Those Who Forget History Are Condemned To Go Back To Yale And Repeat It

By: Lisa Kadonaga

I don't know many stupid people who are fascinated by the study of history. In case readers think I'm being biased, I'll state up front - I'm a geographer, not an historian. And unfortunately, I've met more than a few geographers who are small-minded and parochial. But for some reason, my experiences with history people seem to be a lot more positive.

Historians are inquisitive, and do not flinch from disagreeable facts. They are willing to consider multiple viewpoints, and are accustomed to coping with complex and ambiguous situations. The level of wisdom I've noticed in even the youngest history students here at UVic, in fact, has been rivalled only by those in the philosophy department, who are frequently at the forefront of activism and public debate.

Most historians, whether they are professionals or dedicated amateurs, have an appetite for information and delight in sharing it. They also tend to be multidisciplinary: a typical conversation might range from Victorian novels and post-Impressionist art to theology, physics, forest management, constitutional law, and the ethical implications of reading someone else's diaries.

So even though people were bemoaning the presumed idiocy of the man selected to be the American president, I tried to remind myself that he had, after all, graduated in history - with an 80% average in those particular courses, if the transcript posted at the American Politics Journal website is genuine.

Despite all the gaffes and blunders and late-night TV jokes, and the efforts by the Bush spin team, and the avalanche of self-deprecating comments from Dubya himself - I still don't think he's a stupid man.

But, as earlier commentators have suggested, Mr. Bush may be "functionally dumb". Either he is too lazy to follow things up, by using and building on his existing knowledge - or more important, he is too arrogant to submit to a crucial part of the learning process, which is admitting that one may be wrong.

"Functionally dumb" is different from merely being ignorant. After all, there are many places in the world where people are kept from learning by economic or cultural barriers, Afghanistan being only one. It's important to note that Mr. Bush, with his privileged connections and opportunities, doesn't have to be ignorant. He did (and does) have a choice in the matter.

To quote from the History Department website at Yale University, George W.'s alma mater: "History is more than past events; it is also the discipline of historical inquiry."

This goes a lot deeper than guessing the answers on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" - if you miss them, that's just a matter of not having certain information. Those types of questions are only the first level - for example, not knowing the names of the leaders of Pakistan and Chechnya. This is as different from the true study of a discipline, any discipline, as multiple choice answers are from a doctoral dissertation.

At its heart, inquiry means examining your own assumptions and cherished beliefs. This is a frustrating, often painful process, which requires you to be honest, humble, and not afraid to ask troubling questions.

I was disappointed by some of George W. Bush's remarks pertaining to historical events, since they seem to indicate that he has forgotten, or chosen to overlook, much of the information and analysis which he had to work through in order to obtain his degree.

For instance, on October 24^th, he declared: "We've had oceans which have protected us over our history. Except for Pearl Harbor, we've never really been hit before." Hank Blakely, another contributor to Liberal Slant, pointed out something which I'd overlooked (to my chagrin, and doubtless that of my 8^th grade history teacher Mr. Galloway). During the War of 1812-14, British and Canadian troops struck many cities along the eastern seaboard, and the White House itself was set ablaze. (Apparently it had been white even before the attack, contrary to popular myth - but I digress.) Bill Clinton used to delight in showing visitors a burned patch on the wall, which has been left unpainted as a reminder of that chaotic time.

But it's not so much the factual errors that worry me. Mr. Bush has recently taken pains to show the worried electorate that he is, contrary to the folksy image painted by his campaign, an intellectual at heart - he has been seen clutching weighty tomes of historical non-fiction, such as Civil War histories, a biography of John Adams, and an account of the loss of the whaleship Essex.

However, he seems reluctant to grasp some of the broader lessons of history. The "Patriot Act of 2001", which he signed on October 26th, has raised cries of alarm from legal scholars and civil rights groups nationwide. The measures it describes could be more repressive than those experienced by the white middle-to-upper-class male landowners who signed the Declaration of Independence. In terms of privacy violations and the powers allocated to the police, it makes tax revolts look like, well, a tempest in a teapot.

Perhaps the most glaring omission, which a lot of us are still reluctant to face, has been evident almost since the day of the attacks. We're a good country, Mr. Bush said. We're good and they're nothing but evil and capricious. And like a mantra, he's repeated it dozens of times since then. We're good because we do good things.

This incessant repetition went beyond reassurance and morale-boosting, or even the self-congratulatory tone he frequently employs when trying to persuade people that there is no other viewpoint but his. By saying it again and again, he somehow got the statements to blur into each other, until they become a circular argument, a tautology (surely something they covered at Yale).

He implid that anything we do, by definition, is good - because that's the kind of country we are.

He was ignoring more than two centuries of history. He was denying the complexity of the world, and closing his eyes to the impacts of foreign policy - American, Canadian, British, everyone's - the intended effects as well as the unforseen. You know - "collateral damage". We know there are impacts. The CIA admits it. They even have a term for it: "blowback".

Contrast Mr. Bush's rhetoric with this course description from the Yale History Department:

HIST 137b, INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
"The political, economic, and sociocultural interactions of the United States with other states and societies in the twentieth century. Topics include domestic and international dimensions of U.S. foreign policy, ways that the United States responded and contributed to global forces, and the transnational presence of and response to the United States within other nations."

The department explains its rationale behind offering courses such as this:

"... only wide-ranging experience can give students confidence in having discovered their own true interests and aptitudes. Equally important, studying various times and societies, including preindustrial ones, prevents provincialism and provides the comparative knowledge essential to a clearer understanding of the area chosen for specialization. Finally, the department assumes that all students understand the vital importance of studying the historical traditions from which their society has developed. One cannot expect to understand another culture without a firm historical grasp of one's own."

It seems to me, this is exactly the kind of background that would benefit someone in Mr. Bush's situation. Perhaps he needs to update his degree? After all, it's been over 30 years since he graduated - there's that much more history to cover.

Currently, the department requires students to take twelve terms of history. This must include two terms of United States or Canadian history (100-level courses). Any of the following would count:

HIST 132a/AMST 132a, AMERICAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY, 1945 TO THE PRESENT.
"An examination of the social, political, and economic changes that have characterized American domestic politics in the postwar era." (This seems a useful choice for someone whose world view appears not to have budged much past the 1950s.)

HIST 135aG/ECON 182a, AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORY.

HIST 120b/EVST 120b, INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY.

HIST 137b, INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.

After this, students need two terms of British or European history. The 200-level courses fit this requirement. From a policy perspective, I would be tempted to pass up the old favorite HIST 205a, INTRODUCTION TO ANCIENT GREEK HISTORY, in exchange for HIST 285a, THE BALKAN LANDS AND PEOPLES, because it goes all the way up to the post-Yugoslavia wars of the 1990s.

HIST 211aG/RLST 316aG, JEWISH-CHRISTIAN CONFRONTATIONS IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE.

HIST 240b/HSHM 215bG, PUBLIC HEALTH IN AMERICA, 1793-2000. (especially relevant now, since the public health system has been declared to be an essential part of national security)

HIST 261a/PLSC 176a, THE COLD WAR.
Mr. Bush makes a point of announcing, whenever the Russian President is within sight, that "the Cold War is over". Clearly, Yale believes that has been over for some time now, since this course covers it "from beginning to end".

Finally, students must complete three terms of African, Asian, Latin American, or Middle Eastern history. This is where things really start to get exciting. There's a good selection of pre-industrial and modern courses, covering three different continents and dozens of regions:

HIST 321b, CHINA: THE MAO YEARS AND AFTER, 1927 TO THE PRESENT.

HIST 327aG/KREN 200aG, PREMODERN KOREA IN THE EAST ASIAN CONTEXT.

HIST 336b/AFST 336b, MODERN AFRICA, 1880 TO THE PRESENT.

HIST 310a, HISTORY OF MODERN SOUTH ASIA. (This includes the Indian subcontinent, and Pakistan - surely a requirement before commencing delicate diplomatic negotiations there.)

HIST 346b, THE MAKING OF MODERN IRAN, 1501-1989. (Hint - you might want to register early for this one, since if trends reported at campuses across North America continue, anything about Islam or the Middle East is racking up huge waitlists.)

HIST 355a, COLONIAL LATIN AMERICA.
HIST 356b, LATIN AMERICA SINCE 1810.
A couple of my colleagues, Latin America specialists, have suggested that one really needs both of these - especially if one is trying to give the impression that one is competent at "amigo diplomacy".

HIST 358a/ER&M 341a, MEXICO IN THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES.
Speaking of which - I'm sure President Fox would be pleased to suggest some possible term paper topics.

Well, all this sounds like a gruelling course load. What to do for both education and entertainment? Yale, in its wisdom, has thought of that already:

HIST 175a/AMST 323a/HSHM 205aG, ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS IN AMERICAN CULTURE, is likely to be a popular... okay, okay, I won't belabor the point.