Lies My Teacher Told Me (4 page)

It isn't only high school history courses that heroify Wilson. Textbooks such as Land ofPromise, which discusses Wilson's racism, have to battle uphill, for they struggle against the
archetypal Woodrow Wilson commemorated in so many history museums, public television
documentaries, and historical novels.

For some years now, Michael Frisch has been conducting an experiment in social archetypes
at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He asks his first-year college students
for “the first ten names that you think of” in American history before the Civil War.
When Frisch found that his students listed the same political and military figures year
after year, replicating the privileged positions afforded them in high school textbooks,
he added the proviso, “excluding presidents, generals, statesmen, etc” Frisch still gets a
stable list, but one less predictable on the basis of history textbooks. Seven years out
of eight, Betsy Ross has led the list. (Paul Revere usually comes in second.)

What is interesting about this choice is that Betsy Ross never did anything. Frisch
notes that she played "no role whatsoever in the actual creation of any actual first flag.“ Ross came to prominence around 1876, when some of her descendants,
seeking to create a tourist attraction in Philadelphia, largely invented the myth of the
first flag. With justice, high school textbooks universally ignore Betsy Ross; not one
of my twelve books lists her in its index. So how and why does her story get transmitted?
Frisch offers a hilarious explanation: If George Washington is the Father of Our
Country, then Betsy Ross is our Blessed Virgin Mary! Frisch describes the pageants
reenacted (or did we only imagine them?) in our elementary school years: ”Washington [the
god] calls on the humble seamstress Betsy Ross in her tiny home and asks her if she will
make the nation's flag, to his design. And Betsy promptly brings forthfrom her lap!the
nation itself, and the promise of freedom and natural rights for all mankind.

[ think Frisch is onto something, but maybe he is merely on something. Whether or not one
buys his explanation, Betsy Ross's ranking among students surely proves the power of the
social archetype. In the case of Woodrow Wilson, textbooks actually participate in
creating the social archetype. Wilson is portrayed as “good,” “idealist,” “for
self-determination, not colonial intervention,” “foiled by an isolationist Senate,” and
“ahead of his time.” We name institutions after him, from the Woodrow Wilson Center at the
Smithsonian Institution to Woodrow Wilson Junior High School in Decatur, Illinois, where I
misspent my adolescence. If a fifth face were to be chiseled into Mount Rushmore, many
Americans would propose that it should be Wilson's." Against such archetypal goodness,
even the unusually forthright treatment of Wilson's racism in Land of Promise cannot but fail to stick in students' minds. Curators of history museums know that their
visitors bring archetypes in with them. Some curators consciously design exhibits to confront these archetypes when
they are inaccurate. Textbook authors, teachers, and moviemakers would better fulfill
their educational mission if they also taught against inaccurate archetypes. Surely
Woodrow Wilson does not need their flattering omissions, after all. His progressive
legislative accomplishments in just his first two years, including tariff reform, an
income tax, the Federal Reserve Act, and the Workingmen's Compensation Act, are almost
unparalleled, Wilson's speeches on behalf of self-determination stirred the world, even if
his actions did not live up to his words.

Why do textbooks promote wartless stereotypes? The authors' omissions and errors can
hardly be accidental. The producers of the filmstrips, movies, and other educational
materials on Helen Keller surely know she was a socialist; no one can read Keller's
writings without becoming aware of her political and This statue of George Washington, now in the Smithsonian Institution, exemplifies the
manner in which textbooks would portray every American hero; ten feet tall, blemish-free,
with the body of a Greek god.

social philosophy. At least one textbook author. Thomas Bailey, senior author of The American Pageant, clearly knew of the 1918 U.S. invasion of Russia, for he wrote in a different venue in
1973, “American troops shot it out with Russian armed forces on Russian soil in two
theatres from 1918 to 1920.”' Probably several other authors knew of it, too. Wilson's
racism is also well known to professional historians. Why don't they let the public in on these matters? Heroification
itself supplies a first answer. Socialism is repugnant to most Americans. So are racism
and colonialism. Michael Kammen suggests that authors selectively omit blemishes in order
to make certain historical figures sympathetic to as many people as possible. The textbook critic Norma Gabler has testified that textbooks should “present our nation's
patriots in a way that would honor and respect them”; in her eyes, admitting Keller's
socialism and Wilson's racism would hardly do that,“ In the early 1920s the American
Legion said that authors of textbooks ”are at fault in placing before immature pupils the
blunders, foibles and frailties of prominent heroes and patriots of our Nation." The Legion would hardly be able to fault today's history textbooks on this count. Perhaps we can go further. I began with Helen Keller because omitting the last sixty-four years of her life exemplifies the sort of culture-serving distortion
that will be discussed later in this book. We teach Keller as an ideal, not a real person,
to inspire our young people to emulate her. Keller becomes a mythic figure, the “woman who overcame”but for what? There is no content! Jus[ look what she accomplished, we're exhortedyet we haven't a clue as to what that really was.

Keller did not want to be frozen in childhood. She herself stressed that the meaning of
her life lay in what she did once she overcame her disability. In 1929, when she was
nearing fifty, she wrote a second volume of autobiography, entitled Midstream, that described her social philosophy in some detail. Keller wrote about visiting mill
towns, mining towns, and packing towns where workers were on strike. She intended that we
learn of these experiences and of the conclusions to which they led her. Consistent with
our American ideology of individualism, the truncated version of Helen Keller's story
sanitizes a hero, leaving only the virtues of self-help and hard work. Keller herself,
while scarcely opposing hard work, explicitly rejected this ideology.

I had once believed that we were all masters ofour fatethat we could mould our lives into
any form we pleased. . . . I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy,
and I supposed that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiantly into
life's struggle. But as I went more and more about the country I learned that I had spoken
with assurance on a subject I knew little about. I forgot that I owed my success partly the advantages of my birth and environment. . . . Now, however, I learned that the power
to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone.

Textbooks don't want to touch this idea. “There are three great taboos in textbook
publishing,” an editor at one of the biggest houses told me, “sex, religion, and social
class.” While I had been able to guess the first two, the third floored me. Sociologists
know the importance of social class, after all. Reviewing American history textbooks
convinced me that this editor was right, however. The notion that opportunity might be
unequal in America, that not everyone has “the power to rise in the world,” is anathema to
textbook authors, and to many teachers as well. Educators would much rather present Keller
as a bland source of encouragement and inspiration to our youngif she can do it, you can
do it! So they leave out her adult life and make her entire existence over into a vague
“up by the bootstraps” operation. In the process, they make this passionate fighter for
the poor into something she never was in life: boring.

Woodrow Wilson gets similarly whitewashed. Although some history textbooks disclose more
than others about the seamy underside of Wilson's presidency, all twelve books reviewed share a common tone; respectful, patriotic, even
adulatory. Ironically, Wilson was widely despised in the 1920s, and it was only after
World War II that he came to be viewed kindly by policymakers and historians. Our postwar bipartisan foreign policy, one of far-reaching
interventions sheathed in humanitarian explanations, was “shaped decisively by the
ideology and the international program developed by the Wilson Administration,”
according to N. Gordon Levin, Jr." Textbook authors are thus motivated to underplay or
excuse Wilson's foreign interventions, many of which were counterproductive blunders, as
well as other unsatisfactory aspects of his administration.

A host of other reasons-pressure from the “ruling class,” pressure from textbook adoption
committees, the wish to avoid ambiguities, a desire to shield children from harm or
conflict, the perceived need to control children and avoid classroom disharmony, pressure
to provide answersmay help explain why textbooks omit troublesome facts, A certain
etiquette coerces us all into speaking in respectful tones about the past, especially when
we're passing on Our Heritage to our young. Could it be that we don't wait to think badly of Woodrow Wilson? We seem to feel that a person like Helen Keller can be
an inspiration only so long as she remains uncontroversial, one-dimensional. We don't want
complicated icons. “People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach
conclusions,” Helen Keller pointed out. “Conclusions are not always pleasant,” Most of us
automatically shy away from conflict, and understandably so. We particularly seek to avoid
conflict in the classroom. One reason is habit: we are so accustomed to bland ness that
the textbook or teacher who brought real intellectual controversy into the classroom
would strike us as a violation of polite rhetoric, of classroom norms. We are supposed to
speak well of the deceased, after all. Probably we are supposed to maintain the same
attitude of awe, reverence, and respect when we read about our national heroes as when
we visit our National Cathedral and view the final resting places of Helen Keller and
Woodrow Wilson, as close physically in death as they were distant ideologically in life.

Whatever the causes, the results of Heroification are potentially crippling to students.
Helen Keller is not the only person this approach treats like a child. Denying students
the humanness of Keller, Wilson, and others keeps students in intellectual immaturity. It
perpetuates what might be called a Disney version of history: The Hall of Presidents at
Disneyland similarly presents our leaders as heroic statesmen, not imperfect human beings. Our children end up without realistic role models to inspire them. Students also develop
no understanding of causality in history. Our nation's thirteen separate forays into Nicaragua, for instance,
are surely worth knowing about as we attempt to understand why that country embraced a
communist government in the 1980s. Textbooks should show history as contingent, affected
by the power of ideas and individuals. Instead, they present history as a “done deal.”

Do textbooks, filmstrips, and American history courses achieve the results they seek with
regard to our heroes? Surely textbook authors want us to think well of the historical
figures they treat with such sympathy. And, on a superficial level at least, we do. Almost
no recent high school graduates have anything “bad” to say about either Keller or Wilson.
But are these two considered heroes? I have asked hundreds of {mostly white) college
students on the first day of class to tell me who their heroes in American history are. As a rule, they do not pick
Helen Keller, Woodrow Wilson, Christopher Columbus, Miles Standish or anyone else in
Plymouth, John Smith or anyone else in Virginia, Abraham Lincoln, or indeed anyone else
in American history whom the textbooks implore them to choose. Our post-Watergate students view all such “establishment” heroes cynically. They're
bor-r-ring.

Some students choose “none”that is, they say they have no heroes in American history.
Other students display the characteristically American sympathy for the underdog by
choosing African Americans: Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, perhaps Rosa Parks,
Harriet Tubman, or Frederick Douglass. Or they choose men and women from other countries:
Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, or (now fading fast) Mikhail Gorbachev or Boris
Yeltsin.

In one sense this is a healthy development. Surely we want students to be skeptical.
Probably we want them to challenge being told whom to believe in. But replying “none” is
too glib, too nihilistic, for my taste. It is, however, an understandable response to
heroification. For when textbook authors leave out the warts, the problems, the
unfortunate character traits, and the mistaken ideas, they reduce heroes from dramatic men
and women to melodramatic stick figures. Their inner struggles disappear and they become
goody-goody, not merely good.

Students poke fun at the goody-goodiest of them all by passing on Helen Keller jokes. In
so doing, schoolchildren are not poking cruel fun at a disabled person, they are deflating
a pretentious symbol that is too good to be real. Nonetheless, our loss of Helen Keller as
anything but a source of jokes is distressing. Knowing the reality of her quite amazing
life might empower not only deaf or blind students, but any schoolgirl, and perhaps boys
as well. For like other peoples around the world, we Americans need heroes. Statements
such as “If Martin Luther King were alive, he'd . . .” suggest one function of historical figures in our contemporary society. Most of us tend to think well of ourselves when we
have acted as we imagine our heroes might have done. Who our heroes are and whether they
are presented in a way that makes them lifelike, hence usable as role models, could have a
significant bearing on our conduct in the world.