In a previous post I tried to set out my problems with the new version of the Conflict in Indochina topic in the new HSC Modern History syllabus and offered some changes that I think would improve it. I started that post by making it clear that my aim was not to criticise any individual(s) or group(s) responsible for the current version of the syllabus but rather to outline my interpretation of what has been included and offer an alternative that, in my view, would work a little better. I want to restate that general intention here: the purpose is not to criticise; it is an attempt to offer something constructive and maybe something that could contribute to further discussion should we get a chance to revise the syllabus in the near(ish) future.
In this post I want to focus on the Civil Rights in the USA, 1945 - 1968 option for the 'Change in the Modern World' component of the NSW Modern History course. I will begin by identifying some of the issues I see in the topic's current iteration and then try to offer some alternatives. I have provided an alternate version of the topic in full at the end of the post that would be my preferred structure. It follows the standard shape and language of the topics in this section of the course and retains some of the points that I think are important and could not really be improved upon.
Problems in the current version
Problem #1: I think there is a clear missed opportunity in this topic to explore the origins of the civil rights movement. The historiography is rich in debate about where and when the civil rights movement really started in the United States [1]. Was it in the South as it has been traditionally argued? Or elsewhere? What role did international influences play including lesser-known, but important, stories such as the speaking tour of the Indian activist Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya who visited the United States between 1939 and 1941. In short, the debate about the origins of the civil rights movement in the United States is so robust in the historiography, it really should be explicitly reflected in the syllabus somewhere, especially at HSC level.
Possible objection to problem #1: The question of the origins of the civil rights movement is too complex for this level of history. I'd argue that it is no more complex than the question of how to explain the rise of dictators after World War One and that is part of the Core Study. I'd also argue that it is no more complex than the question of why Stalin emerged triumphant as leader of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and that is part of the Russia and the Soviet Union National Study.
Possible solution to problem #1: Rearrange some of the current content dot-points (especially those critiqued below) and add a new point such as 'factors explaining the emergence of the civil rights movement in the United States'. (See 'My preferred version' section below to see this in context). The wording could be more precise but the concept is important at this stage of the discussion.
Problem #2: I would argue that the most significant problem with the way this topic is currently structured is the absence of an explicit reference to 'black power' from the syllabus content points. To my mind, this is a fairly serious oversight because understanding the rise and influence of the black power movement is crucial to understanding how the civil rights movement evolved in the United States following the Second World War.
Possible objection to problem #2: There is a broad reference to 'civil rights groups' and 'methods employed' which implies that black power will/should be addressed. To that I would argue that an 'implied' reference to black power is simply insufficient; it is so important that it warrants a direct mention somewhere to ensure that students engage with it and to provide exam committees with the opportunity to incorporate it explicitly in an examination.
Possible solution to problem #2: Include a content dot-point focussed on the idea of black power and perhaps even specifically name the Black Panther Party as a key example of a group espousing these ideas. The Panthers were formed in 1966 so this fits comfortably in the time-frame identified in the title of the topic: 1945 – 1968. This may involve eliminating another content dot-point or combining two of the existing points to avoid adding to the number of dot-points in the topic but I think black power needs to be addressed specifically. (Again, see the 'My preferred version' section below to see how I have tried to do this).
Problem #3: The fifth 'key features' point, 'the role of leadership', is vague. The role of leadership in the civil rights movement was obviously 'to lead', this hardly needs an entire point in the 'key features' section. In addition, it sets up an assumption that the civil rights movement is a topic revolving around several 'great men' of history: specifically mentioned are Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X and the presidents. This is misleading and it overlooks a great opportunity for students to study more of the everyday people who organised local events but never reached the heights of fame of MLK or even Rosa Parks.
Possible objection to problem #3: Leaders played a crucial role in the civil rights movement. You would have no argument from me there but my point is that 'the role of leadership' is a wasted opportunity as a key feature for the topic. There are only six points in the 'key features' list so all need to be strong and meaningful themes that point students and teachers toward something robust. 'The role of leadership' does not.
Possible solution to problem #3: Remove 'the role of the leadership' from the key features section and morph some of the others into two new key features: 'role of individuals and groups' and 'differing visions for the civil rights movement' (or 'differing visions for racial justice') to capture the wide range of leaders who were involved. These two key features are, I would argue, a little more revealing about the themes that underpin the period and the history. They retain the idea of the role of leadership within a more meaningful theme.
Problem #4: The difference between the 'struggles for civil rights' and 'key events in the civil rights movement' sections of the 'Focus of study' is arbitrary. The methods, leaders, events and themes identified do not need to be separated in the way that they currently are. In other words, by addressing the 'key events' students will be addressing 'struggles for civil rights' which means separating the two is unnecessary. Again, the point is that syllabus topics have only limited issues that they can specifically identify and I would argue that these two sections are inefficient uses of the dot-points and this wastes space for other important issues that are completely absent (such as specific mention of black power already outlined above).
Possible objection to problem #4: Students need to understand the points currently mentioned in both the 'struggles for civil rights' and 'key events' sections. I would agree but I think that there is a more efficient and useful way of incorporating them and freeing up some space for other important issues.
Possible solution to problem #4: Restructure the first to sections of the 'Focus of study' for this topic. To be clear, I am not suggesting all of the points need to be thrown out but that they could be structured differently and create greater clarity and provide room for other issues.
My preferred version
Below I have offered an alternative version of the topic in full. I have retained some of the points included in the current syllabus but have rearranged the order of many, adjusted the wording in several places, removed some points completely and added some ideas that are not currently identified.
This version is not perfect either and I am particularly uneasy about the wording of the first content point under the 'Origins and early development of the civil rights movement' which reads 'factors explaining the emergence of the civil rights movement in the 1950s'. The expressions 'factors explaining' is potentially problematic and the 'the 1950s' is also potentially misleading and unnecessary (see Hall's essay in the first footnote below). I think this could be improved but I've not had time to refine it and, at this stage, the presence of the concept is more important that the precision of the wording.
As I did with the post about Conflict in Indochina, I have kept the same structure as the current syllabus (with 'Key features', 'Survey', 'Focus of study') including the same number of content points so that it can be easily compared to the current approach in the syllabus.
[1] See for example, Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, 'The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past', The Journal of American History, Vol. 91, No. 4, March 2005, pp. 1233 – 1263.
Comments