History, revised.

“They’re teaching a new history to kids today.”

“They’re trying to rewrite history.”

“That’s not the history I grew up with.”

These are absolutely true statements—but they were true for your parents and grandparents and great grandparents, too. Here’s why.

-The past, history, and historiography are different things—but people use them interchangeably.

-The past is chronology, which is what actually occurred, and it doesn’t change. The past answers the who and the what: it doesn’t try to interpret anything, it states objective facts which can be proven.

-History, on the other hand, is an INTERPRETATION of those facts: it answers the why and how. History takes the past and tries to make sense of it (because dead people can’t answer our questions). Objective facts which can be proven (the past) are then studied and new ideas about these facts emerge.

-Historians who interpret the past in the same general way form a “school”, and these schools dominate the way history is taught in universities (and by default, the way it’s taught in the public school system).

-Historiography is the study of the way these schools change over time. Historiography is EXTREMELY important to understand because once you know the general school the author of your history book belongs to, you can identify biases and other political, social, philosophical, or cultural leanings.

There have been 4 main schools in the US in the 20th Century.

For example, the Progressive School was a group of historians from the Progressive Age (1900-1929)who looked at the past in the same general way: through the filter of class struggles (because that’s what was the most pressing issue of that time period).

The Consensus school (1940s-1960s) consisted of historians who believed that while America had its problems in the past, everyone generally got along and things were never really “that bad” (because this school emerged after WWII and the idea of unity among Americans mirrored the optimism of the day, as well as the growing fear of Communism being a dividing force in the US).

The New Left school was dominant during the 1960s and 1970s and reflected the social movements of the time; new focus was placed on women and minorities with an interest in “everyday man” rather than Presidents or businessmen.

The Neo-Consensus school briefly appeared in the 1980s as a reaction to the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, and was a combination of Consensus and a mild version of New Left.

(It’s up for debate what the dominant historiographical school is in America today: some people claim it’s the Radical Left, and based on several factors, I tend to agree, at least in state or public universities.)

Therefore, “history” is being taught differently than the way you were taught….and you were taught differently than your parents….and they were taught differently than THEIR parents. Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will learn from entirely new interpretations because those doing the interpreting are products of their own time.

The only way to understand the past completely is to (1) study the primary sources yourself, (2) consider all possible interpretations, and (3) use your best judgment based on available research and resources to come to a conclusion, knowing that because we weren’t living in the past, there are some things we just won’t know for sure.

For these reasons, understanding historiography is absolutely essential.