As a New Zealander with no ancestors who were American and with quite possibly no descendants who will live in the United States and who teaches American history to non-Americans, there is no place for me within Professor Takaki's bold, multicultural, inclusive history. First, and least important, such notions render irrelevant and perhaps redundant the efforts of both myself and my students to do research in, to teach, or to learn about American history. The idea-espoused by both Takaki and Fredrickson-that American history is for Americans disturbs me for two reasons. What disturbs me about these statements is their implicit, and I believe simplistic, assumptions about who practices American history and who "consumes" such history. The teaching of American history, Takaki believes, should foster "a more inclusive view of who we are as Americans" and should enable "different groups" within "this place called the United States of America" to "learn about one another" so that "we can get along." Fredrickson argues that by studying American history "our students" will be able to answer questions about "their ethnic identities" and thus help these students with a perspective on how "our past" manages "to combine cultural diversity with a consensus on underlying national traditional values." With any luck, "our students" will be able to become "aware that their ancestors suffered from injustices-or perpetrated them." I counted well over a dozen references to "we" or "us" or "our" in Ronald Takaki's essay and noted that both George Fredrickson and Robert Fullinwider accept Takaki's implicit assumption that the only consumers of American history will be present-day residents of the United States.
For people concerned with making the teaching of American history more inclusive, each used extremely exclusionary language. I read with interest the exchange between Ronald Takaki, George Fredrickson, and Robert Fullinwider in the October issue of Perspectives.
0 kommentar(er)
