The Syllabus

Welcome back to the Trump Syllabus Reader.  As I mentioned in my first post, I’m planning to read books inspired by N.D.B. Connolly and Keisha Blaine’s Trump Syllabus and invite you to join me.  The books on the syllabus examine the historical roots of many of the problematic policies put forward by this administration, and the issues they pose for a society with the potential for democratic inclusiveness.  I believe these books can poke holes in many of the myths the current administration’s policies are founded on, and in doing so help inspire the pursuit of social justice.

I primarily chose books from Professors Connolly and Blaine’s syllabus because it would allow us to read important books on topical issues.  My choices are not meant to be a judgment on their perceived quality; rather, I tried to focus on books that I personally have not read yet and will lend themselves to a reading process I’ll outline next week.  In a few instances I chose books that were not on the syllabus; these are books I’ve wanted to read but haven’t had the time, and felt I could include because I know they are highly regarded and fit well with that weekly topic. For those so inclined, feel free to check out some of the primary source documents highlighted each week on Professors Connolly and Blaine’s syllabus as they will provide even more insights into our history.

Without further ado, our reading list for the rest of the year will be:

Week 1 (August 28) – An Intro to Reading History Books

Week 2 (September 4) – Kevin Kruse, White Flight

Week 3 (September 11) – Carol Anderson, White Rage

Week 4 (September 18) – Leah Wright Rigueur, The Loneliness of the Black Republican

Week 5 (September 25) – Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects

Week 6 (October 2) – Kelly Lytle Hernandez, Migra! A History of the U.S. Border Patrol

Week 7 (October 9) – George Sanchez, Becoming Mexican American

Week 8 (October 16) – Janet Farrell Brodie, Contraception and Abortion in Nineteenth-Century America

Week 9 (October 23) – Gail Bederman, Manliness and Civilization

Week 10 (October 30) – Elizabeth Kai Hinton, From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime

Week 11 (November 6) – N.D.B. Connolly, A World More Concrete

Week 12 (November 13) – Ned Blackhawk, Violence Over the Land

Week 13 (November 20) – Joseph P. Shapiro, No Pity

Week 14 (November 27) – Margot Canaday, The Straight State

Week 15 (December 4) – Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains

Week 16 (December 11) – Wendy L. Wall, Inventing the “American Way”

Week 17 (December 18) – Final Exam (Just Kidding! – But, now that you’re an avid history reader, why not choose a book from the Trump Syllabus on your own and see how it goes?)

As I mentioned in the first post, I am announcing these now so that others can read along.  I realize that many people are busy, and that makes it unlikely anybody will read all fifteen of these books.  But, my hope is that maybe you can commit to one book per month, or a few books that sound interesting to you.  I’m also going to take some time next week to explain how to get the most out of a book in the shortest time possible, and hopefully make these books even more accessible.

Some may wonder about the nature of the project and think to themselves “aren’t these overtly political books by ‘liberal’ authors? Why are these books just trying to slam the President? This is a biased list and I refuse to take it seriously.”  While it is true the organizers’ (and indeed, my own) purpose is political, that does not mean their concerns are invalid.  I suspect that while many authors might reject our Straw Man’s use of the term “liberal” for describing a particular political philosophy they actually find problematic (albeit for different reasons than "conservatives"), they would nonetheless be pleased that their work struck a political chord. That is because an author’s political leanings have no bearing on whether a history is “good.”  History is an evidence-based discipline.  All historical arguments and conclusions flow from sources that are meticulously documented in footnotes and can be reviewed by the reader if they choose.  While historians may enter their research with a hypothesis that corresponds to a particular political view, it is merely a hypothesis.  Historians have an ethical obligation to include all of their findings rather than just those that fit a pre-determined idea; if they encounter a source that challenges their initial assumption a historian will draw their conclusions from that evidence rather than their initial belief.  Historians engage with each others’ work, building and challenging previous research by revisiting old sources and finding new ideas that change our understandings of the past, holding their colleagues accountable to the profession’s standards.

All of these factors mean that while this project (and in many instances, the books themselves) may be overtly political, that should not be a reason to ignore it.  As I will mention next week, historians ARE open to criticism and there are many important critical questions to raise when considering a book. Some examples might be: Does the author use sources that support the conclusion of the thesis?  Are there other sources that might dispute the author’s thesis? If the author’s thesis claims to speak for “all Americans” does it take efforts to examine the perspectives of people from a diverse group of perspectives (and if not, how might including those perspectives change the author’s thesis)? All of these questions focus on the historian’s process, which ultimately shapes their findings and ensure that even when books take an overtly political approach they are still “good” histories.

I look forward to seeing you here next week as I explain some of the strategies I’ve learned for quickly reading history books.