The Value of History

In today's Guardian (July 10, 2010), Niall Ferguson the well-known Conservative historian makes a case for his revitalization of history curricula in England. He wants greater use of television, role playing games and a cohesive narrative that explains Western cultural domination. The article can be read here:

//www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/09/television-war-games-niall-ferguson

(Sorry, I can never get my links to work.) Anyhow, Ferguson wants more visits to battle fields and less time at historical houses and museums. In one sense, he wants history to be more reactive and real to children; in another, he is making it a game with a capitalist bias and a positive slant towards American Culture, English Culture and all round imperial loyalties.

I have read Ferguson's books "Empire" and "Colussus" and for American readers, "Colussus" is Ferguson's attempt to narrate American history; his thoughts are clear, concise, his research exacting, the fact he omits to consider the value of the American Slave trade on a market economy important and demonstrative of his bias. (This was noted first by an Herman Melville biographer--important because Melville was a noted abolitionist).

Ferguson is a conservative which makes his decision to make the art of learning about history a game somewhat questionable--unless, of course, he is considered an author or rights holder of the game and entitled to royalties. History isn't a game and trying to encourage children to appreciate their past via a game actually diminishes historical value. In light of my earlier posting about the issues in the Texan school board, I would like to suggest this type of act is quite dangerous. For example, Thomas Jefferson is an extremely important character in American history. He wrote or drafted the American Declaration of Independence and believed strongly in the division between Church and State; he was also influenced by the changing role of science in the quest for the nature of truth; he was a direct descendant of Enlightenment thinkers; he was most likely a deist and not a practicing Christian; all of these thoughts are important to the nature of history and not easily explained in a game. In English History, Ferguson suggests children can be made aware of Winston Churchill's role in the Second World War and why he was a more important person after the start of the War than before through the interactions of character based play. Ferguson lives in a country where Churchill's political endeavours are still questioned and his impact still felt; to simplify his role to a game is an insult. Obviously, I am more aware of Jefferson than Churchill but I do think the argument still stands.

I don't know how to teach history best; my children learn it in conjunction with geography but we are Canadian and our whole history, native or otherwise, has been determined by a response to our geography and climate. In a sense, it is much easier to react to weather than to cultural enterprise. American history has evolved and is in constant tension with its religious past; the first groups of settlers in the Americas were Enlightenment thinkers and they argued for freedom of religion; the second group were Puritans escaping religious persecution and they wanted a Christian nation. Obviously, I am being simplistic but my points do highlight the need to approach history cautiously and with respect; a game perspective is not going to do it--even a Sims approach won't work.

There is a great Canadian writer, Eric Walters, who has written short novellas about incidences in Canadian history; the target audience is grade 5 but it is a great idea. Small events are discussed and real characters are mentioned but overall the idea is to explore more, that there is a story or history beyond the narrative. Perhaps, that is the greatest failing with Ferguson's idea; his project for the English history student is to summarize history as if it can be explained simply by market forces and military dominance. It doesn't work that way--there are clashes between different ways of thinking, needs that are required and motivations to be explored--all of which must be considered for a sense of history to develop. I don't know the best way for children to learn it though I would make the argument an historian making a game of it in England is demonstrating his desperation.

Sometimes I wonder if students are afraid of a challenge. Of course, the litany of a long list of dates to be memorized is hardly learning history; but, those dates do give a foundation on which to create connections. It would be great if every history teacher could explore their favourite topics to their heart's delight; but there are fundamentals that must be known and are requisite for each country; it is how one builds an identity. Maybe in Niall Ferguson's world that kind of nation building is detrimental to his world view; I beg to differ. I think a great amount of respect for difference can develop once one is secure in one's own identity; gosh, that almost sounds prescriptive for child rearing.