by Jeff Boone
This last month, the College Board, the nonprofit corporation that controls all the high-school Advanced Placement courses and exams, published new guidelines for the AP U.S. history test. The new guidelines replace those published only a year earlier.
The AP history framework is organized into concepts and codings.
Previous key concepts included:
“Students should be able to explain how various identities, cultures, and values have been preserved or changed in different contexts of U.S. history, with special attention given to the formation of gender, class, racial, and ethnic identities.”
“Many Europeans developed a belief in white superiority to justify their subjugation of Africans and American Indians, using several different rationales.”
“Native peoples and Africans in the Americas strove to maintain their political and cultural autonomy in the face of European challenges to their independence and core beliefs.”
“Explain how arguments about market capitalism, the growth of corporate power, and government policies influenced economic policies from the late 18th century through the early 20th century.”
The codings were explained:
“This coding helps teachers make thematic connections across the chronology of the concept outline. The codes are as follows: ID—Identity; WXT—Work, exchange, and technology; PEO—Peopling; POL—Politics and power; WOR—America in the world; ENV—Environment and geography—physical and human; CUL—Ideas, beliefs, and culture.”
What happened to cause the College Board to change much of this?
The 2014 framework caused a bit of an uproar after it was published. Although, as expected, many academics voiced support for the new guidelines, a large group of historians published a petition on the website of the National Association of Scholars, voicing strong opposition to it. Also, pushback against the framework emerged in several states.
The basis of these complaints was that the new framework pushed a one-sided ideological view over accepted and well-known historical facts.
It is clear that the College Board was concerned that its lucrative nationwide testing franchise would be at risk, with so much opposition and the probability that states would begin to reject the guidelines and develop their own. Self-preservation overruled ideological bent, and the College Board agreed to revise the guidelines to be more “balanced.”
The revised framework includes, for example:
“The effort for American independence was energized by colonial leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, as well as by popular movements that included the political activism of laborers, artisans, and women.”
The previous critics of the framework report satisfaction that the newly published framework is sufficiently balanced as the College Board had promised it would be.
What does this have to do with the popularity of Trump?
The old framework reflected the tireless work of social justice activists and the political left to inject identity politics and political correctness into the education curriculum. It was just one example of many causing a growing tide of resentment and anger over the indoctrination of students into a more liberal worldview where American history is reloaded from a modern perspective of “microagression”, “macroaggression”, “racism”, “sexism” and “white privilege.”
These then become the trigger warnings to “keep your mouth shut, or else.”
And it largely has worked.
No student with any sense of self-preservation would ever raise her hand to contest these things. Even politicians run terrified of uttering that one word that is pounced upon by the political and media speech code enforcers.
Except for Donald Trump.
Trump is egotistical, loud, and sometimes childishly combative. But Trump is effectively sticking a justified finger in the eye of those believing that they have succeeded in their Orwellian effort at national speech control. This along with his policy ideas have excited voters, and not just conservatives, besought with simmering anger over what has been happening to their country and the erosion of cherished freedoms to speak freely and not be persecuted for it.
There is a line for civility where we treat others with dignity and respect. Trump has clearly crossed that line many times. But Trump has also injected valuable debate about freedom of speech and political correctness run amok.
It connects with the problems of our education system practicing ideological group-ism indoctrination instead of simply educating using historical facts.
This nation needs to heal. It will not heal while we continue to filter history and life through the four lenses of class, gender, race and identity. It will also not heal if we fail to treat those with ideas in opposition to our ideas with dignity and respect.
Can we heal?
The revised AP history framework from the College Board is a step in the right direction. Regardless of what the motivation is, the College Board listened to the critics and responded in a respectful and dignified manner. We should all be pleased with the revised framework. We want our students to be the best creative thinkers; drawing their own conclusions from the factual teachings of history. We absolutely do not want them to fear raising their hands and asking questions about things they don’t understand and things they don’t agree with.
Also, we should value politicians that speak plainly and honestly… not those that read from prepared text as scripted attorneys navigating the risk of reprisal from those hypersensitive to react to over a growing list of restricted words. Trump’s message, if not his delivery, is also a good sign that we have elevated our acceptance of discussing important issues previously blocked by politicos and activists benefiting from speech code enforcement.
On the surface, Trump’s popularity as a candidate for President is as absurd as is Democrat Bernie Sander’s. However, it is likely that the trustees of the College Board understand why both are popular these days.
Although I believe Trump is unelectable because of some of his stances on illegal aliens and his comments toward Megyn Kelly he has indeed struck a chord with those that find it refreshing to have a candidate speaking his mind and not worried about being PC. The recent incident with Jorge Ramos is a good example. Ramos was rude and out of line when he tried to make the press conference about him and not Trump. Ramos spoke out of turn, tried to talk over Trump and the other reporters and wasn’t there to ask questions, he was there to push his agenda and make a scene. Even though the press tried to spin it as Trump being a bully in actuality it was Ramos who was being confrontational. I loved it when Trump put Ramos in his place.
Trump has tempered his language in regards to illegal immigrants, and I think the reason his numbers are so high is that he has taken a firm stand on this issue.
Americans for decades have wanted the border sealed, and the politicians continued to play games. Trump needs to define how this has hurt our lower classes of all ethnic groups, but especially Mexican-Americans and African Americans.
Jeff
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. A few reflections on your comments
“the tireless work of social justice activists and the political left to inject identity politics “
Identity politics is not unique to the left. When conservatives frequently fail to note when describing the left as divisive is that the conservatives consider anything that does not fit their narrow view of values as Christian conservative as being an attack on our nation and inherently divisive. Never mind that slavery, Jim Crow, the decimation of the Native American Nations, the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII, Senator J. MeCarthy’s attacks on “communists” ( some of whom were and some of whom were not) were inherently divisive. Now some of this is historical, but today we have Sarah Palin saying that she is “taken aback” by the liberalism of the Pope, and Megyn Kelly explaining the “War on Christmas” and you saying that there is discrimination against boys in our schools, completely ignoring the long standing history of discrimination against girls in the maths and sciences. What you see as one sided divisiveness, I see as a polarization of view points with each side advocating for their own ideas.
“We want our students to be the best creative thinkers; drawing their own conclusions from the factual teachings of history.”
I am in complete agreement with this. And a factual teaching of history would not gloss over the actions of our government that I included above. My teaching of history certainly did gloss over the “warts”, as Anon called them, of our past. The history that I was taught which portrayed America as invariably heroic does not bear a close resemblance to the “facts”. And in my view, the “facts” would include an accurate teaching of science as opposed to encouraging only a faith based model of reality.
As for “Orwellian” the left again has no monopoly. How about “mission accomplished”. Or my favorite the “Department of Defense” used to complete pre-emptive strikes on Iraq which was of no conceivable threat to the US.
And let’s not forget this little ditty:
Yeah, right up there with Geo Bush’s (“shrub”) assertion of “Mission accomplished” dressed up in his “fighter pilot” costume on a deck of an aircraft carrier whose personnel had actually been at risk, and continued to be. Republicans of the right, Democrats of the left, neither can be trusted to be truth tellers. Get a clue.
From a recent Gallop poll, only 34% of Republicans said they were conservative and “highly religious”. That leaves 66% that are either more liberal and/or are moderately or not religious.
But that 34% hasn’t won a thing for some time. What we typically read in continued political and media criticism of religious conservatives are historical references as you provided. That history has serves as a productive basis for the social justice activist agenda. The point here is that people are starting to reject that basis as they should.
Most conservatives want there to be one identity: American. And they would like everyone here to subscribe to American values no matter what group they want to say they belong to.
And freedom of speech is one of the key American values that has been eroded.
And they would like to define those values in conservative terms, and dismiss any values that don’t correspond to theirs as being “un-American.”
I happen to think birthright citizenship is a fundamentally American value. I think it is one of the things that makes us exceptional. Just as one example.
JB: Most conservatives want there to be one identity: American. And they would like everyone here to subscribe to American values no matter what group they want to say they belong to.
And freedom of speech is one of the key American values that has been eroded.
Do you find some contradiction in those two statements? That “freedom of speech is one of the key American values that has been eroded” and yet, “Most conservatives want there to be one identity: American”?
As a conservative, would you permit freedom of expression to someone whose identity you might characterize as being not American enough for your tastes? Do you think Donald Trump would?
There are fiscal conservatives, many Independent (like myself), who voted for Perot. They also see the $7 Trillion added to the debt by Obama, and know we can’t continue down that path. The numbers don’t add up.
Reagan won the three types of conservatives and the Reagan Democrats. I think Trump has a shot at this group, but he will shoot himself in the foot first.
This video by Colin Quinn kind of sums it up. Funny but true and sad at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-rHqbp4vE
As a “liberal” (within first deviation on the bell curve) and having “been there, done that”, LOVED the clip. Thank you for sharing!
BP
Cute clip. Kind of reminds me of Lenny Bruce making some of the same points back when JFK was in office.
I find it fascinating that we all laugh about the absurdity of this while it is largely happening.
This is similar to UCD people who have made their peace with their fellow workers and the problems and ignorance they might have grown up with, makes you apologize just for being white.
In the 90’s they started changing the balance of white power due to nepotism by faculty and staff and forcing them to hire minorities and women, and the new employees went out and did the same thing, with hatred to whites that were still there, even though they were being put in charge. I just had another episode like that this spring, and now that I am out of it, I will never go back there. I worked for both types, and management had trained them better to not show their bias. And the campus lives in fear about their dirty little secret, and students are in some fantasy world, which puts a lot of stress on them.
The clip that came up after this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU84iMESj7c
The article is well balanced, something not always apparent at first glance on the Vanguard.
It’s not that hard to find historical examples of “politically incorrect” politicians who appealed to voters “besot with simmering anger.” Huey Long and George Wallace come to mine. Of the latter:
I see much of Trump’s base as similar to Wallace’s. And he is actively destroying the Republican Party.
I think you are missing a lot with this assessment. Ironically you seem to be focuses solely on the same identity politics conflict that the article addresses.
There are other important considerations.
Here are a couple of quotes from a recent Peggy Noonan opinion piece: http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-so-in-play-1440715262
The way I see it there is a new binary “class” war brewing and it does not bode well for either party. It is the connected-elites vs. the regular folk. It crosses party lines. There are a lot of these regular folk people that voted for Obama expecting things to be different. And what they got instead is much more of the same. And now their choices on the Democrat side are the same aging Washington insiders they have grown disgusted with.
My sense here is that the success of Trump is going to embolden other GOP candidates to speak more freely about topics that they have previously attempted to dodge. And more of Trump supporters will bail to other more electable candidates when it becomes clear that Trump cannot win. Trump might then try to run as an independent and that would tend to hurt the GOP candidate more than the Dem candidate. But then again, the Dem candidates are a mess right now and it is not going to improve before the primaries. This isn’t a Ross Perot repeat. It also is not a George Wallace similarity. The south today is that that same south.
The bottom line for me and the reason I wrote this article is that there are signs that the regular people are fed up with the actions and behaviors of these connected-elites and they are more often demanding corrections, and they are supporting leaders that directly challenge the powerful protectors of the largely corrupt status quo.
I know GOPers who are waiting for Trump to shoot himself in the foot too many times, and hope to then see Cruz or Dr. Carson emerge.
BTW, interesting to see how the mainstream liberal press no longer talks about the “diversity” issue when the GOP has two Latinos, an African-American doctor, an East Indian American, and a woman running for the White House. The Democrats counter with 4 or 5 white folks.
“they are supporting leaders that directly challenge the powerful protectors of the largely corrupt status quo.”
And that would seem to me apply to Bernie Sanders as much as to Donald Trump. Except that one of them seems to be able to commuicate without the crass, rude and insulting tone.
Yes, he could work on the tone, but he is a brash New Yorker who is used to butting heads with business titans and winning.
No matter what you think of both candidates, their view and attitudes, at least if we had Sanders vs. Trump in the national election whoever won would actually do whatever they campaigned for because they actually believe what they are saying. That has not happened in a long time!
This is not a correct statement. One of the chief reasons that presidents don’t do what they campaigned for is because they underestimate the difficulty of getting basic laws through congress – Trump and Sanders would be no better and possibly worse than other Presidents in that regard.
I think this narrative has a problem. People in congress demonstrate four primary motivations:
1. Do what their majority constituents want.
2. Do what they think they need to do to get re-elected.
3. Do what they think they need to do to keep or return their Party to power.
4. Enrich themselves.
The one missing… and the one we all desire is simply the motivation to do the right things for the country.
The increased dysfunction of Congress over the last six years sits directly on the shoulders of Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Because they have focused almost exclusively on the middle two… thus making everything that happened in Washington a partisan political battle. Harry Reid is the most hated Senate Majority Leader since Master of the Senate LBJ. The difference is that LBJ was a vote influencer. He would push and pull both sides of the aisle to get things done. Reid and Obama are somewhat cut from the same cloth… passive-aggressive bullies that have perfected an image of being caring by just mouthing the expected and accepted words… while they keep sticking their finger in the eye of all that disagree with them and that pose a risk to their political power.
What has Obama done to overcome his opposition in the Senate? He enlisted Reid to prevent any politically inconvenient bill from coming to the floor for a vote. Then he passed more executive orders that any other President past or present. He likely has broken the law doing so… and I would expect much of what he has done to be overturned if we have a Republican President.
Nobody having succeeded in the level of business success that Trump has achieved can do so without significant abilities to forge productive relationships with others. Trump is playing the primary game well. In the unlikely event that he wins the Presidency, I expect him to be much more successful working with Congress than has been Barack Obama… the most partisan President to ever be elected to this great, but declining, country.
I’m sure our congressman feels he is doing what is right for the country. I’d guess most of them feel that way. A few may be venal and self-enriching, but I’d bet most aren’t. Congress reflects the polarization and division of the public.
I find it very hard to believe that they would be worse, since currently nothing is being done. Neither candidate will be constrained by the desires of their National Party offices or “Major” donors when they make decisions.
I am surprised that you think Trump who negotiates for a living would not be able to get more things done than the current administration. Also, Sanders speaking from the heart after a big win over the appointed frontrunner would be tough to block.
This is not Obama saying he will close Gitmo day one and then realizing that he has nowhere else to put the prisoners. There are a lot items that with a little compromise can get done.
Clinton could negotiate with Congressional Republicans. In fact, I’d say that’s why a lot of liberals don’t trust her and are looking elsewhere. She’s known to be a little fungible with her principles.
There are actually a variety of reasons why Presidents / politicians change their minds / don’t complete their pledges.
President Obama has actually bypassed Congress and simply taken “executive action” to fulfill his own desires. He has even re-written Constitutional trade laws / procedures to nab more power. See Iran travesty, his changing laws / procedures for illegal immigrants, etc.
For their part, the GOP ran on stopping Obama’s policies, stopping ObamaCare, won the 2014 and 2010 elections, and then failed to enact the change they promised. That’s why many think the GOP and Democratic leaders are both power hungry and have their own agenda that isn’t the agenda of the American people.
Hillary flip flopped on her stance on illegal immigration, many feel because she wants the Latino votes.
Or you could go the legal scholarship route to make warnings about keeping one’s mouth shut. The attempt to restrain/control speech is not limited to “social justice activists.” (You do realize that those who, for example, are fighting to end human trafficking consider themselves “social justice activists.” Are you actually accusing people like them of trying to limit someone else’s speech Jeff?)
I remember 1968 very well. Like 1968 people are tired of being afraid. They are tired of war and its false justifications. And the fatigue and fear make many easy targets of blowhard demagogues.
My dad attended his rallies and voted for Wallace. Trump is eerily like him in terms of the anger and fear he has tapped into and his willingness to vilify ordinary people to ramp up that anger. Wallace was a racist who scapegoated a variety of groups–making them responsible for all of America’s woes. Trump is doing the same. His crude nativism is nearly as old as the nation itself. He preaches hate and appeals to people’s basest instincts.
There is nothing new here. There is nothing to see here but poisoned spittle flying from a mouth attached to a simplistic, angry and self-absorbed mind. Trump and and the Republicans (don’t call them conservatives) running against him seek to silence Americans in their own way (ask any “anchor baby” how safe they feel right about now–hell, ask someone who works for Planned Parenthood).
We will have to agree to disagree on that point…strongly.
Note, it is not 1968. It appears some people are just stuck in the 60s and unable to differentiate history and present. I’m thinking this might be the result of the the identity politics injected into the education curriculum.
Trump is nothing like Wallace, but those race-war political tactics are hard to let go of.
I do agree with this. But maybe you can help me understand this from a modern perspective. Do you have examples of any recent court decision, or government policy, or campus decision… or, or, or… that were indicative of any conservative-driven, or right-ideological-based reduction in free speech? Or do we always have to go back to 1968 to make the case?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
I guarantee that Robb Davis and I, and probably you, predate that stuff. In fact, many of my teachers were very conservative. I grew up in one of the most conservative parts of California at the time. Not sure about Robb.
Actually, the parallels are eerie.
You’re right, we should not be surprised by the games and manipulation of the Clinton’s.
How about a future article on the history of attempts to ban books? That would answer your last question.
BTW, I was not going back to 1968 to make an argument about limiting speech. I was going back to 1968 to try to make the case that Trump is not a new phenomenon but is the latest in a long line of nativist demagogues.
And, yes, Trump has much in common with Wallace in terms of the essence of his blame and his manipulation of anxiety and fear.
And to Don’s point… I grew up in a conservative Christian family, in the Bible belt, in a county that always returned Republicans to office (locally and nationally). Identity politics WERE important to us however: if you were white, middle class and Republican you were “us.” If you were anything else you were them. I knew my identity and that of everyone else. It was pretty dichotomous and absolutely crystal clear who you were.
Remember, Mr Wallace went thru an arguably true “epiphany” after he was shot and nearly killed (and confined to a wheelchair). He died pretty much a ‘moderate’, and respected by many that he had railed against in the 60’s. I despised him when I was young, but came ‘of age’ around the time he “grew up”, and he pretty much “repented”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#Final_years
He was no saint/hero, but he was not, ultimately, the devil incarnate either. Too bad it was a would-be assassin’s bullet for him to see clearly.
Wallace was a complex person, and to me became “real” once he pretty much stopped being in ‘politics’. Not sure Trump is capable of such an “epiphany”.
Trump is a nativist demagogue? Maybe he can just read crime statistics (those that the government and press try so hard to conceal from us.)
If we were to believe the Federal government figure of 12 million illegal immigrants (I don’t), that means they are 4% of the population. Yet when I click on the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) website for their “Most Wanted” list for San Francisco, it appears to be almost 100% Mexican nationals. It is well known that the Mexican drug cartels, who have murdered tens of thousands in Mexico, play a huge role in bringing hard drugs into America.
The highly respected Dr. Ben Carson has also noted that we have lost operational control over our southern border, and there are even hilltop lookouts 50-70 miles inside our border, spotters … directing coyotes and altering them to police movements.
Hillary Clinton also made similar comments to Mr. Trump’s as a senator before changing her political strategy. Is she a nativist demagogue too?
Remember it? Some of you are stuck in it I think.
I asked for modern examples and there is nothing. Only more references to the past.
I have family members with this problem. Constantly filtering current relationships and events through their historical filter. It is like they crave drama and cannot find enough in their present life and constantly go back in their minds to re-live it.
Let’s go back the Dark Ages if we REALLY want to complain about bad human behavior.
It is not 1968, Trump is not Wallace, civil rights have advanced, discimination is illegal… and we have gone way too far indocrinating students and persecuting people that simply speak their minds. There is no slipperly slope returning to 1968. The slipperly slope is far over on the other side and many people are fed up with it.
Your tone Frankly, frankly, ignores Wallace’s transformation a few years after he was shot. I believe that people can change and be judged accordingly. Comparing Trump to Wallace, in Wallace’s final years, degrades Wallace. No matter how you view it, Wallace is neither a clear nor present danger.