The way the history profession looks at history also seems, to my own incomplete and problematic way of thought, to be incomplete and problematic.

Many historians today derive their views from materialist science and so see the whole story as without ultimate meaning–lots of forces and randomness but nothing you would want to take lessons from–except of course the lessons about racism and oppression.

I think there’s a story that makes sense in there, though I admit I’m not awake enough and smart enough to make it out in great detail.

Agreed – it’s an incomplete and problematic way to look at history.

But it does not make much of a difference in what areas a person is strong in to see and call out when there is an area for change. I agree with Matthew and Michael in the call for teaching subjects without a skew to the right or left. Let that be determined by the student.

I too am disturbed with the concept of anything that isn’t “left” must be “conservative” or “right”. That is far too narrow of defining the world and I feel it does students of all levels harm. Allow the students to learn history from the lens of the times and circumstances. It will help them tremendously in this increasingly global society. Restricting their education to just a “left” leaning instruction sets the students up to continue on a path of not understanding the world they live in. The majority of the population on this planet do not live in nor devote themselves to the European / USA view of things.

As for changing it, as Michael Umphrey alluded to, the solution is not as simple as we are dealing with “office politics” at a large scale with not just the professoriate but the practices at the local school levels as well.

Ha! If you’re not careful, people in the education community might just think you’ve seen the show!

Love him or hate him, he’s re-introduced some solid vocabulary through the Factor.

Sorry – earlier when I read your comment, I thought that the last sentence was quoted, too, and I wasn’t sure what the three quotes were supposed to suggest. Now that I’ve had coffee and a meal it’s a little bit clearer. :)

Having said that, I’m still confused. If there’s a division, we’ve separated things into at least two paths… and you mentioned one. It didn’t make much sense to me, but I suspect you could elaborate.

I’m not sure what your last comment adds to the discussion. Can you elaborate?

“What happens very often instead is that all the past is critiqued from a neo-Marxist perspective [...]”

This constant division into “neo-Marixists” is what bothers me.

Soft Marxism has been quite a comfortable fit.

This constant division into “leftists” or people with “capitalist values” is what bothers me. It’s what I mean by “lefties”–people who see all the present and all the past through that lense. What a simple little world. Looking at history and literature through that lense is the problem, by my lights.

What I would like is that when the Puritans are taught, an honest attempt is made to teach what they thought and what their values were. When the Revolutionary period is taught, I would like an honest attempt made to teach what the people of that time understood “natural rights” to be. Et cetera. . .

What happens very often instead is that all the past is critiqued from a neo-Marxist perspective, which seems pretty parochial, since so much of the past can’t be understood with those intellectual tools.

Honestly, the right wing lot is so tiresome. If you don’t like what you’re getting, in either teachers or professors or whatever, go out and spend your money and buy some. That’s how the market works, isn’t it?