Schlesinger Response 1
Midterm Schlesinger Response Paper
EDU 6525
Betty Krygsheld
2/5/2011
In his book, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (revised ed., 1998), Arthur Schlesinger gives a warning cry to America concerning the need to move toward unity, and away from the fragmentation that occurs when all people of a nation do not sense a compelling reason to see themselves as part of one nation (Schlesinger, 1998, p.14). Schlesinger suggests that a nation is unified when it has the shared identity that comes from a common history, common values, and a common language. He believes that the drive for unity was present at the founding of this country and must continue if the United States is to remain a whole and healthy nation.
Schlesinger begins his book with a historical look at America’s first attempt to establish an identity. The author claims that the earliest moves toward a national identity embodied a spirit of intense assimilation. Referring to such historical characters as Washington, Paine, Crevecoeur, and John Quincy Adams, the point is made that the goal of America is to form nothing less than a new race. (Schlesinger uses the term race as it was used in the eighteen century. That is, it was used as we use nationality today, i.e. the German race.) Washington counseled the immigrants about the folly of retaining the “language, habits, and principles which they bring with them.” (Schlesinger, 1998, p.30) All old habits, principles and ideas would be melted together until one new unified nation or culture was formed. Americans would be that race of men that embodied a set of virtues and principles articulated by the writers of our constitution. At this early juncture in the nation, there was no shared history to give identity to the nation, thus assimilation was the tool used to bring unity.
Schlesinger sees the nation as decomposing. He suggests that the nation is moving away from the idea of one united people and toward becoming “an irascible collection of unaffiliated groups.”(Schlesinger, 1998, p.122).Americans seek the isolation of their own ethnicity and identify with their ancestral culture instead of adopting the culture of the American people. We see symptoms of a disunified, decomposing nation when we see unsafe schools, poor teachers and school curriculum material, unstable families and the drug epidemic. If we are to avoid this decay, a unifying force is needed. Schlesinger believes that history is central to the issue of America remaining united and strong (Schlesinger, 1998, p.57).
Since Schlesinger sees history as a reflection of who we are, what we have done, and what we can become as a nation,(Schlesinger, 1998, p.66) it become the source of national identity and provides the forward momentum that shapes the future. If the sense of history becomes skewed, thenour future is in danger. The author suggests that the common history we once possessed has been distorted by our biases and our concerns in the present. This removes the objectivity with which history must be reported. History then becomes a weapon for destroying the common culture of a nation. “Honest history is the weapon of freedom.”(Schlesinger, 1998, p.58)
Schlesinger suggests that the cultural pluralism of our day has had an impact on the writing of history. Historians have begun to look backward, exploring the forgotten areas of history such as Native American accountings, immigrant accountings, the accounts of Black slaves, inventors and thinkers, as well as the accountings of women in history. This backward looking is partly due to the merits of the history. Reconstructing history enables us to have a more accurate picture of our past.However reconstruction of history is also partly due to gender and ethnic groups who exert pressure to be heard and recognized. The author believes that the push to be recognized will result in ‘bad history’ being taught in American schools. Bad history, according to Schlesinger, does not record past events in order that the people can reflect and debate honestly on the events; instead bad history records events in order that a people might commemorate their own glory. It is this need to use history for the purpose of building up the self-esteem of a race or gender that Schlesinger believes is dangerous.
In particular, Schlesinger focuses on the folly of Afrocentric history. He suggests that it is a ‘feel-good history’ focusing only on the good parts of African history and leaving out the bad; its purpose being to build the self-esteem of the Black student and thus bridge the achievement gap. The author believes this is stereo typing Black students. Black students in the United States wish to be seen as Americans, not African. Black students would be better served by reflecting on American culture and learning how to contribute to the culture in which they will grow up. Further, Schlesinger believes that the idea of immersing oneself in one’s cultural heritage is not an effective means for overcoming one’s feelings of inferiority. Contra wise learning how to become a contributing member of one’s own society will help student overcome feelings of inferiority.The author sees ethnocentric history as a danger to America.
According to Schlesinger, the success of the United States is due to its national identity. The many cultures have melted together to make one culture. Schools are allowing ethnic movements to impose on our children the idea that the American ideal is membership in one or another ethnic group. As a society, we are moving our children backward to segregation. Children will be excluded from the mainstream of society because they are not taught enough English to succeed and make contributions to our society. Clearly Schlesinger sees the push for multiculturalism, in particular ‘centric’ programs such as Afrocentric education, as a threat to our national identity and to the nation itself.
My Personal Response to Schlesinger’s Book
I both agree and disagree with the points Schlesinger made in his book, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society (1998). I think that the author is correct in his belief that national unity is an imperative in the United States. Our students need to be educated in the shared values that make this one nation composed of many ethnicities. I also believe that history is one vehicle that can be used to teach those values to students. In the epilogue to his book Schlesinger discusses the need for honesty in history (Schlesinger, 1998, p.165). He affirms the need to reconstruct history using the voices that were neglected by earlyU.S. historians. Our children need to reflect on the contributions that all ethnicities have made to building this nation and on the social injustices that have been part of our past. “Feel-good history” does not encourage our children to look at the goals and aspirations, right and wrong,of past generations and set a course for the future. WashingtonState academic learning standards forhistory have become very diverse. It is extremely difficult to find the time in the academic year to teach American history. Our children run the risk of losing their shared history if we do not teach them honest history, or if we simply don’t have time to teach them their history.
I did not agree with Schlesinger’s use of the term multicultural education. He used the term synonymously with Afrocentric history. Ethnocentric history teaches students that one culture is superior to another. Multicultural education attempts to teach the equality of all races. Equality is one of the core values that generate unity in our nation. Multicultural education is an imperative in a pluralistic nation such as ours. The culture and contributions of all races must be clearly taught to students.
I was frustrated by Schlesinger’s inconsistency in a few areas. The author voices his frustration about the improper use of history. He suggests that history is the recording of past events in order that a people can shape the future. As such, he is critical of Afrocentric history since its goal is to use history to build the self-esteem of a race. However, Schlesinger himself uses history to build the identity of the nation. This seems in consistent.
I disagree with Schlesinger’sposition onusing multicultural education to built students’ self-esteem in order to enable better learning (Schlesinger, 1998, p.94). He believes that self-esteem can more effectively be built through individual achievement. I think this is a short sighted position. The achievement gap is a reality. The students are simply not achieving. We need to do whatever we can to remedy that. Although there seems to be little actual research at this time on whether or not multicultural education can be used to bridge the achievement gap,multicultural education seems to present a logical pathway to move down. The little research that has been done on cultural congruence suggests that there is a cultural component to learning. Suggesting that all students “just achieve” is not the answer.
I believe that the Schlesinger book was an excellent way of sorting through my beliefs on multiculturalism and education. If we can not reach our children, all of them, through education, our nation is in danger. Perhaps multicultural education can achieve two goals. It can preserve the equity of education for all children, and bestow on them a sense of national identity when we teach honest history.
Citation
Schlesinger, A.M. (1998). The disuniting of America: reflections on a multicultural society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.