R: Romanticize History

History is increasingly becoming a point of contention in American life. If we are to discuss politics, or how we are to live together, one would think we need a shared account of our past. While this debate will touch on history instruction in schools, it need not focus solely on that element of romanticizing history. There is no doubt that the way we view history has implications for politics.

Those in the affirmative will argue that it is best to idealize the past and emphasize its positive aspects. Romanticizing history can help protect against societal decline by preserving cultures and traditions. By perpetuating narratives that contain certain values and beliefs, it is easier to communicate what a particular culture holds to be meaningful. People need heroes and villains. Schoolchildren who cannot yet think critically need to be taught through stories. Yes, this may necessitate painting in broad strokes, but an idealized version of history is more inspiring and conducive to national unity than the alternative. After all, the mythologization of the Founding Fathers has fueled American patriotism and led to the development of what some call a civic religion.

On the other hand, those in the negative may claim that romanticizing history distorts the truth. Reality is far more nuanced than any one narrative or story can accurately capture. If we accept a flawed version of the past, our grasp on the present and vision of the future will suffer. The romanticization of history facilitates the promotion of error. We owe it to ourselves to approach these issues with a critical spirit. The truth might be unsavory, but ignorance is not bliss. It is worth keeping in mind the fact that histories written by the victors are not charitable, or even decent, to the losers. If we are to pursue justice as a society, and the good life as human beings, it is important to have a sober understanding of our past.

To what extent is the romanticization of history an affront to the truth? How does it affect our understanding of historical figures and events? Is it possible for a critical approach to history to coexist with a romanticized view of the past? What are the political implications of romanticizing history?