| The following
paper presents an analysis on the article on Social
History titled, “The history standards controversy
and social history - Special Issue: Social History
and the American Political Climate - Problems
and Strategies”, by Gary B. Nash.
The study of social history as one of the most
important academic subjects for our present and
future generation has been marked by a wave of
controversies and issues that have made the subject
all the more controversial. In particular are
the lines of history critics, majority of who
have targeted the absence of a particular 'synthesis,
overarching themes, or even coherent structures'
which have been replaced with new genre of people
including women, the rising labor class, as well
as religious and racial minorities.
Though it is also true to acknowledge that the
same characteristics of history as noted above
duly evolved from the entire generation of Americans
and formed what we have come to regard as the
western experience. Yet, the study of social history
in the new realm provides more than similar contributions
as it includes original American society as it
were in the past. In addition, if one were to
include the above said groups of populations and
regard them as sources of present and continued
crisis, this then leads one to deduce that these
are certainly not the sources of crisis, instead
are a cover up of 'monopolistic hold of property'
that appears to be shattering. Examples of writings
to this respect include such works as "The
Jacksonian Age of the Common Man", The Westward
Movement", "The Progressive Era",
and "Affluent Society" . (Scott, 1989)
Another stronger reasoning for the present breed
of critics of social history to 'attack, or oppose'
social history evolves from the contention that
social history in fact opens up and reveals the
singular and more than dominant nature of politics
which seeks to act and serve as a viewpoint for
the majority of the populations.
Similarly, the opposition to the continuing rise
of social history also threatens the singular
interpretation and otherwise 'unified picture'
of American history by these same critics. In
doing so, these critics have questioned such vital
aspects of American history, including the radical
or conservative nature of American Revolution,
whether slavery was profitable or not, and whether
Progressivism was a movement of reformation. Yet,
all these were discussion were based while remaining
within specified parameters, yet ignoring such
important concepts of race, class and even gender.
The above essay, thus could well be placed in
the neo-conservative school of thoughts, as it
ventures to present not only the thinkers belonging
to the conservative school of social thinkers,
it takes a step further and approaches the issues
and problems from the present day perspectives.
|