been touched with a relativist bug--or at least that they keep hearing it.
My friend Greg pointed me to this debate between three historians, and this is something that followers of David Barton should read. One of them is a Mormon. His writings outside mormonism have been widely respected, but as the article notes, he is also a huge apologist for the Mormon religion. One of the other historians challenges how he can do both. To my conservative christians, this is your challenge. When you throw out the historical method for a Barton, you are doing the same thing, and what is more, you have no challenge for the other faiths who do the same thing.
Let me suggest that science and history function very similarly. We all ask questions and do research. The quality of our research and the quality of our questions dictates the quality of our work. A Scientific "theory" is much like a historical explanation. They are the best explanation for the facts and details that we have. That doesn't mean capital "T" truth, but it also does't mean a half-assed opinion. It means that if new evidence comes along, that conclusion will need revising. Revision, after all, is a good thing. It isn't what most people think it is.
Ultimately, neither science or history operate the way conservative Christians want them too (that is, unless science is curing something, or history actually speaks well of Christians). But that is no reason to simply ignore both professions. Those that do are encouraging the very anti-intellectualism that has plagued religion.
11 comments:
Hey Streak. Any recommendations for good, readable, slightly subversive books on US history? I know that's a broad category, but I was just wondering.
I have a few. Howard Zinn is a good place to start. His People's History is still very solid, and people need to remember that Zinn is not only a solid historian, but flew bomber missions in WWII and put his life on the line in the south during the civil rights movement. Stephanie Coontz's "The Way We never Were" is a great look at family and women's history. I will keep thinking of other great subversive books. Maybe some of my friends will weigh in?
"That there would be no America if there were no Christianity"
That is an interesting statement and one that is historically myopic. After all, Christians used the Bible to uphold and support slavery in the South. Christians also tried to destroy American Indian religions and cultures (not to mention "holy wars"). If we follow the old story of America's history as one of Divine Providence, how does American Indian and African American history fit into that story. A little disorganized I know - but I thought I would comment. -- Cold in Laramie
Yeah, CIL, no doubt. Seeing American history as God's providence sends a pretty chilling message to those who haven't always been welcomed or included in the American story.
Thanks for the suggestions Streak. People's History has been on my list for quite a while. So have a couple of books you didn't list: Lies My Teacher Told Me and An Underground Education. I'll have to check out The Way We Never Were.
streak, it seems easy to find websites and organizations that are pushing this notion of a Christian US. Do you know of any organization or a professional group of historians that are fighting this sort of mindless revisionism? I think I have seen science groups active in this, but I have yet to see a history group.
Carlos
Good question, Carlos. I am unaware of historians that are organized against this particular issue. I think most professional historians just don't take the David Barton's serious. Many have written on the subject (Noll, Hatch, Marsden, Butler, etc) but those books have not worked their way into popular circles, and certainly not into the Bible Superstores.
Carlos...This is an excellent question. I, too, think it would be great for professional historians to reinsert themselves into the general public dialog. I have thought for a long time that there is a gap between the history profession and the generally public. The general public doesn't understand the value and purpose of the history profession. It seems to me that the public unconsciously (perhaps consciously) link town historians with professional historians. The town historian ("arm chair historian") is focused on perserving the common "myth" of the town whereas the professional historian's focus is almost the opposite, i.e. reassess the history as more information is discovered. (Did I get this right Streak? ) Professional historians are trained to think critically and to assess the bias of their sources. Certainly they have opinions, but I trust professional historians more than I do "arm chair historians". It's a shame that "historian" is a term used by both because they are VERY different things.
I, too, encourage the history profession to strengthen their voice in the public discource on history. Theirs is an important voice and one that needs to be listened to. It's not always easy to hear because the information presented can be confronting to long held assumptions. However, why on earth would one want to continue believing something that isn't factually true or is a misrepresentation of the truth? Isn't this like "building a house on sand?"
~qB
Steak,
I just read your response to Carlos. Do you think the general public listens to the Bartons of this world because their information is "accessible" and "understandable"?
I think it would be great if the history profession could figure out a way to present complex information in a way that the general public could digest. I know this sounds like dumbing down the information, but I think that defining the dialog as "dumbing down" in fact keeps the history profession from having a stronger voice.
Just like the law profession is encouraged to provide a public service through pro-bono work, could the history profession have a similar function by offering talks for the general public at librarys, civic associations, editorials in papers, etc? The focus would be for the general public, not for professional peers. Many of us learned our history in our K-12 public schooling. Actually most people probably had their last history class in 10th grade.
I don't know...I'm sure it's much harder than I know to penetrate the minds of people and to challenge their assumptions.
~qB
qB, you make an excellent point as well. Clearly the historical profession has not been effective at reaching out to the public, and they have not clearly explained their methadology. You asked about the "pro-bono" example, and actually most departments require their faculty to do "service" to the University and community. Faculty are encouraged (though it varies at each school how important this is) to reach out to the community and give talks to civic clubs, etc. Perhaps there should be more of this, and Public History might be the way to accomplish more, but we are still left with the problem you identified. For many Americans, and clearly those who like David Barton, our conclusions are threatening, and Barton's are not. I am not sure that they will listen to the professionals at all. There seems to be such anti-intellectual bias against professional scholars that I wonder how you break into that?
Knowing your history seems to be all the more important with this media and president in control. They both seem to be content to either ignore or rewrite history. This is particularly inexcusable for those who call themselves Christians, given that Paul specifically told a couple of different audiences to check out what he was saying against the evidence they had available to them.
Post a Comment