« Learning To Love Big Brother (II) | Main | Romney Drops Out »

A People's History of the United States

07 Feb 2008 09:48 am

Sometimes I think that conservatives go too far in their critiques of history-textbook PC. High school history classes should place a greater emphasis on American diversity and the minority experience than they did in, say, 1947, and there's no reason that a student shouldn't learn about Andrew Jackson and Tecumseh, Thomas Edison and Carrie Nation, George Washington and George Washington Carver, and so on down the line.

But then you encounter something like this poll, in which high schoolers were asked to name the ten most famous Americans in history (excluding Presidents and First Ladies), and produced - well, Rod Dreher has the details. Suffice to say that Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart and Oprah are perhaps slightly higher than they ought to be.

Naturally, the survey's authors fret that the list may reflect misplaced priorities among educators:

The study acknowledges that the emphasis on African-American figures by the schools leaves behind not only 18th- and 19th-century figures but others as well, such as Hispanic icon Cesar Chavez, Native American heroes such as Pocahontas and Sacagawea and labor leaders such as Samuel Gompers and Eugene V. Debs.

Yep - too much Tubman, not enough Pocahontas. That's the problem here.

Update: Steve Sailer is kind enough to point out that you might try this as an antidote.

Comments (104)

I don't know - Harriet Tubman was pretty impressive. I might not rank her as high as she ranks here, but I don't think it's ridiculous to put her on a top-10 presidents-excluded list. Of course, that might just be because I've been brainwashed by the educational system.

America’s history literacy is abysmal & this is a big part of the problem. The other being a refusal of educators to educate for the sake of national identity & historical rooted ness.

“Sometimes I think that conservatives go too far in their critiques of history-textbook PC. High school history classes should place a greater emphasis on American diversity and the minority experience than they did in, say, 1947, and there's no reason that a student shouldn't learn about Andrew Jackson and Tecumseh, Thomas Edison and Carrie Nation, George Washington and George Washington Carver, and so on down the line.”

Any an all of these figures could be rightfully mentioned. However each figures contributions are not historically equally significant. I remember a grade school lesson on the founding Fathers that was immediately followed by a film on George Washington Carver. Many children (myself in this case) are sophisticated enough to have their intelligence demeaned.

I spotted the agenda – objected to it, and was deemed a sort of outcast.

Well… Political theorists and statesman who crafted our nations government deserve their own time and emphasis. Unfortunately there are no minority figures to include in this important lecture. So be it.

Now – a separate lesson on important scientists that includes Carver who not have been so ham handed.

Just for the record, I did the exercise before seeing what the list was, and my list matched 4 names -- the four men (which were also the first four names I wore down).

The way they pose the question is sort of weird though -- "most famous in history"? I think it's entirely defensible to include Oprah or Marilyn on that list. What about Michael Jordan or Babe Ruth?

a refusal of educators to educate for the sake of national identity & historical rooted ness.

Yikes. Really?

Doesn't it seem like you could fiddle with the conditions of picking the top ten until you get the answer you are looking for? Removing Presidents takes a lot of names out of your head, and it is possible that many old white men weren't picked because they were thought to have been presidents.

The real issue here is America's stupid fixation on meaningless ranking systems.


"The real issue here is America's stupid fixation on meaningless ranking systems."

Nice..

"The way they pose the question is sort of weird though -- "most famous in history"? I think it's entirely defensible to include Oprah or Marilyn on that list. What about Michael Jordan or Babe Ruth?"

There was a PBS multi-part documentary called "Fame" (I think) That said the three most famous people (celebrity wise) were...

Muhammad Ali, Bruce Lee, & Elvis

i think if schools and teachers emphasized completely covering certain topics as opposed to individuals we would find that we cover all the people that have been influential in the history of this nation. studying george washington carver or thomas jefferson out of context is useless and ultimately doesn't teach kids anything but a bunch facts.

Thought I'd offer a critique from the left on this list.

What this looks like to me is a bunch of educators being rightly critiqued for absolutely silencing all voices but those of the wealthy white Protestant men who ran the country. I say rightly because it is absolutely impossible to tell the story of America without understanding the experiences of the majority of people who are women, black, Catholic, or just working class. This can be social history, but if we're looking for the proverbial great men, there are plenty.

But educators, knowing they needed to include other voices, needed to find the least objectionable and the fewest. So you get more black women because you get to check off two boxes.

You get Amelia Earhart instead of Gloria Steinem or Alice Paul because it's entirely uncontroversial to say that women should be allowed to fly airplanes and less so to say that women should actually have equal rights under our Constitution.

And I entirely agree with the point about not having any labor leaders or capitalists on the list. But that is hard, dirty history that shows that America has at any point been anything more than the conflict-free perfect embodiment of progress and freedom. And we can't teach our kids that.

Basically, you see here the compromise between left and right in teaching history. We get a few figures and you get the broader framework those figures are placed into.

There are two options if you think this list is a problem. You could either say that the only non-presidents you should know are Alexander Hamilton and other elites or you can provide a story of history that includes conflict over the nature of America and then get to include all the coolest non-elites. I know which side I come down on.

From Dreher's post, his justification for putting General Lee at number ten in his own list:

[T]he hardest choice to justify is Robert E. Lee, and not for the reason you think. To me, Lee represents the tragedy and nobility of the American character. He chose to fight for the wrong side out of noble motive. As a historical figure, it's difficult to argue for Lee's enduring legacy, but I can't think of a figure in US history who more perfectly stands for the tragic aspect of our national character, which you see running throughout US history (even up to the current president, in a debased form)
(emphasis added).

Just another thing that makes today's Republican so lovable: they put the farce right up front where you can't miss it.

What's up with Ross's fascination with the race-obsessed Steve Sailer? Do the two of them sit around chatting about how terrible it is that some people on public assistance have large TVs?

As for lists of this sort, who gives a fat flying damn? If you asked a group of lumpy white conservative pundits you'd end up with Ronald Reagan at the top of the list, and that would be just as screwed.

Marilyn Monroe's on there, too, and that has nothing to do with the dreaded PC that the Rosses of the world think is a worse reality than the crumbling, depressing, under-equipped hellholes so many kids are expected to learn in.

Yeah, at my high school, it was all Oprah and Marilyn Monroe, all the time.
Sheesh, they weren't asked who was important or influential; they were asked to name the most famous. How do high school kids percieve fame? Is fame a major topic of American history class? Did the context in which they were asked the question in any way influence the answers they gave?
To take these results and draw ANY conclusion about what goes on in the history classes of American high schools is completely idiotic. And to compare it to a list asking for Most Influential, and then say it shows something about American high schools is just, well, let's say it's Saileresque and rather Dreherish.

I think a lot of the points above are well taken. It's kind of ridiculous to say how this stupid list reflects on the P.C-ness of our educational system. But on the other hand, we have to deal with people like Tim who think anyone who admires Robert E. Lee is a racist who can't wait to lynch the next darkie running down the street. Fuck you, Tim.

Derrick,

I agree, fuck Tim as well. He belies his own ignorance about who Robert E. Lee really was.

There is also the big issue that a lot of high school history classes are moving at a relatively fast pace if they reach the Great Depression. The biggest event between our founding and WWII was the Civil War, so of course slavery, the lives of slaves, the debates over it, the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850, the Dred Scott Decision, etc. will end up being a focus once we ended the monopoly of WASP males as the personalities of the curriculum and a president-centric history, there would be a lot of emphasis on Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass (besides Douglass being the fucking man).

Rod entirely missed the point of the article, which was that it excluded Presidents and First Ladies.

The funny thing is that if you took a poll overseas you'd get a very different list, and probably one more representative of genuine historic contribution to our culture.

It would probably include people of real merit like Mark Twain, Elvis Presley, Henry Ford, Louis Armstrong and Muhammad Ali, but probably Oprah and Monroe as well. It would certainly not include Tubman, Carrie Nation or GW Carver - all completely unknown outside the US as far as I know.

It's interesting that the myth of the West seems to have vanished from everyone's lists - where are people like Lewis & Clark, Wyatt Earp, Buffalo Bill Cody, Sitting Bull, and Geronimo? How many high schoolers have heard any of those names?

Albert Einstein's an American now?

It's a dumb list, in many ways, and reflects badly on some things (including the overselling of certain narratives), but I think this list is a peculiar artifact for other reasons, perhaps more interesting in a way. Why isn't Elvis on there? Because kids think he's "not part of history", I assume. But Marilyn Monroe and Oprah are! Is this sheer randomness, or what? I can thin of plausible explanations, but they all have some problems. Kids are weird. Adults, too.

Does anyone have a link to the original poll?

I tend to think that a good segment of the American population is so uneducated (and even revels in that fact!) that I don't see what purpose it serves to have this sort of an argument about who should be in the cannon.

The fact of the matter is, Americans should know EVERY one of the names in Ross' post. AND they should know their traditional (i.e., white male dominated) American history. And don't get me started on world history or geography!

For a rich society, we are spectacularly undereducated. And people who argue over the cannon are missing the forest for the trees.

When asked to name "most famous" Americans, many if not most students are probably naming their favorite famous Americans, or the ones they personally care the most about, not just the ones they actually think are best known by everybody else or the ones they learned most about in school.

Is this sheer randomness, or what? I can thin of plausible explanations, but they all have some problems. Kids are weird. Adults, too.

I like this as the best explanation.

I had a similar reaction to Ross at first glancing over the list. But, it's "most famous," no presidents allowed, and it's high school kids. It's hard to get too worked up about this. Hey, they even know that Ben Franklin wasn't ever president! Our children is learning!

Maybe Ross has made thoughtful arguments as to what he really believes somewhere. But it sure seems to me like on this blog, he usually lapses into snark attacks when topics like heritage and religion come up. I could be misremembering here, but it seems to me like even Atrios does more substantive "I believe x" posts than Ross ever does. I'd like to see more of that sort of thing from Ross, for the record.

Elvis writes: "Maybe Ross has made thoughtful arguments as to what he really believes somewhere. But it sure seems to me like on this blog, he usually lapses into snark attacks when topics like heritage and religion come up. I could be misremembering here, but it seems to me like even Atrios does more substantive "I believe x" posts than Ross ever does. I'd like to see more of that sort of thing from Ross, for the record."

He's been a movement conservative since he was a kid, and he went to Harvard seeing himself as some sort of disciple of Saint Reagan under siege by the liberal hordes, so he needs to undergo some sort of shakeup before you can expect too much out of him. Maybe the implosion of everything he holds dear in his party will do that. Maybe not.

He could start by ditching the Steve Sailers, who are simply fucking nuts.

Tim who think anyone who admires Robert E. Lee is a racist who can't wait to lynch the next darkie running down the street. Fuck you, Tim.

I want to make a snarky comment acknowledging that perhaps the American education system is failing, as evidenced by your reading skills. But, sadly, on reflection I can see your reading of what I wrote.

I'm not claiming that Dreher is a racist for picking Lee. I'm claiming that, by his own admission, he's using Lee to stand in for some idea or virtue despite his lack as measured by some "objective" criteria of his historic importance ("As a historical figure, it's difficult to argue for Lee's enduring legacy"). Well, gee, Tennessee, might that methodology explain some of the people, like Tubman, on the list?

I'm sure many here have read the book "Lies my history teacher told me", where a professional historian reviews the most common history textbooks and finds...systematic bias toward sanitized versions of our past. The fact that Woodrow Wilson was a white supremacist and Hellen Keller was a radical socialist don't ever even get mentioned. Such important figures such as Chester A. Arthur, and William Henry Harrison always get at least a side-bar in the book, but someone like Eugene Debs barely gets mentioned. To say that history has become "left-wing" because kids have to watch a video on George Washington Carver and his work with the peanut, is beyond ridiculous. History in high school always has been, and still is, about inculcating an ideology of national greatness.

Musa-

A sociologist, not a historian, wrote 'Lies my teacher told me.'

The poll you cite IS pretty dopey Ross, but I don't think it really demonstrates wht you think, as others have pointed out. The problem with history pedagogy is that, with the constant need to fit more in, we've lost a sense of the narratives and connections which make history and wind up with a lot disconnected modules. It's a sort of greatest hits approach--The Revolution! Ben Franklin! Harriet Tubman! WWII! We need to think more about created a nrew historical synthesis that addresses under-represented groups while still explaining how all this stuff fits together. I'd be happy with a turn away from biography and more emphasis on teaching kids about the impersonal events, institutions, and processes that really make history.

As for Robert E. Lee, however fine a fellow he might have been personally, he was still a traitor who foresook his country for the cause of keeping his fellow human beings in bondage. I'd have real hard time telling my students, my black students especially, that he's some kind of paragon of nation character or nobility.

Oh, and Ross, you really shouldn't use white supremacists like Sailer to SUPPORT your points.

The problem with history pedagogy is that, with the constant need to fit more in, we've lost a sense of the narratives and connections which make history and wind up with a lot disconnected modules.

Well, there is an entire branch of history devoted to the idea that there is no meta-narrative...

1. That's an inane, useless question to begin with, and

2. Teenagers are fucking morons. This doesn't reveal "too much political correctness", it reveals that most teenagers, like most people, are idiots.

So Ross, you don't think Oprah is famous? Seriously? (I'm really only surprised by Amelia Earhart. I wouldn't have guessed high school students would find her that memorable.)

Two other quick things.

Whether or not she's worthy of being in the "most well known" Americans or not, Amelia Earhart was an amazing person. I highly recommend people who read biographies pick up East to the Dawn, it's great stuff.

Secondly, here's a little story about the backlash against the new history going to far. I was talking to someone and casually mentioned that Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. He got very upset and said I was "trapped by political correctness." I tried to tell him that what I was saying didn't really have anything to do with political correctness at all-- I just didn't think it made sense to say that someone "discovered" a country when there were already 10 million people there. And, I pointed out, the Vikings were there earlier, or so we could credibly believe from the evidence. But he just kept ranting about this "PC history"... he was too trapped in that narrative to see what I was saying.

Freddie-

Your anecdote is just one example of movement conservatism's need to create an alternate reality to conform to their worldviews. Next thing you know, they'll tell themselves that Fascists were liberals.

Freddie,

It now seems pretty clear that Polynesian sailors 'discovered' the New World, probably sometime around 800-1000 AD, or just about the time that the Vikings were 'discovering' it from the other end. The Polynesians never made it to North America, of course.

It also seems likely that Spanish and Portuguese fishermen made it to North American waters a couple of decades before Columbus.

I'm puzzled to see Harriet Tubman but NOT Frederick Douglass or Harriet Beecher Stowe. I remember learning about all three in school, but I would put Harriet Tubman last of the three in importance.

I wonder if kids are losing the ability to link the idea of "fame" with people who put ideas in circulation by WRITING. I'm pleased to see some scientists on the list, but where are the writers?

Oi, the Columbus argument. Well, from the point of view of the ancestors of over 90% of the US population, he did "discover" America. The Vikings, the Irish, the Welsh, the Chinese, the Polynesians, Japanese fishermen, possibly even Romans and Phoenicians, all got here first, granted. But so what - none of them ever disseminated that knowledge back to their home cultures in a useful way, Columbus did. It's fine to discuss the many ways Columbus was or was not a bad man, but you can't denigrate the scope of his achievement - it really was significant and world-changing. If you really hate "discovered" then give me a better verb.

Freddie is correct that the Amelia Earhart story is fascinating and well worth investigating. I just find it hard to believe that most current high school text books spend that much time on her or that high school students are hyper-aware of her. Of course, I also doubt that high school text books have giant chapters on Marilyn Monroe, but that won't stop Ross and Rod and Steve from ... well, concluding whatever it is that they are concluding. It's kind of hard to tell.

tgb1000 writes: "I also doubt that high school text books have giant chapters on Marilyn Monroe, but that won't stop Ross and Rod and Steve from ... well, concluding whatever it is that they are concluding. It's kind of hard to tell."

I'm surprised the list doesn't include Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and so on. But Ross and Steve and Rod and other members of the social con crew cherry-pick "news items" of this sort in order to make their frequently-bizarre "points."

If I were a Native American I'd consider Geronimo or Crazy Horse as heroes long before I'd get around to Pocahontas, but that would probably only occur to Rods and Rosses if they actually gave a damn about other perspectives.

I think Sailer's most upset by the lack of Jackie Robinson, which really does seem sort of a "yeah, you can see why boys aren't exactly lining up to go to school" point.

I agree somewhat with the critique of the "great man" approach to history. Unfortunately, the response has been to simply replace some of the "great" men with even less influential "great" women.

What I'd like to see is more emphasis on the forces that actually shape the day-to-day lives of most people. This would include a large dose of economic history and demographics. What do school children learn about the history of economic development? About changes in patterns of consumption and leisure? About the "demographic transistion," and about population trends in general? In the end these kinds of things are more important than either Andrew Jackson or Tecumseh.

Schools have become leftist indoctrination centers where raising self esteem is more important than teaching facts.

One problem with economic development stories and demographics is that they are, in some ways, even harder to make without polemic than "great guy/gal" history. That is, they tend towards either Whig history or decline and fall. Why and "was it good?" are often controversial questions in a way that "George Washington invented America, George Washington Carver invented the peanut, Harriet Tubman freed the slaves" is not, however muddled it may be.

Schools have become leftist indoctrination centers where raising self esteem is more important than teaching facts.

It has nothing to do with traditional understandings of left or right - it has more to do with the feminization of our culture and a consequent unwillingness to hurt anyone's feelings or make anyone feel left out. As Noah pointed out, a truly "leftist" curriculum would look nothing like the pablum that gets dished out in our schools today.

Mike writes: "Schools have become leftist indoctrination centers where raising self esteem is more important than teaching facts."

This is why Mike wants Mike Hickabee to win, because Hickabee wants schools to teach creationism as "fact."

ML&J:

You really are a pearl beyond price.

Shorter franco:

I much prefer to teach blacks about slavery and point and laugh and say "ha ha! sucks to be your ancestors! get over it"

Ross you are my favorite conservative blogger (I'm a liberal democrat) and you frequently have a lot of interesting things to say. That said a lot of your stuff on race is fairly stupid. As for this piece, as has already been mentioned the last thing you want to do on a piece like this is site Steve Sailer.

Also I think that the lack of presidents on the lists make American History look much less concentrated on white & male historical figures. We are sort of obsessed about our presidents and founding fathers(many of the most famous were presidents or Ben Franklin).


As for another attack for this list from the left I would say that the reason Martin Luther King Jr,
Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman is that Black History is not taught as part of American history as it should be but instead shoehorned of on the side and it is taught repetitively and with a narrow focus(how about some A. Philip Randolph) and this leads to a few prominent people whose names get repeated over and over.

I've taught for a long time, and graded many, many exams. And my experience is that students remember the stuff that has an interesting story to it more than the things that are objectively the most important or influential. So, of course they think Harriet Tubman is important -- that is a hell of a story, and much, much, much more interesting than the Teapot Dome scandal, which is still taught, and which is still promptly forgotten by all and sundry. I'm sure there's a teacher somewhere rocking the Teapot Dome, and that teacher's students probably have a different sense of historical relevance. But that is obviously going to be the exception. Anyone can hit the Harriet Tubman story out of the park.

I'm just saying -- there are very important topics that I've taught every year for the last decade, and each year I still have to look up all of the info because it's too damn boring to retain. Kids just let it slide right out of their heads, and don't yet have enough perspective to think they need to try to do otherwise.

Add me to the list of those who think the question itself -- asking about the most *famous* Americans -- is pretty silly. And I think the list that resulted is pretty reasonable, giving the "fame" question. If the question had been to identify the "most culturally / historically influential" Americans, for example, these results would have some problems. But given that both the American and world populations right now are the largest they've been in the *history of our species*, combined with the fact that information technology and mass media are exponentially more pervasive and instantaneous than they've ever been *in human history,* I'd say that, as an empirical statement, Oprah may very well be known by more human beings than most other Americans in history, regardless of achievement.

Amen to rtaycher1987. I'm a liberal who likes this blog too Ross. I think you're usually a pretty thoughtful guy, but when it comes to race it's like part of your brain shuts off and you casually link to white supremacists. There's also the bizarre racial fantasies of some of the commenters around here, but that's not your fault.

The problem is, in this information-age, our pea-brains are incapable of holding all of history, and worse yet, even if we could, we still wouldn't be able to make any sense of it. It could be argued that constructing a 'history'(closely associated with myth)is an important cornerstone of maintaining a cohesive culture. However, since we are a collection of disparate cultures it's difficult to sort out whose history counts most. And even if we have a shared history, the lessons learned are wildly different(e.g. Vietnam as an unwinnable war, or war that could've been won with more effort).
Thus, I think it is more important to teach kids the difference between facts and the interpretation of facts, and to show them how to be life-long information seekers and synthesizers(how to do research at the library). Encourage them to think about and question what kinds of biases might go into a historian's book; and the difference between a book and artifacts(the science of history).

Shorter franco:

I much prefer to teach blacks about slavery and point and laugh and say "ha ha! sucks to be your ancestors! get over it"

That's one way of interpreting it I guess. Another way is that it would be better to teach kids about the underlying economic conditions that created and maintained slavery, teach kids that slavery is not quaint or inspirational, but inhumane and degrading to an extent that true "heroes" rarely emerge among masters or slaves, and maybe better to teach kids about important actors of the time like Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass and John Brown rather than marginal "feel-good" figures like Tubman. But whatever, go promote your self-esteem.

I'm not sure Tubman is too feel-good

from the wiki:
"She also carried a revolver, and was not afraid to use it. Once a slave agreed to join her expedition, there was no turning back – and she threatened to shoot anyone who tried to return.[73] Tubman told the tale of one voyage with a group of fugitive slaves, when morale sank and one man insisted he was going to go back to the plantation. She pointed the gun at his head and said: "You go on or die."[74] Several days later, he was with the group as they entered Canada.[75] It is more than likely that Tubman carried the handgun as protection from ever-present slave catchers and their vicious dogs."

rtaycher1987 quotes: "It is more than likely that Tubman carried the handgun as protection from ever-present slave catchers and their vicious dogs."

I'd like to think that one day she got to shoot the 'nads off of Steve Sailer's great-great-great grandfather, but maybe that's just me.

It's fine to discuss the many ways Columbus was or was not a bad man, but you can't denigrate the scope of his achievement - it really was significant and world-changing. If you really hate "discovered" then give me a better verb.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Pick a better verb? How about any other verb? My dictionary defines discover as "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time". To say someone discovered something when there were already people there is nonsensical. As has been discussed often, he was not the first European to find America. There was widespread speculation and conflicting information about the existence of a large land mass far to the west in Europe at the time. And the whole "no one established anything permanent before Columbus" makes no sense, again, because of the American Indians. The first people to establish permanent settlements were the people who came across the landbridge thousands of years before Columbus. And while not as advanced as that of the Europeans, you certainly can't say that the Mayan culture wasn't significant enough to count as a meaningful society, or whatever.

And the fact that so many other peoples seem to have made sight of the Americas before Columbus doesn't diminish what he did because of novelty, but because of inevitability.

Freddie writes: "And the fact that so many other peoples seem to have made sight of the Americas before Columbus doesn't diminish what he did because of novelty, but because of inevitability."

I really do believe that the most shared trait among conservatives is a deep-felt belief that only white people and European-derived culture really COUNTS. They'll let non-whites into their circle only to the extent that they're willing to buy into this. That entire diverse cultures were here for millennia before ocean blue/1492 seems as important to them as the fact that fungi were.

Moe:

How do you know Ross is just a follower of Saint Reagan? I don't know anything about him, just what I've read on this blog. He's not that well-known yet, is he, to know his biography?

Or are you just guessing from his age and the fact that all conservatives worship from the trough of Reagan?

Asking who was famous, vs, influential was a dumb question for dumb kids. It looks like some took it as important/influential from their PC textbooks, and others went in the direction of "greatest Celebrities".

Even with that confusion, it's hard to imagine some of the black figures belong on either list without a little brainwashing in class that overemphasizes the importance of very peripheral figures like Tubman.

The real issue here is America's stupid fixation on meaningless ranking systems.
Posted by Bill

Well, Bill, you go right on handing out equal-sized self-esteem trophies to reassure the kids that there is no "meaningless ranking system" at work in college selection, sports, dating, getiing jobs and job promotions. And no such thing as some Americans working hard to be more ethical, harder-working, engaged in more creative activities than others.

The lists Sailor referenced in Atlantic a year ago were fascinating. Most you heard of if you liked history and went to college, but some were mysteries...and even then historians had illogical rankings in many instances.

It would be better if not just typically liberal and PC college historians assigned those rankings but they drew on other disciplines and careers.

***********

Here is a sampling of some of the largely non-mentioned people people I believe most important and influential on the average America life.

1. Emily Post - Her 1922 book on etiquette ordered the social conduct of much of the American population.

2. General Henry M. Robert, Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers. Fortifier of Washington DC in the Civil War. Builder of the Green Bay Harbor without which "No Packers!", the Galveston seawall, the Puget Sound Naval Works. But his lasting greatness and involvement in the lives of almost all of us belonging to an organization is in a book he published in 1876 that now orders and organizes every significant group meeting in the US today but for the US Senate. Robert's Rules of Order

3. General Douglas MacArthur. Along with the Meiji Princes and Mao, he established the modern era for East Asia. He defined the spectacular, positive, and long-lasting US-Japan relationship.

4. Martha Stewart. I consider her more influential than Oprah and her soap opera pity-fests. Stewart set out to make "excellence in domestic living" and taste a widespread cultural phenomenon. And she isn't done yet. When she does go, it will be with 70-80% of America's households having changed a significant household pattern of decorating, purchasing, or a number of little somethings they do that add up collectively to a big change in American buying patterns and consumer spending. And her changes will be passed on as family tradition and still be a significant influence 200 years from now.

5. JD Rockefeller. He vertically integrated the whole oil and gas industry. He unwitting led to further reforms in American capitalism.

6. Herbert Hoover, pre-Presidential. Hoover applied business principles and innvations and mathematical analysis of mine management that no one had done before and changing mining to a long term horizon that fully realized the potential of the mine, rather than just extract the easiest stuff pulled out for the most easy profit. And once mines were long term, with long-term investment and production, effeciencies soared and mining output, hence industry doubled globally in 25 years in a large way, from Hoover's "The Economics Of Mining" text. Still a standard college textbook in mine and engineering schools after 100 years.
Hoover then went on to invent the large-scale Humanitarian Rescue mission, to feed the starving and displaced of WWI -figuring out how to move vast amounts of material of different nature in a fast, organized manner. 35 million tons of food and shelter material flowed into Europe from Hoovers effort. What he did then became embedded in overseas trade logistics and military logistics, changing every America life forever.

Of course he sucked as President, but Hoover is on any thinking Asian and white man's Top Ten List for his protean accomplishments before the White House tarnished him, before he redeemed himself by becoming the Legend of Stanford.

(And if anyone wishes to write a film of the 1st Lady with the greatest bio and character of any of them and add just 1 First Lady to the Top 100, they should look at "Lou" Hoover.)

7. Andrew Carnaghie. Made America the nation of steel. Made other wealthy men by his example begin acts of huge philanthropy to advance culture and educate the working people..

8. Norman Borlaug. The Iowan who led the Green Revolution with an international team and largely ended global famine, saving between 160- 225 million lives from starving or diseses lethal in the malnourished. But always with Borlaugs warning that the crop revolution only bought time to get global population stable then dropped to 2 bilion or so sustainable people on Earth.

9. Louis Alverez. The "Go To" solutions guy of WWII. After major breakthroughs in MIT's Radar Lab (The Weapon that Really Won WWII), he was sent to the Manhattan Project to defeat the roadblocks. Then went into a black box of R&D of major defense intiatives. In his retirement, he figured out with his son, what appears to have done in the dinosaurs.

10. The Wright Brothers. While Europes most distinguished families and elite schools had left America in the dust with inventions like the magic of organic chemistry applied to industry, and the Euros let us know it, it came the truth was they'd have given their Left nut for manned flight. That was the real Prize.
Then it happens, and everything changes with the realization they are not the distinguished professariate but two very bright American bicycle shop owners. And that started us on decades of innovative dominance over Europe. Now threatened only by school standards being severely dumbed down so that an unmotivated african-american can graduate - but effectively trying to make other Americans dumber and less-educated than their Asian and European peers in public school.
done by plebian

That's right, MLaJ. It wasn't just Italian explorers funded by non-Italian royals, Norse a-viking, and Celts would discovered the Americas. There was an African prince, a Chinese admiral, and Muslims too. Possibly also Greeks, Phoenicians, and Egyptians.

Chris Ford:

For that bravura display, tonight you are the Pen of history, like that short fat guy in Unforgiven. Enjoy it.

How the hell did you cram all that in your melon?

Tubman was hardly marginal. Her book was the best selling book in American history until Gone With the Wind. Some sort of karma in there, huh?

Her book was a bomb, can't pretend otherwise.

Agreed with the upstream commenters about Ross and race. It's like something sets him off....

As a professional historian, I have to say that these lists are, contra Chris Ford, pretty useless. They're like "top greatest rock songs of all time" lists -- designed for people who either don't know, or don't like, history to sound off on it; and for those who do know a little something, to push weird ideological agendas (ahem, Sailerites). Utterly subjective, and really not that helpful for recovering the lived world of the past, or even imparting it to students. We could argue all day about whether Jefferson or Washington (or, for that matter, English Old Whigs) were more important for the Revolution; it's far more interesting and fun to discuss how and why they were important than some pseudo-positivist question of which was "more."

Finally, what's with Chris Ford's hatred of expertise? Would he send his child to a college where history was not taught by professional historians on the grounds that they are "liberal" or "p.c."? On the other hand, despite -- or perhaps because of -- his consistent John Bircherism, his list is fairly interesting. I wish he'd spell out his worldview in ways that weren't always negative, and come more clear about his own situation.

Quietus,

I'm not sure about all of those guys, or even whether you are serious or not. A lot of groundless speculation goes on about pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas. But the bit about Polynesians reaching the west coast of South America is very solidly grounded. It's been known for some time that sweet potatoes (a South American crop) have been grown in Polynesia for about 1000 years, and it was just recently discovered that chickens were present in Peru about 1000 years ago, which put together are solid evidence for a Polynesian landing on the coast of Peru.

Moe,

If Mr. Sailer's ancestor had been emasculated by Harriet Tubman's revolver, he wouldn't have been able to beget the Sailer line....did you forget that?

gabbo asks: "How do you know Ross is just a follower of Saint Reagan? I don't know anything about him, just what I've read on this blog. He's not that well-known yet, is he, to know his biography?"

I'm judging by his writings in this blog since I've been reading it, gabbo - including his pathetic defenses of Saint Reagan against the charge of racism, which included berating a black woman on some degree of public assistance for having a large TV and labeling her a "welfare duchess" in homage to Saint Reagan's "welfare queen" imagery.

And yes, his age matters. Ever meet a con of that age who didn't think Saint Reagan shat gold? Can't say I have - not a one.

But who says that these lists are supposed to be substitutes for lived worlds or that they are supposed to be complete lessons unto themselves?

I don't know about everyone else, but that's not what I am looking to get out of these lists. History as it is typically taught is stupefyingly dull. I remember a book by Hart, the 100 - perhaps you've heard of it. It was an interesting read of the 100 most influential people of history. But I didn't expect it to pinch hit for reading primary sources or answering tough questions for me.

I just recently finished Blight's Race and Reunion, and Stout's Upon the Altar of the Nation. I am fascinated with pro-slavery ideologies of the antebellum South. But just because someone here said John Brown or Tubman was more influential than Abe doesn't mean squat to me in terms of trying to answer some of the questions I have while reading these historical works by serious scholars.

I find it hard to believe that a top ten list is taken by the commenters here to be some sort of authoritative ranking. It is a fun exercise in historical critique - playing premises off each other and challenging one's grasp of a myriad of different eras. It exposes your weak spots, breaks up habits of association.

Who's trying to claim it's definitive or close-ended analysis? That would be just stupid. I could read 10 different lists and enjoy each one, find each one valuable and worthwhile. How the hell could anyone show they were right, anyhow?

"If Mr. Sailer's ancestor had been emasculated by Harriet Tubman's revolver, he wouldn't have been able to beget the Sailer line....did you forget that?"

Not if she only shot off one ball.

fair enough, Grifter; maybe it's a question of personal preferences. But in my experience, these arguments over lists, as opposed to over specific topics (like your interest in pro-slavery ideologies in antebellum South), tend to produce more heat than light.

That could also be a function of this being the blogosphere, where, you know, I'm always right and you're always wrong....

(for the irony averse, I don't mean that last line).

Hector asks: "If Mr. Sailer's ancestor had been emasculated by Harriet Tubman's revolver, he wouldn't have been able to beget the Sailer line....did you forget that?"

No. Think about it for a minute, Hector. You're embarrassing yourself on this one.

Dr. Shays - Be careful of your civil tone and giving others the benefit of the doubt in net discourse. I have tried that a few times round here and have been attacked with frenzied disgust.

The strangest part is when one simply tries to ask a question and others project an insane amount of paranoia and hostility into the simplest of statements, questions, etc. It's pretty bizarre. I never knew there was so much aggression in the minds of intellectuals or book-minded folks.

Dr. Shays!?

He led Shays rebellion, you twit!

Leave him alone, he's doing pretty well for a dead man!

Hooper,
I really think that's a function of us not being able to see one another face-to-face. But it's definitely a regrettable aspect of net-discourse.

Hooper-y-i: I haven't defended the dissertation yet, so no "Doctor" yet, alas.

also, the nom de plume is indeed a Shays' Rebellion allusion -- the greatest insurrection this side of the pond.

And maybe I should have said embryonic professional historian, not having the diploma in my hand yet.... nevertheless, I stand by my substantive points.

So you are an Amer. history expert. Have any refs on antebellum mindset? I was about to reading The Mind of the Master Class, Genovese, next.

There's a good history blog, The Edge of the American West, also Civil War Memory.

Shays - I'm interested in how race gets constructed in the Americas from the get go, though, too. How originally blacks are heathens, but then become 'black.'

Any sources to recommend? Barbara Fields stated that race per se didn't get created until Colonial times because, ironically, Americans had an abstract, philosophical definition of freedom that therefore required an abstract, philosophical definition of race that could serve as an exception to it, hence negros were intrinsically inferior and could be enslaved. So 'race' was invented at the same time 'freedom' was born, too. I thought that was interesting.

Hooper, I am indeed an Americanist, but my expertise is largely in the colonial and early republican period. However, you are definitely on a fruitful track, it seems. I liked (what I read of -- we historians are infamous skimmers) Genovese's ROLL, JORDAN ROLL: THE WORLD THE SLAVES MADE, as well as the 1999 book by (Walter?) Johnson, SOUL BY SOUL, which is about antebellum slave markets. On the original construction of blacks as a slave class, Edmund Morgan's AMERICAN SLAVERY, AMERICAN FREEDOM is good -- seems to be in a vein w/ Fields argument (he might have influenced her, or vice versa). On Indians and blackness, I would really reccomend Tiya Miles' TIES THAT BIND: THE STORY OF AN AFRO-AMERICAN FAMILY IN SLAVERY AND FREEDOM, which has really interesting stuff about Cherokee slave-holding as an attempt to prove their "civilized" qualities to Anglo-Americans. Very lyrically written.

Anyway, hope that helps.

All right, I'll check them out. Post here occasionally, because I change my screen name from time to time, and I'll tell you how it's going. Thanks.

Finally, what's with Chris Ford's hatred of expertise? Would he send his child to a college where history was not taught by professional historians on the grounds that they are "liberal" or "p.c."? On the other hand, despite -- or perhaps because of -- his consistent John Bircherism, his list is fairly interesting. I wish he'd spell out his worldview in ways that weren't always negative, and come more clear about his own situation.

What Chris Ford suggested is that occupations other than 'history professor' be drawn on in composing these lists (perhaps on the notion that people in other occupations might know something of how their field came to be.

The two signatures of the John Birch Society's literature were 1. paranoid fantasies about the history of the United States since 1913 and the forces at work in the contemporary political scene and 2. a complex of views on public policy that might now be called 'palaeolibertarian'. Chris Ford offered no statement that could be deemed an example of either.

Whatever Chris Ford's understanding of the problem is, any anxiety that American history is degenerating into an exercise in social and political fabulism is not limited to him. See http://hnn.us/blogs/archives/2/2005/7/, and scroll down to "An Open Letter to the OAH's Vicky Ruiz and Lee Formwalt".

Like Dumbya Cheney's foreign policy, Artie's link is impotent.

Art Deco writes: "Whatever Chris Ford's understanding of the problem is, any anxiety that American history is degenerating into an exercise in social and political fabulism is not limited to him. See http://hnn.us/blogs/archives/2/2005/7/, and scroll down to "An Open Letter to the OAH's Vicky Ruiz and Lee Formwalt"."

Oh, please. How about fabulism about how the Puritans were interested in "religious freedom"? How about fabulism like J. Edgar Hoover as a great man rather than a scumbag? How about fabulism in the person of Joe McCarthy? How about fabulism about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11?

You cons are born, steeped, and consecrated in fabulism, and you wouldn't have it any other way.

As some of your analytical readers have already noted, this question is structured in a way that creates the very problems we are red flagging. I sometimes wonder if this stuff is created just to birth some new filler for today's droning and often meaningless 24 hour news.

(1) First the question asks for "ten most famous"? Famous - this can mean either "widely known" or "honored for achievement" If the poll wanted those specifically honored for achievement, the question should not have been drafted so sloppy. And, here's a news flash, guess whose going to come into your mind first, someone more widely known or someone who is not as much widely known but has greater achievement.

(2) If you remove Presidents, even under the prominent historians list you are removing 15 of the top 25 people. Now you must qualify your answers appropriately to exclude at least the first 15 people you would think of.

(3) On top of it all, they probably also asked the question in January when you are in the middle of discussion about Dr. King and Ms. Parks, and are gearing for Black history month in February. Plus there is even a logical segway from Dr. King to women's rights and Susan B. Anthony. Ask the question in July and you probably would see Uncle Sam himself on the list.

In summary, basically you ask a bunch of kids --who probably put little mental fortitude into something they do not get graded or rewarded for--a poorly worded question and get reponses that don't reach back into history and relate to their current atmosphere. WOW! What a stunning horrible discovery!

The education system has enough problems, lets not create new ones to fill the media's need for hype.

With the exception of the Vikings, whose presence in North America is pretty well attested by archaeological and historical evidence, and perhaps Polynesians, where is the evidence that the Americas were visited by Romans, Chinese, Egyptians, The Twelve Tribes of Israel, or anyone else from the eastern hemisphere after the Bering land bridge was submerged? Mostly there's a great deal of speculation, tendentious crankishness, and a weird amalgam of paranoia and credulity, of the sort that pervades "JFK Assassination research" and "UFO research." In the event, even if we grant that, for the sake of argument, the Chinese came to California in 1421, so what? The net significance of alleged pre-Columbian contact to the peoples of either the Old World or the New is effectively nil. Post-Columbian contact, on the other hand, changed everything. What that causes us to conclude about Columbus is an open question, and yes, if he had not done it, the Americas would have been discovered by Europeans in 1500 when Cabral was blown off course into discovering Brazil, but that isn't what happened, and history must concern itself with what happened and what it meant, not counterfactuals.

Cyrus, you're completely right. The problem is many on the left feel that Columbus arrival in the New World was a historical disaster. Given the almost total destruction of dozens of ancient indigenous civilizations, the massive growth in the African slave trade fueled by New World European colonies, and the premature deaths through disease slavery or just societal disruption of millions of New World inhabitants, I think the left has a point. But that point does not excuse, as you say, pretending that a trivial argument like "the Vikings and the Polynesians got there first!" in any way diminishes the historical importance of Columbus' visit. Or complaining that "discovered" is insulting to the Mayans and Aztecs, when in other contexts people use it all the time to reflect the perspective of a traveler to a new place. (i.e. Let's Go Guide tells me to Discover London!. Is that insulting to the 10 odd million people who already live there?)

It's worth pointing out that the idea that European 'discovery' of the New World was something less than an unmitigated blessing, is not a new idea, nor is it the exclusive property of modern liberals. The last surviving member of Pizarro's conquistador party that seized Peru underwent a deathbed repentance in 1589, and roundly condemned the Spanish discovery of Peru and the part that he had played in it.

Arguments among Europeans about what they were doing overseas began almost as soon as Europeans started going overseas.

Given the almost total destruction of dozens of ancient indigenous civilizations, the massive growth in the African slave trade fueled by New World European colonies, and the premature deaths through disease slavery or just societal disruption of millions of New World inhabitants, I think the left has a point.
They do, but, at the risk of seeking refuge in nuance, their moralizing account of "the white man's crimes" doesn't do justice to history any more than the manifest destiny fantasies of 19th century liberals. The conquest of the New World by the old is a more complicated, ambivalent, and interesting story than either of the two popular metanarratives allow.

Cyrus, you're right that Columbus' voyage, since it initiated the permanent and completely tranformative relationship between the Americas and the rest of the world, is more significant than the short-lived Norse settlements and the arrival of the Polynesians (although their introduction of the sweet potato was pretty consequential for S. American farming peoples). Also true that evidence for other contacts is slim to nil.

It is, however, also true that this contact was catastrophic for indigenous Americans, as observers from Bartolome de las Casas on have attested. It's not white-male bashing to point this out. True, such accounts can veer into fruitless moralizing, but we should tell students the whole story about what followed 1492. What's wrong with that?

To the historians out there, what about giving students more primary sources, like having them read Columbus and De las Casas and Aztec accounts for European contact and Frederick Douglass, Lincoln, and Grant on the Civil War? Could that help remedy the shallow sort of instruction everyone laments here?

Oh, please. How about fabulism about how the Puritans were interested in "religious freedom"? How about fabulism like J. Edgar Hoover as a great man rather than a scumbag? How about fabulism in the person of Joe McCarthy? How about fabulism about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11?

Well, gosh, Moe, I don't think I've ever believed any of those, at least in my life after age 16 or so. Am I not a "con"? Though Hoover was a great scumbag (as opposed to a little or unimportant scumbag), and McCarthy was a fabulist of roughly the same level as those who thought Hiss was innocent.

Minor nitpick: the sweet potato is native to South America. The Polynesians apparently introduced it to Polynesia (and perhaps eventually percolated to New Guinea) which was of great impact to New Guinean and Polynesian people but probably not to anyone else. The Polynesians apparently introduced the chicken which appears not to have taken off in S. America (at least at that time).

Cyrus,

I agree that a simplistically moralizing account- either that COlombus' voyage was either 'good' or 'bad' would not due justice to history. But I think that some kind of moralizing is essential to the study of history- without any kind of value judgments, history becomes simply a list of boring dates and names. Making value judgments, at some level, is almost inevtiable- what history education should do is to make sure that our value judgments are intelligent, circumspect, and do justice to the complexity of the historical legacy.

Hector,

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I had the sweet potato story backwards.

Daniel Shays - You wonder why I said that non-historian input should be used in compiling lists of who is important in our history, who the textbooks that educate us should include. Then you show exactly why historians that operate in a liberal/PC mindset should not have final word by accusing me of "John Bircherism".

The truth, and I speak as someone with a curious background of having both an undergraduate history and engineering degree, is that good, generalist historians with deep understanding of economics, military affairs, science, everyday life are disappearing. Instead, we know have a surfeit of "critical studies" historians that operate in the most narrow of perspectives with little knowledge of other academic disciples, especially all the "hard stuff" like the sciences.

Instead of tremendously rooted historians like Fernand Braudel, Charles Beard, Philip K. Hitti - even the valuable classically trained Marxists - we now have historians that value "process", deconstruction, blind devotion to some guru like Chomsky, Zinn or Michel Foucault over knowledge.

And who value "steering students towards social justice regardless of what the actual truth is" over objectiveley educating them.

Which led to their most recent disgrace at Duke, where accused lacrosse players were publically denounced by black studies, historians and other members of the faculty as guilty despite how the investigation would turn out - as white male oppressors deserving punishment and even expulsion.. And given their inbred dishonesty and fabulism and tendency to demonize major white and Asian figures from history for the slightest PC transgression - and glorify marginal activists and minorities as "squeaky wheels" who get more textbook ink than they are due?

Yes, history is too important to be left to modern historians with a very limited academic grounding and perspective.

For example, for medical researchers rather than historians, Jonas Salk is not the "hero, great American" of conquering polio. He was despised by scientists as a cookbook technician who worked fast with the breakthrough work of others while not crediting them, schmoozed funding, and whose hyper ambition led to him fighting against the better peer-reviewed vaccine of Sabin. Salk was refused a seat on the National Academy of Sciences. In 1954, the Nobel Prize went to the true causers of polios defeat - the 1948 work of 3 Harvard rearchers who had the real breakthrough. John Enders, Thomas Weller and Frederick Robbins successfully cultured the virus and laid out the two paths of a vaccine, then turned their work over to the 60 scientists that were interested in developing a human vaccine. Sabin had the better work, but was ethically bound to extensive peer review study since that was the approved, safest vaccine development methodology the international community had set as protocol. Salk cut corners, and self-promoted.

Jesse Owens as one of the 100 greatest Americans? The guy was just a black sprinter who ran a tad bit faster than others later ran against horses for gamblers for booze and meal money - and was made into a Rosa Parks like symbol of greatness from very minor, fleeting effort. Historians fail to note Alfred Loomis who figured out the financial tools to supercharge the devolopment of new technology. Or Harvard President James Bryant Conant who developed the structure of joining up the most productive people in academia with industry and government..(Conant never seemed to call on historians specializing in Queer-Black Caribbean Studies)

*************************
The debate about mean ol' Europeans bossing around noble brown peoples in the Americas would have meaning if it was not the human norm that from prehistory to 1960 or so that the strong civiliztion subdued the weaker ones in decidedly un-PC fashion. The Aztecs and Incas were every bit as brutal on weaker foes as the Spaniards were. The Mongols were brutal on whites. The Bantus developed an edge over Southern African tribes with new agriculture and iron toolmaking ability and went on a rampage of conquest and depredation in the 1600s. Europeans found the poor, oppressed Maoris were happily sailing out and butchering and enslaving weaker islanders before the stronger Euros arrived.

What if the Europeans had not discovered America, but the Chinese or Japanese or Arabs had found a whole rich continent sparsely inhabited by a mix of hunter-gatherer people with no civilization, or small, pocket civilization that were very weak because it was 2,000 years behind theirs? The results would still be conquest, with results worse than what the Europeans did.

Cyrus,

I agree that a simplistically moralizing account- either that COlombus' voyage was either 'good' or 'bad' would not due justice to history. But I think that some kind of moralizing is essential to the study of history- without any kind of value judgments, history becomes simply a list of boring dates and names. Making value judgments, at some level, is almost inevtiable- what history education should do is to make sure that our value judgments are intelligent, circumspect, and do justice to the complexity of the historical legacy.

Of course it's inevitable - one can hardly not have an opinion of Henry VIII, for example. My brief is not against historical judgement, but against the abuse of history to serve present political ends, and as I hope I made clear, that accusation can be leveled at so-called "conservative" histories as it can at the genre Ross refers to as "people's history."

I must also disagree with the assertion that, without value judgement, history becomes dull. History becomes dull without a narrative and a theory. It is literally just one damned thing after another. But narrative, or more broadly, some framework in which the facts of history are supposed to mean something, need not be narrowly moralizing, and I can think of few things more dull than the conclusion that the past is naught but a litany of crimes, and that everyone who doesn't share the moral standards of a college professor/historian circa 2008 is the worst sort of blackguard. That sort of history is not only an abuse of the discipline, it is dull, teaching us first of all that there is nothing to learn from the past.

Chris Ford,

I work in a big university, have attended a couple, and been to many more, and not a one of them resembles the PC fever-dream you describe. You can actually find many academic historians working on figures like Conant (I believe there were a couple of recent books just published about him) and Loomis. And I've never met a single academic who holds Chomsky, Zinn, and Foucault in the kind of unquestioning adoration you describe. Besides, Chomsky's not a historian, Zinn is a more popularizer than anything else, and while Foucault is influential he's less so than in the 80s and 90s and always placed in context amond other theorists. It's also generally understood that while Foucault's methods can be useful, his actually historical work is not that great.

As for the Duke case, what the hell does teaching history have to do with that?

I agree that white folks don't have monopoly on brutality. And no one really claims that. Your description of academia has more strawmen in it than a corn field.

Re: How about fabulism in the person of Joe McCarthy?

I hav never seen any history text where Mccarthy was presented as anything but a boozey demagogue.

Re: where is the evidence that the Americas were visited by Romans, Chinese, Egyptians, The Twelve Tribes of Israel, or anyone else from the eastern hemisphere after the Bering land bridge was submerged?

The ancestors of the Eskimos and Aleuts made it over from Asia long after the Bering Strait opened up. The Na-Dene native Americans probably also came over from Siberia after the Ice Ages were over with.

chris ford babbles: "What if the Europeans had not discovered America, but the Chinese or Japanese or Arabs had found a whole rich continent sparsely inhabited by a mix of hunter-gatherer people with no civilization, or small, pocket civilization that were very weak because it was 2,000 years behind theirs? The results would still be conquest, with results worse than what the Europeans did."

The only justification for the "results worse than what the Europeans did" line is chris ford's ignorant bigotry.

JonF quotes and writes: "Re: How about fabulism in the person of Joe McCarthy?

I hav never seen any history text where Mccarthy was presented as anything but a boozey demagogue."

I was speaking about the fabulism of cons. One of their chief fabulists, Ann Coulter, recently wrote a book called "Treason" which portrays McCarthy as a visionary hero.

LarryMoeandJesus: not to mention, that Chris Ford is factually wrong about the "new" world, which was hardly sparsely populated, instead containing advanced civilization, large cities, and sophisticated science.

As for the Duke case, what the hell does teaching history have to do with that?

Because the history department at Duke was one of the two principal loci of buffoonery in that affair.

It's hard to judge the 'worth' of a civilization (on what grounds would you do it?) but it seems worth pointing out that some of the New World cultures made significant achievements that impressed contemporary Europeans as well as modern historians. The aforementioned last surviving member of Pizarro's party, wrote in his deathbed repentance that the Inca Empire was, at least by the standards of medieval Spain, something of a paradise for ordinary people, and a number of other contemporary observers were favorably impressed by the fact that Inca society appeared to have attained a formidably collectivist ethos, near full employment and at least the rudiments of a welfare state- many historians have idealized it as a sort of proto-communism. While it would be silly to argue that any society was ever a paradise (notwithstanding the way that many poorer Peruvians and Bolivians today do look at the Inca Empire as a kind of golden age), I would rather have been a peasant in 15th-century Peru than in most other pre-modern societies- certainly more than in 15th century Spain.

There were plenty of European observers who were quite impressed with the relatively low social inequality among Native American tribes in North America and it was far from unknown that white people would drift off to join a Native American society.

"I'm puzzled to see Harriet Tubman but NOT Frederick Douglass or Harriet Beecher Stowe."

I'm not puzzled on Stowe, who is mostly known for one book that's reportedly not aged well, but I am on Douglass.

In my opinion Frederick Douglass really should be better known than Harriet Tubman. Although he had his faults he was undeniably a significant public figure. I think he's been portrayed in enough historical films to be more famous than he seems to be in reality.

Also there seems to be no writers or US-born scientists. (Edison was not a scientist per se and Einstein's best work was done in his home-continent of Europe) The only religious figure is Martin Luther King Jr.

Although the question referring to fame and not including Presidents gives me pause. I think Jonas Salk or Linus Pauling should be in here. I know neither is famous enough, but justly they deserve to be and internationally they might be. I think Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, should plausibly be in it. I am most certainly NOT a Mormon, but Mormonism is perhaps the largest international faith that started in the US whose founder is in any sense famous. (Pentecostalism, Seventh-day Adventism, and Jehovah's Witnesses are probably larger but they either have no central founder or their founder is less well-known) In writers I'd go with either Herman Melville or Stephen King as it says "famous." These are all white-men, but actually I don't agree the lack of white-men is a bad thing. In fact on writers I could go with Richard Wright or, on the famous-front, Margaret Mitchell. It's the lack of US-born scientists and writers, as mentioned, that's significant to me.

"I think Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, should plausibly be in it. I am most certainly NOT a Mormon, but Mormonism is perhaps the largest international faith that started in the US whose founder is in any sense famous."

L. Ron Hubbard is probably more famous these days, and he doesn't have to split credit with a Brigham Young (who got the university named after him, after all).

Fame is a fluid and fleeting thing and I wouldn't take a survey like this seriously on my worst day. As for writers, why not actors or directors or singers andso forth? Chaplin, Elvis, Spielberg, and so on. But it all ebbs and flows. Elvis isn't as famous with kids as he is with geezers. Two Beatles are dead. Chaplin, once the world's biggest star, is a cult figure.

Perspective is needed here. As for Doctors, Phil is now more famous than Spock or Salk. That's just what happens when the question is asked of kids and the question is pretty stupid to begin with.

I'm more disturbed by the presence of Einstein on the list. Einstein did the work that made him the greatest theoretical physicist since Newton—the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and relativity (both special and general)—in the first two decades of the 20th century, when he held dual Swiss-German citizenship. He won his Nobel Prize in 1921. He did become an American in 1940 after fleeing the Nazis, but he retained his Swiss citizenship (not his German citizenship though) and his post-1940 work did not produce anything remotely like the contributions he had made in his earlier years. He arguably even held back progress of quantum mechanics since he had philosophical disagreements with what has now become standard quantum mechanics and his fame discouraged physicists from going against him.

So though he was famous, and was an American during his later years, calling him a "famous American" is darn dubious. I doubt these kids are making an informed judgment based on his his American citizenship either: almost certainly, they just don't know what they're talking about.

I should also add that though we may have gone a bit too far in terms of telling kids about Harriet Tubman et al (and what's up with Oprah? She is pretty darn famous though) it's still a big improvement over the previous system, where we didn't tell kids about the achievements and contributions of anyone other than white men.

This list seems like a pretty good reflection of who kids are learning about in school. So I'd like to add two "diversity" figures who probably ought to show up on a list like this because kids should be learning more about them: Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor. I'm not sure they really count as "famous" since people are woefully uninformed about the Supreme Court but they should have a much more important place in the curriculum than they probably do.

As an NAACP lawyer and later its chief counsel, Marshall successfully litigated (and argued) many of the Supreme Court (and lower court) cases leading up to Brown v. Board, including Brown itself. He even won 29 of the 32 cases he argued before SCOTUS—a phenomenal record. He was the first black Supreme Court Justice, and then an influential one for his 24 years on SCOTUS.

As for O'Connor, she was a no-name judge on an intermediate Arizona appeals court until Ronald Reagan put her on the Supreme Court to fulfill a campaign promise to appoint the first woman to SCOTUS and he couldn't find a better-qualified Republican woman. It wasn't an auspicious beginning, but as the late Rehnquist Court's swing vote she went on to become the most powerful judge in the world for at least 11 years. As a result she had an enormous influence on the development of late-20th and early-21st century American law.

As a law student, I'm biased, but they were way more important than Amelia Earhart, and would deserve more space in the curriculum irrespective of whether it "needs" more diversity figures.

"I'm more disturbed by the presence of Einstein on the list."

I found that weird as well. I don't know if I'd go so far as "disturbed", but it made little sense.

On another matter when I mentioned Pauling or Salk I just meant they deserve to be as famous as maybe even Earhardt. Kids would not think of people like Earhardt and Tubman as famous if it weren't for historical films or books. It's not like they're on currency or have a talk show. It's disappointing to me America would be so anti-intellectual it would not make any American writer or scientist famous to kids. Going back to just the '60s Pulitzer Prize winners or rocket scientists were darlings in the media.

Thomas R writes: "It's disappointing to me America would be so anti-intellectual it would not make any American writer or scientist famous to kids."

Did you vote for "fuzzy-math," creationism-supporting Dumbya Bush in either of the past two elections, Thomas? If you did perhaps you should point an anti-intellectual finger at yourself.