Alright, here goes...
Tyrell in his prologue states that he's "approached the book as a set of essays" and that's the way I'm going to approach my comments. Maybe my ideas will change as I go through the book, lets see.
Chapter One. What's Wrong with History? I don't think there's anything "wrong with history" but I do think there's a lot that's wrong with the way its viewed and thus by extension taught. The 1995 Enola Gay/Smithsonian example is appalling - not just because of the intollerance of those opposed to the exhibit also because of the willingness of the Smithsonian to give in to them.
Multiculturalism isn't bad and neither is specialization per se but at the same time I agree with the Arthur Schlesinger comment that it should be taught "as history, not as filiopiestic (and when was the last time you saw that word in a sentence?) commemoration." Perhaps historians need to step back more often and look at things in their broader context?
Chapter Two. The History of Historical Specialization. Isn't "over specialization" in the eye of the beholder? I think specialization is fine if you can demonstrate how its relevant to the larger themes of history.
Chapter Three. Searching for the General Reader. Can't we all just get along? It seems to me that regardless of the audience that the important thing is that history is taught to as wide an audience as possible. Although, I've never read anything by Nevins, it seems to me he deserves credit for raising the issue of how history should be taught. Also, doesn't the reader have a responsibility to look at things with critical eye?
Chapter Four. The Crusade against Pedantry. Well "Crusade" is a strong word... In the end both "professional" and "amateur" historians seem to reach consensus on the broader themes of history but have little respect for each other's approaches.
Chapter Five. Movies Made History... Yes films should be as historically accurate as possible but I think that the makers of Birth of a Nation thought that they were making an accurate film...which says more about the US film goer at that time (and their views of race) than it does about film making. Two weeks ago I saw Tarrantino's Inglorious Basterds where he re writes the ending of Word War II. What does that say about film making today? Or about film makers views of their audience?
Chapter Six. Radio Days Well, we do have C-Span today but I would love it if they would bring back Historic Lecture programs or History related topics to Radio. (I would really love if they'd knock Rush Limbaugh and Howard Eskin off the air.) To a great extent we have that kind of programming now with many music shows. Many of the programs on WRTI give the background and history of the classical and jazz pieces they're playing.
Chapter Seven. Contesting the Retreat from the Schools I can't understand how history was not taught in high schools in 22 states prior to World War II. How did they teach civics or social studies? Letters were the principal way of communicating after the telephone or telegraph at that time. Nearly every US stamp was a commemorative of some person or event in US History. Didn't anyone wonder what was on the stamps that they were putting on the letters they were mailing? And why were "professional" and "amateur" historians arguing at this time about the way history was being written when eventually no one would have understood what they were writing let alone the manner that they were writing with.
Chapter Eight The Patriots' Call. I understand that there was a resurgence in the teaching of history brought on by World War I, World War II, The Cold War etc but I think what was more significant is the greater coordination between colleges and high schools for the teaching of history.
Chapter Nine. Going Public This chapter is about the growing role of historians in government and public service starting with the agricultural history done for the Department of Agriculture. Don't we take it for granted today that historians are used to help shape policy?
For example the Russian and Chinese historians at the State Department during the Cold War?
Chapter Ten. The New Deal Historians are now being used as expert advisers for government policy. Isn't this a good thing for government policy? Tyrell seems to be pretty cynical here at least as far as the impact on history.
Chapter Eleven States of War We build on the New Deal and the influx of historians into government service not just as advisers making policy but - just as importantly - as historians recording events and the decision making processes. However historians in government service are attacked by colleagues (who aren't in government service) particularly after Vietnam. Now I can't tell if Tyrell is being cynical or just the whole profession is.
Chapter Twelve. The State, Local and National. The increase in history in the federal government means a decline on the local level. Everyone is going off in different directions.
Epilogue The argument of scholarly vs general continues but why? Am I over simplifying things by asking this? Isn't it important that history is being taught? Then again maybe the debate is good too.
