Applied History

We have all suffered through a conversation with a whack job; listening to them, either in person or online, completely twist logic to make a square peg fit a round hole. I will often ignore or deflect their rhetoric since it’s a waste of my time trying to change their mind. History is not the only topic they choose to distort; they also like science (see: flat earth society), economics (see: any pyramid scheme), war (see: any war movie with Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis) and even biology (see Todd Akin’s “the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down” regarding rape pregnancies.)

People are entitled to their opinions. If I’m going to get upset about people spreading myths and lies on the internet, I should also start correcting people in bars and bus stops too. It is a futile exercise that will probably result in at least one black eye. I’m not going to try and stop Earl Taylor and the National Center of Constitutional Studies from selling tickets to his ridiculous lecture about the constitution at the Holiday Inn. I’m not going to try and stop the Sons of the Confederate Veterans from celebrating their ancestor’s humiliating defeat. They are entitled to their opinions and anyone that believes this silliness can go ahead and spend their afternoons hunched over a keyboard and bucket of KFC writing comments on the Idaho Statesman website.

The big difference of course comes with public funding. What happens when these myths and lies creep into publicly funded education like museums and text books? Two problems arrise. First: who’s to say my version of history is any better than the wackos? Second: What if the majority of Americans really want the lies and myths over the truth? The answer to the first question is fairly simple: historians point to the evidence while others point to (to quote XKCD) “.net pages with black backgrounds and like 20 fonts each.” Historian show history is never black and white, the gray area contains subtleties often lost in internet arguments. The second point, that the majority of Americans want to believe myth X, I believe can also be disproven.

With most generalities, American beliefs can be roughly modeled by a bell curve.  On one extreme you have a small group that pushes to continue the myth. On the other extreme you might have informed academics or professionals (scientists, historians, biologists) that have a rational explanation. In the middle is the majority of Americans that probably don’t have time to care. The best thing for the historian to do is pull the center towards their side. This is difficult however, because the other side is trying the same thing.

The purposeful ignorance of the Sons of Confederate Veterans did not surprise me. It was their influence on other parties that caught me unaware. That anyone would write a history book based mostly on Internet research quickly makes me wary, but to rely on cites written by so obviously bias individuals is nearly shameful! As a high school student I had an especially proactive teacher who took the time to point out the mistakes in our textbook and make us question what we were taught as “Truth.” I remember laughing with my class at the positive characterization of the book defeated General Custer who fought bravely until his death. History that was local to us earned a poorly researched paragraph in our textbook. When people complain about the lack of quality in the US education system perhaps the education department should start with raising the quality of literature being used to teach. Perhaps actual historians should write the history books? I would assume biologists would write the biology textbook, but maybe this is too high of an expectation. While it may be easier said than done, one quick fix here is to allow historians to write history textbooks or at least allow the creation of a collaborative textbook.

The “Conservative class” article actually got my blood pressure up as much as anything else. When I started reading I applauded those wanting to learn more about their constitution since most people in the US wouldn’t even be able to explain what the Bill of Rights is. The more I read, of course, the more upset I became. Hiding the continuation of ignorance under the guise of furthering people’s knowledge is horrible! I love studying the founding era and what the motivation was behind the different decisions made at the time. For someone to create a conference claiming to have the answers in his research of the Founding Fathers while glossing over or simply ignoring certain facts defeats the entire purpose. The unfortunate fact is that this man has every right to conduct the different conferences and to present his information in any light he wants. The constitution he ‘teaches’ also protects his freedom of speech and right to gather. As a historian I have equal right to call him out on his falsehoods, but the effectiveness of that action is questionable. I fear charlatan ‘teachers’ will always be the bane of a historian’s life. Like the man who wrote the letter to the museum about the mistakes, it is unlikely that our ‘helpful suggestions’ will always be taken well.

I do think, however, that historians who have enough knowledge to counter falsehoods do have a duty to at least attempt to help. Our corrections may not always be welcomed, but that doesn’t mean that we should just give up at the first angry response letter. Our actions, however, really should be done in a helpful spirit instead of one of conflict.

Similar to Ryan, this week’s readings caused my blood pressure to rise. It also brought up a lot of issues I have been discussing with other graduate students such as can we judge the actions of people in the past? I think people in the past should be held to standards similar to the ones that we use to judge people from the most recent past. I recognize that there is an important difference between understanding motives and judging actions. Motives of people in the past should be looked at objectively and perhaps with empathy…Now with that being said can we all please agree that slavery is bad!? Can we all recognize that slavery is still a very real problem in the world, and even in this country? If people are still celebrating the Confederate cause, how can we say that people who owned slaves were just a product of their distinct time and place? If these racist ideas continue to persist let’s not excuse them in either the past or the present. And why should the Vega article be shocking to any of us any more, when Mississippi just passed the 13th amendment this year! There is no way of knowing every individual reason for people’s participation in the Civil War, but folks should not ignore the prevalent ideology that was the framework of the Civil War, regardless of individual reasons such as “preservation” or circumstance.

Are these racist ideas being perpetuated by educators? Kevin Sieff’s piece was unbelievable. There seems to be a problem not with historians, per se, since the author of Our Virginia is not a historian, but with educators and school boards. Historians are often undervalued and under-appreciated, and there seems to be a misconception that anyone can produce sound historical research. This problem needs to be addressed if we are going to put an end to textbooks that espouse blatantly false historical information. When school boards and parents recognize what encompasses “good history” then fewer people will be compelled to listen to “bad history” (a few will still listen), and bad historians will increasingly become irrelevant.

Are the people discussed in Thompson’s article performing bad history, when they like so many others, are interpreting people in the past in a certain way to further their present cause? Probably, but people all over the political spectrum do the same thing.

The Cebula articles were both sad and humorous. In my experience interpreters are usually nice, retired people who feel they are above any sort of research, and feel overly confident in their knowledge; or they are severely underpaid for the work they are expected to do. Unfortunately, with what was presented in the response letter sent to Cebula, the reason for mis-information or blatantly withholding information seems to have more disturbing motives. The curator of the historic site definitely lets her racist flag fly, at the end of the letter, when she implies that Africans should be blamed for chattel slavery in the United States. Are you f—ing kidding me?! But she doesn’t stop there, um, I am pretty sure Greeks had slaves and oh, how very kind of your guides to leave issues of slavery out of the tour so as not to embarrass the black students. Again, are you f—-ing kidding me!? I think her true feelings are wrapped up rather succinctly in her statement that those black students, who she is so concerned for, “would start hating the messenger.” Trust me lady, black folks already know who is responsible for enslaving their ancestors.

At least this week’s readings ended on a semi-positive note, and an important question. Jeff Robinson asks, “How can historians and publics use the power of the past to catalyze social change?” However, in light of this week’s other articles, maybe we should ask- how can good historians and informed publics use the power of the past to catalyze social change to benefit humanity?

This weeks readings really touched a nerve with me. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s blatant ignorance and these articles were filled with examples of it. Staring with the articles concerning the celebration of the South’s secession, I knew the ignorance groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans had towards the Civil War. However, the public history and the education system in some of the southern states was appalling to me. The textbook situation in Virginia reaffirmed my viewpoint that Americans are not getting the truth, and this is not only in southern states, it’s happening nationwide. Textbooks come under fire in many states, either for their controversial passages such as the blacks fighting for the South, or because of a complete absence of important information such as slavery and the Native Americans. While Charles Pyle, the spokesperson of the Department of Education said because the book was approved didn’t mean they agreed with every sentence, shouldn’t they be more careful as to what books they allow? Although that is one part of the book, it’s an  inaccurate representation of a very important period in American history. Even if the teachers refused to teach that passage of the book, students are able to read it for themselves. There’s a reason many young people don’t see a problem with believing in conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 inside job, or the fake moon landings, and it’s because they’re being flooded with controversial and inaccurate information from textbooks, from television, and from the internet. While it’s impossible to eliminate inaccurate and controversial history, as historians we should do everything in our power to try and eliminate as much of it as we can.

Regarding the desire to reenact the South’s rise to power, I always find that troubling. Yes, it is their right to reenact it, but there are a lot of things I have the right to do, but that does not mean I do it, or should. As the article “They Have Blood on Their Hands” showed, they are celebrating slavery, bloodshed, rape, oppression, and racism by celebrating the rise of the Confederacy. What if the Nazis were allowed to recreate the Holocaust? Or what if, as a comment said on that article, if Muslims were allowed to reenact the events of 9/11? Is it not the same thing?

The article that really got me was the one on the class about the Founding Fathers. Lots of Americans love to use the Founding Fathers when it suits them in politics, however most of them who do that don’t understand the Founding Fathers at all. They have a warped view of them because of their political ideologies. Earl Taylor may mention that they wanted a separation of church and state, or that they wanted Americans to bear arms, but does he mention that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian? Does he mention Washington’s warnings towards getting involved in foreign affairs, or his warning about the two party system? Does he mention how much Benjamin Franklin loved and admired France? Probably not because it wouldn’t fit with his political agenda, which I find happens a lot in this country when trying to debate someone who has already made up their minds about the Founding Fathers. I think it’s time we got our history right, instead of what we want it to be. As historians, it’s our job to put aside our political bias and teach history truthfully, which has been a problem for many years in this country.

If we are honest with ourselves, I doubt any of us chose to pursue the MA or MAHR program because historians are in high demand, making six-figure salaries. Our own school places the majority of efforts (after football) on the STEM programs. We are here because we have a passion for history that we hope to someday be able to translate into a purpose (job). The MA or MAHR is a tool that can be used to show a certain level of dedication to a potential employer and also serves as a means to set us apart from those who only have a BA. Is it a guarantee of future employment, either in history or outside of the field? Of course not, but it is one way I can give myself a leg up on the competition in the job market.

As with last week’s readings, I found the ones from the AHA to be the most beneficial as they moved beyond the job titles and buzz words to provide more detail on what a position in those various areas might look like. This information provides a bit of a roadmap for students to help tailor their education to their future goals. It’s easy to get caught in the academia vs. museum mindset so it is helpful to see the variety of possible careers that draw on history.

Possibly, but probably not.  I’ve had a lot of jobs in a lot of different fields.  Here’s what I have learned throughout my career.  If you think the game is over, then it is.  When you are looking for a job you have to keep going.  If you believe that you won’t succeed then that belief will be apparent to anyone who might possibly hire you.  Lead with a positive attitude and you have a much better chance for success.  Companies don’t care about your classroom experience or what your degree is in (unless they’re looking for an engineer, then probably not going to hire a history major).  What businesses care about it value.  Do you have it and can you give it to them.  Sell them your value by telling them what you can bring to their table.  Yes the job market is tight right now but all those people who were writing about the bleak job market for historians have a job, in a field pertaining to history!  It can be done.  It might require making some sacrifices, but if you really want to work in a museum then approach your job search like an adventure, not a chore.  Start networking.  Meet people who work in museums.  Volunteer, hang out, phone curators once a week, fetch coffee, offer to bring a hammer and nails when they are building something.  Do whatever it takes to make yourself memorable.  Eventually something will open up and they might remember you.  I have found that when most people say that something can’t be done what they really mean is that it will be hard and it will be scary.  If you truly want it then find a way to make it happen.  That said, sometimes life hands us opportunities that we didn’t even know we wanted until they were right in front of us.  I think that is what these articles are saying.  Be open to other possibilities while you are pursuing your dreams.

Jim, I agree with your analysis of the article “What Employers Seek in Public History Graduates.”  I think that classroom experience is valuable.  It expands knowledge and helps people learn how to think.  When searching out a job hands on job experience is twice as important.  Employers want to know that the person they are going to hire can apply their classroom experience to the task at hand.  The only way that happens is through experience.  This is why the catch 22 of “can’t get a job without experience, can’t get experience without a job” exists.  The only exception would be if you are chasing an academic career.

While I can perfectly understand why this weeks readings might not be as useful to others in our program, I found them quite helpful. In my undergraduate history program I learned about various eras in extreme detail but never participated in internships or volunteered at historical institutions. I watched my political science, social work, and psychology friends work in their internships while I continued to write papers. While I don’t regret anything about my undergraduate education, I do wish that an internship had been included or at least a course including some of the different items discussed by Beatty and Stroh. Jim made the point that the percentages presented by the Dept. of Labor were not particularly in our favor as historians and I think that history students need to be given the tools to get ahead of their peers aiming for the same jobs. As Graduate students we need to be unafraid of fighting for internships.

Stroh mentions what he looks for when hiring: “When hiring, I seek passion, positivity, and energy. I expect a service orientation, and a smile.  I crave individuals who are curious and want to learn, but more importantly, those who take action on these intentions. I seek people who have confidence, courage, and faith, and who are willing to take risks.” While many of us may not have any problem displaying these features in public, applying for jobs online do little to show our personalities. USAJobs.gov occasionally has a job that I will apply for, but selling myself online is difficult. I have to be very intentional in my pursuit of internships and jobs with phone calls and personal interactions. Including different items discussed in this weeks readings will only aid my interaction and search for positions. After gaining my Masters I will certainly take this weeks advice and pursue my career through (hopefully) more successful venues.

Doom and gloom, that seems to be an underlying theme in many articles that discuss the potential job market for historians. While other professions may have the greater potential for a larger job market, it seems to me that many individuals who have spent the time and money to acquire a degree in a field such as history are there for their passion. The downside to going for one’s passion is it does not guarantee you a job. I think that is why many of the professors at Boise State promote students, especially history students, to think outside the box when it comes to how to apply your career and yourself to the career market. On the upside of the doom and gloom theme present in some of the articles that discuss it, they did show predictions in job growth in line with other professional fields. Some of the issues present in the career field for historians are issues that we have discussed in class. One being how the potential number of applicants often outnumbers the level of openings present within the market.

One of the greatest benefits that this week’s readings gave was what it potentially took to obtain and maintain a job in the field of history. These articles serve as catalysts to prepare those with an interest in obtaining a job in the field of history. It discusses education, training, and experience. The articles even go into what potential employers seek for in their future employees. Reading these articles shows how important it is to project oneself out into their desired field of employment. Through active participation, history graduates can gain the necessary experience to work in the field through internships and volunteering. Also joining history societies shows potential employers a desire that the individual displays for history. I think when you start to vigorously pursue your career in history, you must be realistic about it. It is highly doubtful that one will obtain their dream job or dream location for a job right away, but having the knowledge of what must be done in order to obtain your dream prepares oneself to undertake the journey to achieve it.