David Saville Muzzey was widely recognized for most of the twentieth century as the greatest writer of U.S. history textbooks in the nation. He was a historian at Barnard College, Columbia University, and he was a gifted storyteller.
His books read as the work of a single writer, vigorous, thoughtful, and opinionated, but not in a partisan sense. He knew history and he knew how to write the great stories and weave facts into a coherent narrative. The first edition of Muzzey’s textbook was printed in 1911 and was so popular that it was regularly updated. At some point, I am not sure exactly whether it was before or after his death, his popular textbooks became a committee project, and over time they lost the distinctive quality that had made them so beloved. That distinctive quality was, of course, his voice. Over time, they were ground down into the voiceless and turgid informational text that we associate with the typical history textbook.
Many years ago, I found a first edition of Muzzey’s An American History. The front cover is spotted and the spine is broken but the prose still sparkles.
I want to share with you his concluding paragraph. Set aside for the moment his omission of women and his reference to the nations vying to control “the destinies of the undeveloped races,” which dates him. But what is not dated is his message. It speaks to us today, a century later:
The problems of a democracy are ever changing to meet the developing needs and the unfolding ideals of the people. Our problem in America at the opening of the twentieth century is no longer that of George Washington’s day,–to establish the forms and powers of a republican government; nor that of Andrew Jackson’s day,–to admit to a full share in that government the sturdy manhood of the nation; nor that of Abraham Lincoln’s day,–to save the life of the Union while cutting from it the cancer of slavery; nor that of William McKinley’s day,–to introduce the United States among the nations which are to control the destinies of the undeveloped races of the world. To-day we are rich, united, powerful. But the very material prosperity which is our boast menaces the life of our democracy. The power of money threatens to choke the power of law. The spirit of gain is sacrificing to its insatiable greed the spirit of brotherhood and the very life of the toilers of the land–even the joyous years of tender childhood. Unless we are to sink into ignoble slavery or fall a prey to horrid revolution, the manhood of the nation must rise in its moral strength to restore our democratic institutions to the real control of the people, to assert the superiority of men over machines, and the value of a brotherhood of social cooperation and mutual goodwill above the highest statistics of commercial gain. Our noble mission is still to realize the promise of the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
How excellent! How perfect to read on July 4! How relevant! Thank you!
Beautifully written and timelessly stated… Our mission to preserve and strengthen public education is really about creating for our children and our country, a culture of humanity, rather than a corporate culture as the foundation of our democracy.
I agree. One problem I have with the CCSS is the narrow goal (parroted at every professional development session I have had to attend) of “preparing students for college and career.” What about preparing students to be good citizens, caring neighbors, active community members, curious learners, creative artists and musicians, and individuals of good character?
Yes!
Bravo!
Amen to this post! I agree.
Wow. This is powerful…and prescient.
It is not like we haven’t been warned. How many Cassandras will it take?
Inspiring and powerful..If we could get prose like that back in education especially in our textbooks what a wonder to behold. Inspiration breeds creativity which is sorely lacking in education.
I love it. College and career readiness? Global competition? Preparation for the high-tech world?…What a load!
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
Albert Einstein
Reformers lack imagination and are repressing children, though not their own, with their narrow-minded policies.
Pogue: few words, lot said.
For the vast majority of students i.e., OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN, narrowly defined skill sets and compliance; for THEIR OWN CHILDREN, every opportunity $$$ can buy to grow in every possible sense.
“It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge”? [Albert Einstein]
And just whose children are going to get those kinds of teachers who escape the current drive to deform ‘teacher prep’?
But then, what could be expected of Eduluminaries of “reform” like Pitbull who cannot understand that one should “Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.” [Albert Einstein]
The genius of an Einstein obviously pales in comparison to a “genius” who can give expression to such profound sentiments as:
I want, I need, I like to get
Money, money, money, money
I want, I need, I like to get
Money, money, money, I like
I include only this sample of crass; I leave out the vulgar in deference to Diane’s sensible ‘Rules of the Road’ on this blog.
Thank you for your posting.
🙂
The DEFORMERS are cagey, greedy, and mean.
Was anyone else struck by the gendered nature of the language? I suppose it was just the product of the time it when it was written.
The important point that the author misses is that a decentralized market is a form of social cooperation, one that acknowledges that individual aspirations and drive are a fundamental part of what it is to be human. There are limits to markets of course, that is why we also organize into firms and governments because individual decision making can, in some circumstances, reduce our welfare rather than increase it.
TE,
Can you give me directions to the “decentralized market”?
Duane
It is all around you. Do you prefer a circle, kahle, or j? You can choose.
“…that is why we also organize into firms and governments because individual decision making can, in some circumstances, reduce our welfare rather than increase it.”
That is why we have school boards, government representatives, and unions. The voices of many can be heard, but the pipe-dream that every individual’s needs will be met always gets in the way of the work of these representative bodies. There are no simple answers that completely satisfy every last individual. Whether his wants be power, riches, etc., it is the voice if the individual who wants only for himself without regard for others that is not served by government, and it is sometimes this voice that loses the concept of society. The “reformers” of the public school system come in all types, but regardless of their personal motivations, if their policies harm the commons, these policies are unjust. The problem is, who is to judge this?
Yet school boards are not needed for the private schools like the Lab Schools, Sidwell Friends, Dalton, etc., yet these schools are held as the best examples of what education should be by many who post on this blog.
There are several reasons you might think that left to their own, individuals might choose the wrong a,out of education. First, they might simply make a shortsighted decision. This is the paternalistic argument in favor of encouraging/requiring students to have more education than they would choose for themselves. Another argument is that you benefit from my education and I tend to ignore that fact when making decisions about my education. This is the positive externality argument in favor of encouraging/requiring students to have more education than they would choose for themselves.
Neither of these arguments says anything about how the education is to be provided. A student that attends Phillips Exetor or my local private Montessori school is being educated as much (some would argue more) than a student attending my local traditional public elementary school or traditional high school.
I wonder whether, LG, you might be willing to elaborate on your concept of “justice.” Or perhaps give some examples of policies that “harm the commons.” We’d also need to define “harm” and “commons.”
Go to http://www.dictionary.com. Check it out…that’s your homework.
Just directing one to a dictionary page doesn’t solve the problem. A dictionary is merely a record of the historical use of words. It is not prescriptive. What I want to know is how YOU define the word, so I can tell whether any specific action is just or unjust.
Let me ask you what I asked Diane. Is it “just” for the state to take money under the threat of the gun (law) from a man for the education of children of whom he is not the father? I KNOW it is legal in this state. But is the law “just” that a man should be required to pay for the schooling of other people’s children, both legitimate and illegitimate?
It may even be prudent public policy. But is it “just”?
LG, I agree with you.
“The power of money threatens to choke the power of law. The spirit of gain is sacrificing to its insatiable greed the spirit of brotherhood and the very life of the toilers of the land–even the joyous years of tender childhood. . . . to assert the superiority of men over machines, and the value of a brotherhood of social cooperation and mutual goodwill above the highest statistics of commercial gain.”
Sounds like Muzzey was a socialist before his times-ha ha!
The phrase “the more things change the more they stay the same” comes to mind.
Or one of those d*** Christians.
Ah yes! I remember Muzzy. Quite a statement. Thanks, Diane
For more information see website: http://www.deborahmeier.com
Replying to H. Underhill;
when you quote “civic education” that is not my field so I am in over my head with the exception that history standards are in contention in my state and have been repeatedly over the years… I am quite familiar with the civic education curriculum from the Center for Civic Education in Calabasas and beyond that I am a novice so that I am not certain you and I could agree with the standards for civic education/history and that is what I was trying to point out (anecdotally in Massachusetts); when there are so many different viewpoints of standards and the state does not come to some published standards (see the history of MCAS) then it is very difficult for the teacher to be held accountable on any kind of tests. This is so unfair to the classroom teachers. I need to go back to teacher certification questions such as should teachers be required to hold a subject specialty and I always answered yes except for the fact that you need good preschool teachers, special education teachers etc who cannot major in a “subject” such as the secondary level person might. A subject specialty for a special education teacher might be quite different. This is the perspective where I am coming from…. so don’t quote me on civic education. From my experience the Calabasas curriculum was excellent in the delivery of an AP course in high school mediated by a well informed teacher. I’m not familiar with other curriculum or programs but I just know it has been difficult to get to any standards over a long time frame as MCAS went through iterative developments and field testing. I guess a broader issue for me is why are we expecting school districts that are economically trapped to be paying the bill for field testing corporate products????? The R&D used to be funded in carefully researched , experimental labs or centers or the university before it was “brought to scale”….. it’s unfair what is happening to teachers who are being judged by these current applications. This post is in a reply on July 8 so it is in the wrong place probably….)
When I taught US history over 50 year ago I used the 1957 edition of Muzzey’s text. In looking it over again recently I found it to still be excellent. Thanks, Diane