Animal Farm, revisited

        So....Far rightist legislators in various states are all farklempt because of what they say are "leftist" or more aptly "revisionist" ideas in the AP US History "Exam", by which I am pretty sure they mean course description, since the exam is a closely held secret until administration,  and even then it's about 4 years before they release copies of the exam for instructors.  

    All that aside, even, the exam is multiple choice questions and thesis statements for essays, each type of endeavor constituting half of the exam.  I suppose you could write "revisionist" multiple choice questions,  but I'm not sure how to do it and make the questions usable. Of course , unlike the state legislators, I actually have degree(s) in the field and taught the subject for a number of years. I have also had several colleagues, not liberal, who successfully taught the subject, also using the College Board's course outline.

       It would seem that the problem starts with ignorant people being given power by their electorate to inflict their ignorance in such a way as to perpetuate it.  In fact, all history is "revisionist."  History is unique  among disciplines in that factual events which may seem to have some particular portent at the time, may, as seen through the lens of time and distance from events, have other significance that originally recorded, orally transmitted, or  otherwise registered.  Two examples, related to US history in the 20th century  would be historians' analysis of two Presidents - Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman -a Republican and a Democrat.

        Some historians of the generation  after Hoover were less than kind in their analysis of his efforts to ameliorate the conditions of the Great Depression. Some considered him mean spirited, others cowardly, and some  simply believed him ineffectual. As time elapsed into the  1960s and later, there began to be reexamination of Hoover on several fronts, including what Congress  allowed him to do, what his views of the role of government  allowed  him to do and some other considerations, including his religious background and feelings regarding self reliance and responsibility. Additionally, historians looked deeper at Hoover's true understanding of conditions in the rest of the nation. What  emerged was a far gentler and more humane treatment of Herbert Hoover in the hands of historians, many of whom were relatively liberal.      

        Harry Truman, as the accidental successor to FDR was equally reviled by far rightists, simply because he was yet "another damned Democrat", and piled on, because, unlike  FDR, he was hardly the father figure who led us through t the War. He was accused by McCarthy and others as being "soft on Communism,"  too easy on labor, and just a hick from Missouri - the accidental President. By the mid 1980s, Truman's rehabilitation  was well underway, as his performance at the time was reevaluated in the light of subsequent events. In other words, some historians revised their views of Truman, not because of what he did, but because of later developments related to things he did.

       In this way, essentially all historical writing is revisionist in nature, so the issue is, what bothers these legislators about the current AP US History course and subject material? Considering the Civil Rights movement and resistances to it,  newer  history books tend to treat the incidents and issues more even handedly, mentioning things left out of the texts of the legislators generations; things such as the Topeka, Kansas, race riots (1921),  the Ocoee Florida lynchings (1920),  and the Rosewood Fl. massacre (1923). Also unmentioned in most texts was the government's open hostility to Dr King,  evidenced in the person of J. Edgar Hoover, himself, lionized in the 1950s, and exposed in the 1990s.  As these matters become released to public scrutiny, it is only natural to reevaluate previous positions.

        As to the charges of "leftist" negativism, it may (must) be assumed that the legislators who are so offended are culturally illiterate to the point of only knowing what their parents , their church, or their government tell them.  One of the issues cited by these naifs is revisionist thought on that godlike icon of all things Right , Ronald Reagan.  Of course these persons grew up, probably in homes where the gipper's named was invoked at mealtimes, believing that Ronald Reagan saved the economy, won the Cold War and changed American society for the better.

       Real re-analysis of Reagan, which had begun to happen by the mid 1990s and continues, shows a man who was, in his own son's  words, "in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease half way through his second term". This by the way, Ron Reagan's version, has been confirmed  by Leslie Stahl , although vociferously denied by adopted son  Michael. In like Manner, Nancy -"Just say no" Reagan has been identified by daughter Patti as a child abuser, who struck her in the face from age nine on.  Contrary to second and third hand information, these are primary source data, as are the memos and personal recounting of meetings  regarding the exchange of missiles for hostages and the illegal funding thereof, where both Reagan and George H.W,. Bush were there.  

     Sometimes revisionism is simply getting the facts straight, as in realizing that Reagan didn't "win" the Cold War, the Soviet government and system collapsed under its own weight and inefficiency, aided by Mikhail Gorbachev. Further analysis of Reagan's fanatic adherence to "supply side " economics has shown it to be, as Bush called it, "VooDoo economics."  Further proof  of the correctness of this position can be seen in the struggling economies of Kansas and Wisconsin. Revisionism is simply another term for "further evaluation."  The fact that this further evaluation shows a picture one doesn't like as a well as previously held illusion only means historians are doing their job.

        

     Another phrase heard in this debate is the accusation that these materials might "encourage dissidence."  Yet another is that course materials don't teach "American Exceptionalism" - the concept that the USA is better than anyone else has ever been. Ever. Forever. Just like mythical Lake Woebegone, all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.

Attempting to remove texts and scour curricula of any ideas a particular group doesn't like is just a step away from book burning. Then again, perhaps this is what these imbeciles would really like to do. Custer was just misunderstood and The KKK were patriots.......you get the picture.