History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past

by Gary B. Nash, Charlotte A. Crabtree, Ross E. Dunn

WITH A NEW INTRODUCTION

"A deeply informed, balanced, and compelling book." -- Los Angeles Times

In History on Trial , authors Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and Ross E. Dunn examine the controversy and criticism over how our nation's history should be taught, culminating in the debate about National History Standards. The book chronicles a media war spearheaded by conservatives from National Endowment for the Humanities veteran Lynne Cheney to Rush Limbaugh, posing questions with regard to history as it relates to national identity. What, the authors ask, is our objective in teaching history to children? Is the role of schools, textbooks, and museums to instill patriotism? Do we revise and reinterpret the past to tell stories that reflect present-day values? If so, who should articulate these values? Wonderfully clear, timely in its intentions, History on Trial provides a thoughtful account of the ways in which Americans have, since the beginning of the Republic, perceived and argued about our past.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, School, Education

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

Gary B. Nash was a distinguished American historian known for his scholarship on the American Revolutionary era, slavery, and the experiences of marginalized communities in shaping early U.S. history. A graduate of Princeton University, where he earned both his undergraduate and doctoral degrees, Nash also served in the U.S. Navy before embarking on an academic career. He taught at Princeton and then at UCLA, where he became a full professor and later held key administrative roles focused on educational development.
Nash's work highlighted the roles of working-class individuals, African Americans, Native Americans, and women in the nation's founding, challenging traditional narratives centered solely on elite figures. His inclusive approach often sparked debate, notably with historian Edmund Morgan, who questioned the broader impact of the grassroots movements Nash emphasized.
Beyond academia, Nash was instrumental in shaping history education in the United States. He co-directed the development of the National History Standards and led the National Center for History in the Schools. A past president of the Organization of American Historians, he was also a member of numerous esteemed scholarly societies. Throughout his career, Nash authored or contributed to dozens of influential books, articles, and essays that left a lasting mark on the field.

Reviews

[Brielle Betit · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super interesting take on teaching the past in an ever changing present world. It’s crazy to me how a book from 1996 can capture the ongoing war on history so accurately in the present day. As a future Social Studies teacher I believe this is a must read for those who want to approach teaching history in an accurate manner. There is no right way, the book seems to agree, but with National Standards in place it leaves states room to meet their students needs where they are. My biggest takeaway from this book is the impact of Multiculturalism on Social Studies. The idea of history being viewed as a multicultural being with so many different learned perspectives, views, and experiences and teaching it with a wide lens to encapsulate all of it is something I hope to accomplish in my classroom.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have been teaching American History to prospective teachers all semester, and so really thinking about history standards and what kinds of standards my students will have to deal with. Basically I'm trying to show them how to work some of the most recent scholarship into the existing standards.
So this book is about an effort to do that, with nationwide recommended standards, and how it all blew up in the Gingrich revolution of 1994, when all these conservatives who used to be in favor of the standards (Lynne Cheney) suddenly realized that they were terrible! Communistic! Revisionist! Where is George Washington? Where is the Constitution? (They were in there, but don't think about that) The most important thing is won't somebody please think of the children?!
This is a bit one-sided and inside baseball, since it is by the historians who had to fight against all these republican revolutionaries during the 90s to try and defend the standards. It probably could have been a little shorter. It also is just so infuriating to read about this culture war stuff, especially because the book was published in 1997 and so I had to read it with the knowledge that things would really not get better! Or I guess, get better for a little while and then go back to being bad? The thing that was the most valuable to me was the early material, on how this kind of fighting about US history has been going on since the 19th century, and really flared up in the 20s, and 50s, and 60s, and 90s, obviously...it never ends. It helps my blood pressure a teensy bit to realize that the argument will never end so there is no point in wishing it would. But it only helps a teensy bit.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half of this book was excellent, but the second half dragged on me. Nash, Crabtree, and Dunn (NCD) base this book on the National History Standards controversy in the mid 1990s. The first half of the book is an outstanding tour of how the teaching of history has evolved throughout US history. This section punctures the idea that at any point in US history there was a clearly agreed upon conventional narrative about the American past, which is what right-wing critics alleged when the supposedly revisionist national standards came out. NCD also show a clear division in how liberals and conservatives approach the past: Liberals, who constitute the majority of historians (although distinct from leftists), see the past as something that must be interpreted and re-interpreted as new evidence and perspectives come to light. This doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally true but that we never quite reach final truths. Most historians are also quite skeptical of the idea that we should teach facts first and interpretation second; history is best and most naturally learned when those things are taught in conjunction. Conservatives, at least those who blasted the NHS, are more likely to see the past as a fixed set of facts that should offer clear moral lessons and a foundation for unity and patriotism in the present day. They do not look kindly on the process of revision, although they are not completely against it. Obviously, NCD and I agree with the former approach, which is not only more intellectually rigorous and humble but leads to way better teaching.

Unfortunately, the 2nd half of the book really dragged on me. This was a narrative of the NHS creation and controversy, but it was just way too detailed; way too much about the processes and panels that created the standards as well as the critiques and politics of the standards. This is important, but it could have been pared down considerably. Nonetheless, it is good to have a record of this process, and NCD do a great job parrying attacks on teh standards.

THis is a good book to reference on the history of teaching history in the US, although maybe not a great "full-read" for everyone.

[Lissa Notreallywolf · Rating 3 out of 5]

I made reference to this book in an updated reflection on Telling the Truth about History. I read it several years ago and the salient point that I can recall is that it spoke of a window in American historical pedagogy where highschool students were exposed to college level history lessons, particularly students in AP classes. I was a participant in that brief period, and apparently it left a mark on the way I think about history. If you want to read the updated review of Telling the Truth about History, go look it up in "my books"- I took it off my feed because it is unknown to me how much anyone wants to read through long long book reflections on historiography and education.

[Brenda D · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the US - history really is a battlefield! This book provides excellent coverage of the "history" of history curriculum in the US leading up to the 1990's collaborative and professional development of national history standards for the 20th century. These history standards were created using the most recent work of historians and were more inclusive and more engaging for students. After hours of work by top educators and drawing support from a cross-section of citizen groups in a grass roots democratic process, their excellent work was challenged and almost brought to a standstill by pundits of the far-right with the sole motive of easy political gain rather than the improvement of education. This travesty of uninformed (most critics had not even read the history standards) and the clear manipulation of "fake news", particularly Mrs. Cheney's role in this debacle, is an indictment of the worst of American politics. Whipping up public sentiment by using misinformation in self-serving populistic sound bits is still playing out as an effective strategy in US politics as is evident in the election of President Trump! While it is now 25 years since the events in the book occurred ... this is still an important and sobering read!

[Fran · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the current debates rage over monuments, the US constitution and faux 'originalists', racism, slavery, critical race theory, et al. this book - written during the Clinton presidency (with superpredators, and crack babies and ending both welfare and restrictions on Wall Street) - reminds us that political and economic interests have ALWAYS argued for teaching history aligns with their views - and that theirs is the 'factual' truth. Neither the struggle to overcome oppression and erasure of the oppressed, nor intense reaction to those efforts is new. Even the 'founding fathers' disputed, sometimes bitterly, meanings of the war of independence, the Articles of Confederation and Constitution.
At times there is almost so much detail in his story that it distracts, but is aimed at maximizing the evidence that the right wing is disingenuous and unreasonable. By now we've learned that the white supremacist right cannot be reasoned with.

[Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Skimmed the second half, because it just wasn't as relevant as the beginning, which very clearly lays out the "culture wars" argument and the historical antecedents for the fight. Very relevant to what's happening literally right now.

[LA · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although this book is almost 30 years old, it's still relevant today (2025).

[Julian Pritchard · Rating 3 out of 5]

The debates in this book over history standards in the 1990s seem comparatively very tame compared to what’s going on today

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good study on the teaching of history over the past 50 years. I found the writing to be very heavy on history and lite on interpretation. I also found the book to be a bit too heavily focused against the "conservative" viewpoint. I would hve liked to see more balance between "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoint.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book serves as a good introduction to the history of historiography, effectively bring about the explanations as to why official history cannot exist, and the flaws and shortcomings of the right's views on history education.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting on world history; got too liberal-partisan and into the nitty gritty of educational policy and standards for my taste at the end.