The History Teacher as an Image Breaker

EARLE D. Ross

Professor of History in Illinois Wesleyan University

The present war has demonstrated in a way that cannot be ignored the potent, far-reaching influence of the study of history. Even "the man in the street" has been forced to recognize the fateful possibilities of a people's conception of their past and to admit that history is, after all, decidedly "practical," that it does "saw wood." But, unfortunately, it is the destructive strength of history, its abuse and perversion rather than its true, constructive utilization, that the war has emphasized. There is a growing realization of the harmful results of the traditional and conventional treatment of certain phases of our own history, and in some other countriesnotably in Germany-such misrepresentations have been far more deliberate in purpose and insidious in influence. For instance, extreme nationalistic or "patriotic" history today stands convicted of more sins than have ever been charged against it by the most enlightened critics. The history profession is thus confronted squarely with a challenge that must be met; this destructive influence of history must cease. The teacher, to do his full duty, not only must not be a party to this abuse of his subject, but he must be ever zealous to eliminate the errors and misconceptions which generations of false tradition, writing, and teaching have propagated. It is only when this work of extirpation has been performed that true scientific history will be able to have its perfect work. Surely this is a challenge that should stimulate the most alert and conscientious instructor to still greater effort and arouse the laggard to an appreciation of his responsibility.

In seeking to destroy error and establish the truth, the history teacher is confronted with strong and most persistent obstacles (which are generally not sufficiently taken into account in judging the results of his efforts) in the prejudices and unwarranted preconceptions which most students bring to the study of history and with which the "general public" view historical questions. The average student will hardly have ready-formed notions about mathematical formulae, complex

scientific phenomena, or the rules of composition, but concerning some of the greatest historical problems the chances are that, when he comes to the study seriously in high school or college, he has long had pronounced convictions. And how could it be otherwise when from his youth up, at home and abroad, he has heard dogmatic pronouncements on these questions? Everywhere one turns, in newspaper editorials and magazine articles, in sermons and popular lectures, at the club and on the street, one meets with the most glaring historical fallacies. Everyone, it seems, who has read some survey of universal history, in morocco binding, "copiously illustrated" and written by one or more of the "world's greatest historians," feels himself fully competent to pass judgment upon some of the most mooted historical questions, to rush without hesitation into realms of the past where the mature scholar steps only with the greatest care. The typical consumer of popular histories might well alter de Coulanges' celebrated dictum concerning the difficulties and complexities of history to read something like this: "History is the simplest and easiest study imaginable and can be fully mastered by anyone with good common sense who will devote a little of his leisure time to its consideration."

These handicaps under which the history teacher labors are shared to a considerable extent by the teachers of the other social sciences. In spite of the infinite complexities of the sciences dealing with people, there is a popular impression that their phenomena are more simple and more readily comprehensible than those dealing with things, and that a small body of more or less accurate fact, a little experience in life, and the saving grain of common sense are all that are needed for their effective mastery. If, as Spencer has pointed out, the best trained investigator in the social sciences cannot divest himself entirely of certain fundamental biases, how greatly must biases enter in to hamper the clear, impartial thinking of the unscientific mind!

There are numerous biases and prejudices that the history teacher has to combat, chief among them being those of race, nationality, sect, party, and class. Every member of the profession well knows how often these subversive influences in

trude upon the recitation, no matter what the period or phase of history under discussion, to obstruct or thwart his efforts to establish true facts and interpretations.

In the face of the widespread errors and misconceptions, prejudicially and conventionally established, regarding the past, it is incumbent upon the history teacher to be a fearless and relentless smasher of false images. It is his duty to perform this task even when it causes the destruction of the most fondly cherished historical idols. Such false notions must be fully removed before the truth can become established, and only by such a course can the teacher be true to his high calling.

But in seeking to get away from the traditional and conventional views of history there is sometimes danger of overshooting the mark. In his zeal for the new and his impatience with the old the instructor may forget that the traditional and conventional views, instead of being necessarily based upon error and prejudice, are often the correct ones. We are all familiar with the "True" histories and biographies which, in their insistence upon exceptional and uncharacteristic facts and traits, are the opposite of what their names imply. The history teacher should keep abreast of the latest sound investigation but he should never get ahead of it; he should always make sure that the new positions have been fully established before he occupies them. No special "interpretation," no matter how alluring, should tempt him from the solid ground of fact. The true follower of history will never use or abuse his science for improper ends; he will be neither a sensationalist nor a propagandist. As the historian, as such, should never seek to play the rôle of the journalist, so the history teacher should not try to emulate the chautauqua orator.

Altogether futile are attacks upon long-exploded historical fallacies, the setting up of straw men for the joy of knocking them over. But some teachers seem to take delight in such an exercise. Text books and popular histories long out of print, and whose sins against the truth are well nigh forgotten, are subjected to as detailed criticism as though they were still regarded seriously by many people, and views that are now held only by persons in the most benighted communities are in

veighed against as those generally prevailing. Surely there is always sufficient of living error to combat without resurrecting any from the musty past.

The breaking of historical images, then, is an activity not to be carried on indiscriminately or for the personal gratification of the breaker, but only when there appears a false image which is a real obstruction to the truth. So long as the history teacher has as his great aim the establishment of the truth, both in fact and in interpretation, his image breaking will but prepare the way for his constructive teaching. He will tear down only where he can reconstruct.

BOOK REVIEWS

THE LOST FRUITS OF WATERLOO. By John Spencer Bassett, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1918,-xix, 289 pp. $1.50 net.

With the general purpose of this book most of us are probably sympathetic. Personally, I have no hesitancy in agreeing that, “If a man is left in the world when this conflict is ended who glories in deliberate war, he is too bad to live in civilized society" (p. 5). Moreover, the argument in favor of a federation of nations to enforce peace, which Professor Bassett makes in the concluding chapters of the book, seems to me to be sound for the most part, and I find no difficulty in accepting his general conclusions on that point. Anything short of that would seem to be not strong enough for the task.

I assume that it is unnecessary to say that such a scheme would involve serious limitations on national sovereignty, with implied national disarmament. These are fundamental issues of the coming months, and it is as well to be talking about them and getting accustomed to the necessity of giving up some of our cherished notions or else trying to reconcile ourselves to the fearful prospect of getting ready for other more terrible wars. On that account, it is surely helpful to have men like Professor Bassett speak courageously in frank advocacy of the more hopeful way out. The fight for it will not be easily won; the builders and manipulators of the nations are too well entrenched and set too great store by the privileges they have had in the past.

The perplexing thing about Professor Bassett's book is its title and his insistency that the project he supports now was a feasible thing after Waterloo and that it was somehow balked by the mismanagement of the statesmen who arranged things at Vienna and afterwards. I think nobody would at this time attribute to those statesmen overmuch intelligence or very lofty purposes. A century after their performance, it is difficult to see how they could have succeeded much better if they had deliberately set themselves the task of devising a settlement that could not possibly endure. But even the devil deserves his due.