© 2014 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
It's helpful to know two terms before reading this news section:
"APUSH" and "revisionist history."APUSH is an acronym for Advanced Placement U.S. History curriculum, referring to a U.S. history course taught in high school to college-bound students. It's designed to provide the same level of content and instruction that students would face in a freshman-level college survey class. The curriculum is set by College Board, the same group that runs the SAT test. It is an educational-resources company with a membership association of more than 6,000 schools, colleges, universities and other educational organizations. Students who successfully complete APUSH receive credit for the course both at their high school and at the college or university they subsequently attend.
Major changes to the APUSH curriculum were announced recently, significantly changing how U.S. history is taught and how it might be viewed by students. At least one large state's board of education (Texas) has rejected the revised APUSH curriculum, with several others still looking into the matter.
Revisionist history, as explained in Wikipedia, is "the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history." The Urban Dictionary defines revisionist history more snidely, saying, "When people, with the benefit of years (or generations) of hindsight and typically with ulterior motive, try to rewrite history as it originally occurred."
The changes to the APUSH curriculum beginning this fall have been described by critics as pushing a revisionist history that reflects an emphasis on theories concerning race, gender and class, and eliminating or downplaying the foundation of the United States on individual rights and constitutional government.
These two terms came into play this past week as more than a thousand students in several Jefferson County, Colorado, high schools walked out of their classes to protest a proposal introduced to the Jeffco School Board by board member Julie Williams in response to the APUSH changes.
Her proposal calls for a board committee to review the APUSH curriculum to the end that "Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions."
In a statement, Williams said that the new curriculum for APUSH is revisionist and portrays America's history negatively. She does not oppose treating negative aspects of U.S. history so much as she favors including positive aspects, such as the fight against fascism in World War II, the foundational principles of the consent of the governed and the development of democratic institutions. Some of the APUSH changes are surprising: the Black Panthers are mentioned, but Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., are ignored -- as are Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.
Critics of the proposal, however, see Williams as calling for revisionist history as well, by downplaying negative aspects of U.S. history, such as Jim Crow laws, the treatment of American Indians or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Many opponents characterize the proposal as calling for censorship.
In contrast, Williams sees the new APUSH curriculum as censoring history.
The student walkout followed protests by dozens of teachers at two Jefferson County high schools who called in sick, forcing both schools to close for a day. The teachers were protesting both the proposal for the school board to set up a committee to review what materials teachers use in the classroom and an ongoing disagreement over pay and the intentions of three new conservative school board members. Williams is one of the three, and on a board of five members, they constitute a majority.
Williams maintains that she's not trying to remove the facts of U.S. history from the curriculum, but she is concerned when APUSH casts a negative light on some parts of the country's past, such as the bombing of Hiroshima and slavery. She said that such teaching has an anti-American bias. Some people who agree with her say the new APUSH curriculum has too much emphasis on women, slavery and Native Americans.
Some of the protesting students, practicing the very kind of civil disobedience Williams wants the curriculum to discourage, say school should teach them how to think for themselves and analyze critically the material presented to them.
Stephanie Martin, a Christian conservative with two kids in Jeffco schools, admits to being torn over this issue. "I realize it's probably impossible to be neutral when teaching history," she said via email with The Wired Word, "but it's important to show both sides -- and to help kids learn how to think critically and think for themselves. Based on all the great teachers I've met in this district the past eight years, I doubt anyone's trying to indoctrinate kids and make them unpatriotic."
Martin said she'd have to see this proposed curriculum in action, but she doubts it or the alternatives are as "evil" as either side makes them out to be. "For example," Martin said, "I don't think the conservatives are trying to 'Botox' history, as [one] CNN columnist claims. Yet we can't gloss over stuff we'd rather forget, as a nation," Martin said.
Martin also pointed to a comment Williams made in a recent press release (on Facebook). Williams said, "Last, when it comes to history I believe all children graduating from an American school should know 3 things: American Exceptionalism, an understanding of U.S. History, and know the Constitution."
"I cringed at the term 'American exceptionalism,'" Martin said, "especially when I looked it up on Wikipedia. What makes us think we're superior to other nations? Then I heard a local conservative radio host say the term is misunderstood; instead of saying we're the best, it means we stand out as 'a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty.' Yes, that's important for kids to appreciate."
Martin concluded, "What I'm hearing from many parents and teachers is that this board majority is inserting political and religious ideology into public education. The fact that they're facing such backlash shows that both teachers and students don't want limits on what they teach and are taught. And the last thing you can ever do is force people to respect authority."
TWW editorial team member Liz Antonson observed that Williams' proposals seem to be mixing history with civics. "History is facts, unless manipulated away from the actual events," Antonson said.
Critics of the new APUSH curriculum say it specifically downplays facts and encourages interpretations of events instead.
Antonson, noting that the proposal calls for using the teaching of history to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," said, "These goals should not be the primary burden of a history course because civics is the study of the great theoretical and practical aspects of citizenship, its rights and duties, the duties of citizens to each other as members of a political body and to the government." She maintained that history and civics should not be confused.
In most high schools, the traditional civics curriculum has been subsumed into the history and English curricula.
For her part, Williams said her proposal is being misinterpreted by its opponents. She wants the school district to be molding good citizens -- patriots, not "rebels."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Colorado Students Protest Proposed Curriculum Changes. PBS NewsHour
Behind Colorado Walkout Over 'Patriotic' History Classes, a Power Play. Christian Science Monitor
Q&A: What Are Students in Colorado Protesting? ABC News
What in the AP U.S. History Curriculum -- APUSH -- Sparked Controversy in the Jeffco Public Schools? 7News Denver
Jefferson County Public Schools Faces Crisis Over School Board Changes. Denver Post
Board Committee for Curriculum Review (Julie Williams' proposal)
Jeffco School Board Watch
Description of the College Board's AP History Redesign
The Big Questions
1. To what degree do you remember personal or family history differently from how others who were present remember it? When has the way you remember it affected how you think about yourself today?
2. To what degree have you been shaped by what you've learned of biblical history? As an adult, do you look on biblical "heroes" the same way you did as a child? Which perspective is/was more helpful? To what degree is your Christian faith shaped by what you've read or been told about Christians in earlier generations?
3. When has the meaning of a personal painful incident changed with the passage of time? Which meaning -- the one you saw at the time or the one you perceive now -- do you think is the one God wants you to trust? Why? Is it possible you might see a still different meaning in that incident with the passage of more time?
4. When have you declared some aspect of your past unimportant because it doesn't fit with how you wish to be today? How does your faith in Christ help you deal with negative parts of your past? Is it healthier to integrate all of life's experiences into your story, or to eliminate or reinterpret?
5. In the biblical narrative, why were some stories included that don't portray the protagonist in the best light? Or that show the disciples' failings? Or even portray God in a less than stellar light?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 16:2-3
The whole congregation of the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger." (For context, read 16:1-15.)
This is from the time the Israelites were in the wilderness, having recently fled brutal slavery in Egypt. But now, hungry, they complain against Moses and Aaron for leading them to freedom, and they choose to gloss over how bad things were for them in Egypt, claiming instead that there, they'd been able to have their "fill of bread."
They are revising their history to fit the needs of their complaint in the present.
Questions: When have you glossed over, downplayed or inflated certain parts of your past, and why? How do you respond when you hear someone else reinterpret the past to suit themselves? Do you correct them? Listen to them? Seethe? Understand?
John 8:33
They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, 'You will be made free'?" (For context, read 8:31-38.)
Wow! Talk about revisionist history! The "they" in this verse are Jews. For any Jews to look at their history and say "[we] have never been slaves to anyone" is quite remarkable, given that their ancestors were enslaved in Egypt. Centuries after that, Jews were captives (if not slaves per se) to Assyria, then Babylon and then Persia. And the generation to whom Jesus was speaking was a subject people in the Roman Empire.
What's more, the Jewish rabbis never retold a biblical tale using the word "them." The experiences of the patriarchs, the enslaved Hebrews, the wandering Israelites, the citizens of the newly established Israel or the exiled audiences of the prophets are always referred to as "us."
So surely these people knew about the slavery in their history and even considered that it applied to them. But in the context of the conversation with Jesus about truth making them free from sin, it helped their argument to be able to claim essential freedom already, and they conveniently sidestepped the facts of their history.
But Jesus replies that "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (v. 34).
Questions: What parts of your family history are you glad about? What parts set an example for you? What parts might you wish had gone differently?
With whom do you sympathize or identify more: that segment of God's people who might have self-identified as the descendants of slaves freed by God, or those who consider themselves free and descendents of free people? What does this say about one's relationship with God?
Genesis 45:5-8
And now do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years; and there are five more years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God; he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (For context, read 45:1-15.)
When he was young, Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. The words above are his interpretation of the event, but from a much later perspective.
Questions: How do you suppose Joseph, when being herded away by the slave traders (Genesis 37:28), characterized what his brothers had done to him? How do you suppose he characterized his brothers' treachery when he was in that Egyptian prison, falsely accused by Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:20)? Compare those characterizations with the one in the verses above. Which interpretation tells the truth of the facts about the brothers' action against Joseph?
If you were Joseph, would you have sincerely felt this way about the reason for your history of suffering, imprisonment and restoration, or would you have said this for the benefit of your family members? If you were on the receiving end of these words, how would you have interpreted them? Would you have been grateful for these words? Considering how the brothers later feared Joseph's possible wrath after the death of their father (Genesis 50:15-17), how do you think they really felt?
Isaiah 61:1-2
The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn ... (For context, read 61:1-4.)
Luke 4:18-19
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. (For context, read 4:16-22.)
Luke 4:16-30 tells of Jesus' visit to the synagogue in his hometown, where he read the Scripture of the day aloud to the congregation. The passage he read was from Isaiah 61, quoted above, and the Luke verses above are the Isaiah text as Jesus read it. Some of the differences in the wordings are because of the translations from Hebrew in Isaiah and from Greek in Luke. But note that Jesus stopped reading just before the line from Isaiah that said "and the day of vengeance of our God." In fact, Luke 4:20 says that Jesus then "rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down."
After returning to his seat, Jesus then said to those gathered, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (v. 21), indicating that the words he'd just read to them from Isaiah described him. Isaiah's words were, in effect, Jesus' mission statement.
So consider how different Jesus' message and mission might have been had he included the line about "the day of vengeance of our God."
Questions: Since Jesus selectively truncated part of a Scripture reading, is that sometimes an appropriate way to read it? And what about the use of history by selectively omitting parts? When you read Scripture for purposes of hearing God's word for you, do you pick and choose which verses from a larger section should apply? Do you ask for God's help in knowing which verses should apply?
Jesus selected these verses from Isaiah 61 to define his ministry. How do these define your church's ministries? What passages does your church most identify with, that tell your history and mission?
1 Chronicles 29:26, 28
Thus David son of Jesse reigned over all Israel. ... He died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor; and his son Solomon succeeded him. (For context, read 29:26-30.)
In terms of the history of Israel and Judah, we almost don't need the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles, for the period and events those two biblical books cover are already recounted in 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. But the chronicler, whose name we don't know, doesn't simply repeat the history from the books of Samuel and Kings. Rather, he picks carefully what he retells, choosing to summarize some parts, omit much and flesh out other parts.
The chronicler did this for a reason. Most Bible scholars believe that the chronicler composed his books during the post-exilic period -- that is, the time after the Jews had been allowed to return from exile in Babylon to their homeland of Judah, which was now a province of the Persian Empire. As a subject people, the Jews pondered their relationship to their past, wanting to know such things as "Are we still the people of God?" and "What do God's promises to David and Solomon mean for us today?" The chronicler, in his retelling of the past, shapes his account to help the people answer those questions.
But what the chronicler does is certainly revisionist history. For example, he summarizes David's reign in the verses above by saying, "He died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor." That's vocabulary the 1 Kings account doesn't use in its reporting of David's death (see 1 Kings 2:10-12). What's more, the chronicler never even mentions David's affair with Bathsheba and the tumultuous events that followed until Solomon succeeded him.
Steven Schweitzer, author of Reading Utopia in Chronicles, maintains that Chronicles was written with a view that this is the way history should have been -- errors of the past are erased, royal leaders become just and inclusive, and Judah's history provides devotional innovation and intensity. This alternative history provides an alternative way to behave in the present. (Cited in The Chronicler, by Robert W. Neff and Frank Ramirez, Brethren Press, 2010.)
Timothy B. Cargal, in his commentary 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles (Immersion Bible Studies, Abingdon Press, 2012), says that the chronicler "has a particular concern, namely, how proper attention by the people to their relationship with and worship of God may help them recognize God's presence with them in their radically changed circumstances, and just as importantly, spare them from repeating mistakes of the past."
Questions: Given the chronicler's goals, was he justified in reshaping the history of Israel and Judah? Was it really "reshaping," or emphasizing for a purpose? What do you conclude in terms of your faith when the Bible contains more than one account of an event, and the accounts don't agree? How do such reports affect how you hear the Bible?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond as a group to these reactions to this news story from various members of the TWW editorial team:
From David Hall: "Regarding the history curriculum story: I had the pleasure to be paired for a round of golf with a young man from China. Out of the blue he asked me, 'Why do the people in this country tear the USA down like they do?' I did not have a good answer, and he went on to say, 'I have lived and worked in several countries and there is no better place than this country.' I guess those opposed to teaching patriotism should converse with one with a different perspective than just those who advocate the blame-the-U.S.-first stance."
From Heidi Mann: "I don't gather that the concern of the Jefferson County students and others is to avoid patriotism, but to not ignore parts of our national history that include civil disobedience and ways in which the U.S. has not necessarily handled things justly -- such as treatment of Native Americans in the past. Patriotism doesn't mean looking at only the good of our nation; it means looking honestly at all facets of our history and learning from the mistakes. What does it teach high-schoolers who will be impacted in Colorado if they are only told the positives and don't have a chance to learn from the negatives so as not to repeat them? That's my understanding of the protests."
From Frank Ramirez: "I was discussing something like this with a study group who were using a book about the passages from Scripture we liked least. We were discussing having something in our history we couldn't quite square or didn't want to own -- in this case the mass slaughter of the Canaanites in Jericho. I gave as an example my feeling that the war with Mexico in 1848 was totally unjustified. It led to the acquisition of a huge amount of territory by the United States, all the way up to Oregon. On the other hand, I pointed out, I didn't doubt but that my family had a lot more opportunity by moving to the U.S. in 1910 and living in that territory now owned by the U.S. I simply live with the tension."
From Frank Purvis: "It has been my experience that when it comes to the story or the history of the Bible, that Christians can pick and choose. Those from a more literalistic bent emphasize the literal creation story, glossing over the questions that, for example, deal with the dinosaurs and other scientific data. ... Those of a more liberal view suppress the miraculous and question events like the virgin birth and a bodily resurrection. Like with American history, it sometimes depends on your presupposition on how you view the facts. Those who want a more patriotic view will gloss over the flaws and failures of the founding fathers. Those with a more 'politically correct' [view] would overlook how the forefathers made great strides for the betterment of the nation and other nations that have benefited from America. Again, it depends on one's own experience and presuppositions on how America is viewed. Those same rose-colored glasses also cloud our personal view of the Bible and Christianity."
2. In your experience, does trauma affect the way two members of a family remember the past differently? How is this similar to the way various ethnic groups may interpret American history and biblical history differently? Who should control the interpretation?
3. Comment on this: In their book Holy War or Just Peace? Robert Neff and Frank Ramirez point to the story of Jericho and tell how, for Brethren, it is horrifying that God's people slaughter everyone, including women and children, while African Americans, oppressed by slavery, might have a great appreciation for the walls to come tumbling down -- hence the spiritual "Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho."
4. Congregations of today sometimes talk about the heyday of the 1950s/1960s when their sanctuaries were always full. Are those recollections accurate? Could it be there is a memory of Christmas or Easter that has stuck in people's minds as if it factually represented every Sunday during that time period?
Responding to the News
Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38) in his conversation with Jesus. Consider what is the essential truth about Jesus, and about you and yours as his disciples.
The classic creeds skip over the life of Jesus, jumping from the virgin birth to his suffering under Pontius Pilate. Think about a rewrite of your church's creed, adding incidents from the life or words of Jesus that tell a familiar and/or unexpected truth about yourselves.
When has your congregation declared "truth" to your community? To itself? Work on a statement of truth about the history (good, bad, indifferent) of your congregation/denomination.
Invite people to chat with their families or someone else who shared in a certain event about what they remember of it. What sticks in each one's mind about a family vacation, a wedding, a baptism day, a high school sports victory pulled from the jaws of defeat, etc.?
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment