A student at Wheat Ridge High School takes notes during sophomore AP U.S. History class on Sept. 25, 2014, in Wheat Ridge, Colo., amid what was then a debate over the Advanced Placement curriculum. Credit – Andy Cross—Denver Post / Getty Images
With the nation divided along political lines, amid ever-mounting suspicion of supposed outside influences undermining American security, a group of powerful people decided to go right to the root of what they saw as the problem: American students, they believed, were being taught a skewed version of their own history that was designed to weaken patriotism. To stop the corrosion, someone would have to intervene.
This scenario may sound familiar, but it didn’t take place just last week, when President Trump threatened the funding of California schools that teach the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which reframes the country’s origins around the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in Virginia. (Material from the project has been used to supplement curricula in schools nationwide, though the extent of its implementation in California is not clear.)
But in fact, that scenario could have taken place in the aftermath of the Civil War. Or in 1917. Or in 1948.
So it’s no surprise that historians’ collective reaction to Trump’s tweet—and a similar sentiment expressed earlier this summer by Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton’s introduction of the Saving American History Act of 2020—was one of déjà vu. The teaching of U.S. History in public schools has always been political, and such concerns about whether curricula are “anti-American” are par for the course in moments of turmoil.
“It’s the story of history education in this country,” says historian and former AP U.S. History teacher Lindsay Marshall. “Cycle after cycle of political anxiety manifesting in ‘well, obviously we’re teaching our own history wrong and that’s the problem.’”
That anxiety tends to come up in the wake of wars and other disturbances to the status quo. After the Civil War, for example, Northern and Southern states continued to fight, this time about how to talk about the Civil War in schools. Donald Yacovone, an associate at the Hutchins Center for African & African American Research at Harvard University, points out that one late 19th century textbook framed the war as a battle between monarchical Northern states and the South, which seceded from the Union to preserve true democracy. The United Daughters of the Confederacy sought to rid textbooks used in Southern schools of “long-legged Yankee lies.” In doing so, these advocates often instead planted the seeds of the Lost Cause myth, manipulating the story of the war to minimize the role of slavery; the ramifications of that campaign are still felt today.
Parallel anxieties persisted into the 20th century, and adapted themselves to whatever conflict was at hand. For example, in the archive of the textbook publisher American Book Company, Marshall—a Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who is writing a book about U.S. history textbooks—found letters revealing a conversation in the fall of 1917, during World War I, about whether to remove the Declaration of Independence from a textbook on the history of the United States so as “to foster no animosity against our ally, England” in “the year 1917 when patriotism is pitched as high as it is.” The company ultimately decided that would be going too far.
However, she says, wartime fear that the children of German immigrants would grow up loyal to Germany did prompt the New York State Legislature to pass a law in 1918 banning public schools from teaching textbooks containing material “seditious in character, disloyal to the United States, or favorable to the cause of any foreign country with which the United States is now at war.”
In the 1920s, as anxiety over immigration and communism helped fuel a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the North, textbooks were once again in the cross hairs. Seth Cotlar, a professor of history at Willamette University, shared on Twitter a screenshot of a law passed by the KKK-dominated Oregon State Senate, prohibiting public schools from using any textbook that “speaks slightingly of the founders of the republic, or of the men who preserved the union, or which belittles or undervalues they work.” Cotlar points out that recent accusations that Black Lives Matter is spreading a “radical left” agenda echo mid-20th century fears of radical left ideas brainwashing children.
Several historians told TIME that the latest wave of backlash also reminded them of a controversy over a popular series of schoolbooks in the late 1930s and early 1940s that asked children to consider whether the U.S. was living up to its founding ideals. Published during the Great Depression, the series was seen as anti-capitalist, rankling leaders in the business world. There was a lot of suspicion about the writer himself, Harold Rugg, because he was a professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, an institution that some conservatives considered a hotbed for communist thought. Schools withdrew the series after the negative press coverage and pressure from The American Legion accusing Rugg of printing “treason.”
Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter
But, just as anxiety over “anti-American” history curricula is nothing new, neither are efforts to push back.
In the aftermath of World War II, during the Red Scare of the Cold War, curriculum writer Paul Hanna—whose publication Building America was nixed in 1948 by California curriculum officials over similar concerns that it portrayed communist society too favorably—warned that students would fall for propaganda more easily if they weren’t armed with a balanced view of U.S. and World history. “We do believe that strength sufficient to withstand the world pressure of Communism will be enhanced if we are (1) realistic about our own achievements, and (2) know the strengths and weaknesses of our adversaries,” Hanna said in a March 1948 statement responding to the controversy. “To deny our youth a chance to study a balanced statement of the good and evil in our own nation and in the world is to render our future citizens weak and unprepared for the struggle of our time.”
More recently, the culture wars of the 1990s fueled a controversy about the National History Standards, a set of federally-funded, historian-developed guidelines for teaching American History and World History to K-12 students, which aimed to include more information about the contributions of Black people, American Indians and women. In an Oct. 20, 1994, Wall Street Journal editorial headlined “The End of History,” Lynne Cheney, chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, expressed outrage that the framework mentioned McCarthy and McCarthyism 19 times and Harriet Tubman six times, while mentioning President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address only once, and not mentioning Paul Revere, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein. The editorial also quoted an unnamed member of the group overseeing the draft of the standards, accusing the writers of promoting “revisionist” history and accusing the scholars of having “great hatred of traditional history.”
Cheney told Jane Pauley that the standards take a “grim and gloomy” view of American history. Republican Senator Bob Dole said it “threatens us as surely as any foreign power has.” But in fact, the controversy exposes a lack of understanding of the way such curriculum guidelines work.
Though thousands of teachers nationwide used the standards, which were co-authored by UCLA Historian Gary Nash, there are no legally enforceable national requirements for which topics in American history must be taught. Content decisions are made locally, at the state and school district levels, and it’s almost impossible to enforce what teachers are talking about in the classroom.
Reflecting on the National History Standards controversy more than 25 years later, Nash points out that the “traditional history” that critics championed back then is “U.S. history with women largely absent from the story, [and] African Americans reduced to a political issue where northerners and southerners fought about state rights.”
One reason K-12 history education controversies continue to crop up is because of the “unanswered question about what history class is supposed to be for,” argues Adam Laats, historian and author of The Other School Reformers: Conservative Activism in American Education. “Is the point of history class to introduce young Americans to their heritage of heroes, the glories of American history? Or is history class supposed to make young people into critical examiners of their society, a true civic education that teaches American young people to question every bit of received wisdom and be ready to change what needs changing?”
Sure enough, with the National History Standards controversy still in relatively recent memory, the AP U.S. History curriculum came up for similar debate in several states in the last decade. And now the 1619 Project picks up the baton.
Critics worry that teaching the complicated pasts of the Founding Fathers, like the fact that they enslaved men and women, “will make kids hate America, but the joke is kids hate being lied to,” argues Marshall. “They get cynical when you tell them about George Washington and the cherry tree and then they read a book and realize there was a lot more to him than that.”
Most Americans concur, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll: 71% of registered voters agreed with the statement that “it makes the U.S. stronger when we acknowledge the country’s historical flaws.”
As for Nash, he’s part of that majority. What critics call revisionist history is a sign of a healthy democracy, in his view. “Why in a democratic society shouldn’t we be looking at history, warts and all? If we show only a smiley-face history we’re just mimicking what kids learn in authoritarian regimes,” he says. “As long as historical research is still valued, there will always be revisions to history.”
Senate Democrats Want to Wait until November 4 to Reveal Their Court-Packing Plan
If Democrats control Congress and the White House in 2021, will they pack the Supreme Court with additional progressive justices?
Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the efforts of the Senate GOP majority to fill the vacancy, it may be the most important question facing Democrats in 2020. But it’s a question only a few Senate Democrats are willing to answer.
Massachusetts senator Ed Markey tweeted on September 21: “This Republican hypocrisy is shameful but not surprising. If they violate their own precedent, we must expand the Supreme Court.” West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, told CNN on Sunday that he “can’t support” court-packing.
But most Democratic senators have made it clear they don’t want to reveal their intentions on court-packing until after the election. “What we need to do before we talk about what happens in the next session of Congress is for Democrats to win the presidency and a majority in the Senate,” Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal told National Review in the Capitol last week when asked about court-packing.
Before voters go to the polls, should they get to know whether court-packing is likely or even on the table? “There are so many reasons to vote for Democrats now — that we need to focus on the pandemic,” replied Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “You know, we just passed 200,000 deaths. The president’s failure to deal with the pandemic and the public-health and economic crises and his cruel and reckless indifference [are] costing lives.”
“I think we’ve got to wait to get through the election,” Pennsylvania Democratic senator Bob Casey said when asked about court-packing. “The key thing right now is people have to understand what’s at stake, especially on ACA and preexisting conditions.”
“No thoughts at the moment,” New Mexico Democratic senator Martin Heinrich replied when asked about adding justices to the Court. “We have a job to do before we have that conversation.”
California senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, dodged the question during an appearance on MSNBC on Monday night.
“If Judge Barrett is confirmed and the Democrats have control of the Senate next year and the White House and the House of Representatives, should the Supreme Court be expanded?” MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell asked Harris.
“You know, let’s, I think that — first of all — Joe has been very clear that he is going to pay attention to the fact, and I’m with him on this 1,000 percent — pay attention to the fact that right now, Lawrence, people are voting,” Harris replied. She said that the winner of the November presidential election should fill the current vacancy, but she never said a word about what a Biden-Harris administration would do on court-packing.
It’s not clear how likely court-packing would be if Democrats have unified control of Congress and the White House in 2021. It’s obviously more likely in a Senate with 54 Democrats than a Senate with 51 Democrats. If they are unwilling to say before the election that they will pack the courts, they will not be able to say in 2021 they have a mandate to do so. And it’s worth remembering that Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried and failed to pack the Court when Democrats held 76 out of 96 Senate seats and 334 out of 435 House seats. (The pressure did famously result in one justice’s beginning to rule favorably on the New Deal — the “switch in time saves nine.”)
If Democrats do add justices to the Court, it guarantees that Republicans would do the same the next time they control Congress and the White House. In October 2019, Joe Biden said: “I would not get into court-packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all.”
But since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden has repeatedly refused to state his position on court-packing. “It’s a legitimate question,” Biden said last week. “But let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question. It will shift the focus. That’s what [Trump] wants. Let’s say I answer, then the whole debate’s gonna be about what Biden said or didn’t say. Biden said he would or wouldn’t.”
Asked again about court-packing on Sunday, Biden said: “I know you’re going to be upset with my answer. But what I’m not going to do is play the Trump game — which is a good game he plays — take your eye off the issue before us. If I were to say yes or no to that, that becomes a big issue.”
Given how transformative court-packing would be to our system of government, it’s not clear that Biden and Senate Democrats will be able to get away with that non-answer over the next month.
More from National Review
Meghan McCain Gives Birth to Daughter with Husband Ben Domenech
this link is to an external site that may or may not meet accessibility guidelines.
Elon Musk Promises to Make His Own Lithium; This Analyst Is Unimpressed
Put one “Battery Day” in the books, folks. On Tuesday, Sept. 22, CEO Elon Musk finally held his long-awaited presentation running down everything Tesla (TSLA) plans to do over the next decade to cut the cost of batteries, and extend the range (and lower the price) of Tesla’s electric cars.
One of the key revelations: In an effort to accelerate the conversion of 300 million American cars from gasoline engines to electric, Tesla is pioneering a method of using “table salt (sodium chloride) to basically extract the lithium” … from 10,000 acres of Nevadan clay, ensuring plentiful supply of the metal for use in building more batteries. “Simply mix clay with salt, put it in water, the salt comes out with the lithium — done.”
“Nobody’s done this before,” avers Musk, but “it’s a very sustainable way of obtaining the lithium.”
And it certainly sounds like a bright idea. There’s just one problem: According to GLJ Research analyst James Bardowski, it probably won’t work.
In a firmly tongue-in-cheek report out Thursday titled “TSLA Claims to [Manufacture Lithium] ‘Simply’ w/ Salt … We See a Higher Chance of a $25K M3 Robo-Taxiing to Mars,” Bardowski calls Musk’s claim that Tesla can vertically integrate lithium production into its battery operations “eccentric,” and argues it’s liable to become just one in a long line of “broken promises” from the Tesla CEO.
Why is Bardowski throwing shade on Elon Musk this week? First off, as Tesla itself would probably admit (indeed, has admitted), this method of extracting lithium from clay “would be a first for the industry.”
That’s not to say there’s zero chance of success, of course, but Bardowski observes that “the details surrounding Tesla’s planned Li production were conspicuously light.” And viewed in light of past pie in the sky promises from Tesla (swappable batteries in 2012, for example, or fully-autonomous Teslas in 2014, or cars with 620 miles of driving range in 2015, or — most recently — 1 million robo-taxis driving folks around the U.S. “in 2019 or 2020”), Bardowski has his doubts that Tesla will deliver on this latest promise as well.
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the analyst notes that obtaining a permit to mine lithium in Nevada could take “years” for Tesla to secure, while obtaining the water needed to facilitate (what little we know of) the process — in the middle of the Nevada desert — could also prove problematic.
But what if Musk does end up delivering on this particular promise? Well, in that case, acknowledges Bardowski, Tesla’s move into lithium mining could pose serious competitive pressures on existing lithium producers such as Albemarle, Livent, Lithium Americas, and Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile.
As the analyst has previously warned, the global supply of lithium is on track to outpace demand into at least 2023. Combined with lower production targets for battery cathodes from Tesla itself, which will further depress demand for lithium without doing anything to slow supply coming online, Bardowski hypothesizes that Tesla becoming a lithium miner in its own right could accelerate the growth of lithium, and “quickly drag” down both lithium prices, and lithium profits for the incumbent producers.
That is to say, this could happen if Tesla’s promises bear fruit this time — it’s just that Bardowski thinks you’ll see robo-taxis on Mars before that happens.
All in all, Street-wide caution circles the electric car giant, as TipRanks analytics model TSLA as a Hold. This boils down to 6 Buy ratings, 14 Holds and 10 Sells issued in the past 3 months. Meanwhile, the 12-month average price target, $310.15, implies a 26% downside from current levels.
To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analyst. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.
- RBG laid to rest in private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery
- New York teen battling paralysis, cancer still plans to vote
- Yahoo Fantasy Football Rankings for Week 4: Wide Receivers
- Senate Democrats Want to Wait until November 4 to Reveal Their Court-Packing Plan
- Meghan McCain Gives Birth to Daughter with Husband Ben Domenech
- Elon Musk Promises to Make His Own Lithium; This Analyst Is Unimpressed
- Giants’ putrid offensive line is doing one thing right
- Atari VCS backers should get their consoles ‘very soon’
- Dennis Miller peeing on live TV and other tales from Comedy Central’s start
- 2020’s First Presidential Debate: Time, how to watch, and what to expect
Sports News5 days ago
US Olympian Chloe Dygert crashes over guardrail in cycling accident
Entertainment1 week ago
Danish TV show ‘Ultra Strips Down’ records kids eyeing naked adults
Sports News4 weeks ago
Fantasy Football Auction Draft strategy: Tips, advice for spending your 2020 player budget wisely
Sports News3 weeks ago
NBA 2K21 Cover Star Damian Lillard Reveals His Issues With the Game
Tech1 week ago
iOS 14 basics: how to add widgets to your iPhone’s home screen
Sports News1 week ago
Fantasy Football Buy-Low, Sell-High Stock Watch: Leonard Fournette, Stefon Diggs among movers heading into Week 3
Sports News3 weeks ago
NBA playoff bracket 2020: Updated standings, seeds & results from each round
Sports News3 weeks ago
NFL Analyst Takes a Cheeky Dig on Browns Stars Odell Beckham Jr. and Baker Mayfield