Procedures

• Step 1:

  Show students the recent press conference from New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu about the decision to remove confederate statues from the city.

  Video Clip: New Orleans Statue Removal (4:36)

  Discussion Questions:

  • What are the reasons Landrieu uses to justify the choice to take the statues down?

  • Landrieu asserts that the statues perpetuate a “fictional, sanitized confederacy.” Does the statue removal help in the revision of that narrative, or does it simply take the conversation out of the public eye?

  • Is it appropriate and acceptable for Landrieu to interpret (and even correct) the past using the moral and ethical standards inherent in society today?

• Step 2:

  Introduce concept of “presentism” using Gordon Wood’s brief overview. Clarify for students any questions or misunderstandings. Have students brainstorm possible topics that could fall under this dilemma.

  Video Clip: Presentism & "Historical Sense" (3:44)

• Step 3:

  The class will engage in a case study of Andrew Jackson and the conflicting narratives about him and his presidency, especially regarding his treatment of Native Americans. Students will view two clips from two different historians on Jackson, and discuss the different interpretations each historian presents. Students should break into small groups after each clip to process and assess their observations.

  Handout: Presentism: A Case Study in Andrew Jackson (Google Doc)

  Video Clip: H.W. Brands on Indian Removal (7:48)

  Video Clip: Jonathan Barth on Indian Removal (5:17)

• Step 4:

  Show Dr. Mark Cheathem’s excerpt on how to be fair-minded in assessing Jackson. Engage class in a reflection on the following questions:

  Video Clip: Andrew Jackson in His Time (1:04)

  • Cheathem says we "have a right to be critical of the stances Jackson took." To what extent does this interpretation distort the historical record? In what ways does it provide clarity to our own sense of morality?

  • Should a historian who makes judgment about certain individuals, systems, or events from the past be viewed differently than a historian who doesn't? Does the avoidance of "presentism" make us too neutral on certain issues? Explain.

• Extension Activity:

  1. Students engage in a simulated discussion between presidents of the 19th century, mid-20th century, and 21st century on certain issues that have changed over the past 150 years. Have students creatively construct what someone like Jackson may say to someone like Lyndon Johnson or Barack Obama (and vice-versa), especially regarding the changes in the Democratic Party.

  2. Research past historical figures whose legacy has changed as a result of changing times and attitudes. Have students determine whether the accomplishments of that figure have been rightfully undermined by their now negative assessment. (In addition, you could also address an historical figure whose legacy has changed in a more positive way as a result of changing values).

  3. Students can develop this into a full research assignment that takes the historical debate to other topics. Students can research and compare competing historical narratives and assess the research with regards to presentism and moral relativism.

     Topics could include:

     • slavery
     • segregation
     • women’s suffrage
     • class & property ownership
     • historical uses of violence (i.e. Boston Massacre)
     • entitlement programs
     • gay rights
     • immigration & nativism