Should Studying History Include the Bad as well as the Good?

Posted by Michael Streich Aug 25, 2009

Teaching American History often involves perpetuating myths and stories that, for a number of reasons, found their way into the annals of the nation's past. This includes the famous story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Patrick Henry ending his passionate speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses with the line, "Give me liberty or give me death," and the long taught story that Columbus sailed across the Atlantic to prove that the earth was not flat. Sometimes, the myths are minor, such as the assertion that the surrendering British at Yorktown played the tune, "the World Turned Upside Down," a "fact" still mentioned in numerous high school and college level American history survey texts.

Another aspect of the problem is telling the whole story, even if it makes a hero look bad. Andrew Jackson is considered a great President who helped further the process of political participation, yet he hated Indians and forced thousands of Cherokee off of their legally held lands in a trek known as the Trail of Tears. During the darkest days of the American Revolution, George Washington had to deal with several mutinies, even executing a few ringleaders in the process. During the Mexican-American War, President Polk secretly bribed Santa Anna to return to Mexico and end the way in favor of huge land grants to the United States.

In contemporary experience, some Americans believe that the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore by George Bush and the Supreme Court, yet those events pale in comparison to the "Stolen Election" of 1876 when Samuel Tilden should have been declared President.

Historical events, decisions, and propaganda bring out passionate emotions. There are those that firmly believe such stories are best left out. Others, however, are convinced that good history is a "thick description," a complete retelling of what really happened even if the facts blemish the national history.

The same can be said of other histories: how to treat the Crusades, answering the Holocaust deniers, etc. Thus, the question is, to what extent should the teaching of history contain both the good and the bad? What purposes are served in either situation?