Book Reviews

Abstract

Late last year, Edward LinenthaI and Tom EngeIhardt's (1996) History Wars: The "Enola Guy" and Other Batflafbr the A w n Past appeared in bookstores. This volume lives up to its title, providing firsthand commentary on sweral ment "wars" waged over control of American rnerraosy.In social studies, such wars have been relatively common, but less vitriolic and public. Occasionally, the battles have spilled over ma terrain visible across the country, much the way fie "Enoh Gay" exhibit at the Smithsdan brought widespread controversy and media attention. An example fresh in our minds, nu doubt, was the struggle over the national United States 'history curriculum standards.In the Fall, 19% issue of 2 %~ y and Z W m h in Social Educatiotr, a nunber of symposium commentators (myself among them) weighed in on &e skirmish over those standards (and h e history curriculum vis-a-vis public policy in general). Sociai Education also provided a point-of-view Ias t year in The "history wars" clearly have k e n fought on many h t s with varying results. Things pmently seem to be in a lull. Perhaps sides are regrouping for the next engaprent; wounds are being dressecf ; strategies contempIated. ?'his may be a gmd time to pause, reflect, and study, espe cidly for social studies educators interested in the scrimmages over the his tory curricu~um and the prospects of national standards.Reflection, however, can sometimes become b~ introspective, d i v ing into proverbial navel gazing. I am referring hem to the temptation to look only within o w borders and to the history-curriculum-standards battles common to North America. Isolationismf history teaches, is not uncommon in wartime. hoking only within is myopic in this case, however, because peering acmss the oceans on either side of North America makes it clear that other educators have been through curricuIum disputes and national-standards debacles before us. mv have lessons to offer, This is the principal subject matter of the first volume in the series titled the Downloaded by [University of Cincinnati Libraries] at 01:21Take &e case of Denmark, for example, which is cogently detailed by analyst H d Nielson (1995) in Chapter 7 of the Handbook. Nielson begins:A centralized system in ducation may have the effect of seriously reducing teachers"rnfessiana2ism and responsibility, and imposing a curriculum which soon becomes obsolete and irrelevant t~ pupils.. . Acentralized system may also give pupils the impression that history is something given, a pack of knowledge that can be passed on... This, of course, is a serious misconception; history changes all h e time and is h e result of a conkuing interaction betwen h e present and the past. Such concerns were part of the rationale behind h e new Danish national curriculum.. . introducd in 1988. (p. 158) Nielson then details the contours of this Danish curriculum, a system at once both centralized and decentralized. How have the Danish managed to achieve this arrangmt? The k q according t o Nielson, is the albcatlan of authority over t...