The Glory that was Zulu, the Grandeur that was Papua

If one rejects relativistic assumptions, removing Western Civilization from a core curriculum loses philosophical merit. Nevertheless, practical concerns, which may or may not reflect relativistic assumptions, might remain. The argument here, particularly in the United States, is that in the 21st century, the United States has been filled with non-Westerners and thereby a broader cultural milieu should be learned and appreciated. Moreover, the “shrinking” of the world through technology might demand a more multicultural approach. Therefore, the typically proposed course of action is not merely to drop Western Civ but to replace it with something better. That “something better” is almost always World History.

These practical concerns can appear quite convincing and perhaps the most compelling argument for a World History course even stems from a Christian perspective. Considering Smith’s description for instance, the Christian is not interested only in “Western Christianity” but the whole of Christianity – God’s unfolding redemptive plan, not just for Western man, but all of mankind. Furthermore, the teaching of Western Civilization and World History are not mutually exclusive so teaching both may be the best route. However, since time precludes schools from covering all of history, priorities must invariably be set. The argument here is that when in conflict, an American school, and particularly one bearing the names of Christian and classical, ought to grant precedence to Western Civilization over World History.

The flawed nature of teaching “World History” begins the proof of the superiority of Western Civilization. As has already been indicated, World History courses (and, very importantly, the textbooks that support them) are generally designed to endorse relativism at best and undermine Christianity at worst. World History courses almost invariably devolve into a collection of cultural snippets where evaluation is abjured. This fact is interrelated with the other endemic flaws of teaching World History and that is the impossibility of narrative; the subject is simply too abstract and unwieldy. How can one tell the disparate story of the entire world? And, if there is no “story,” there is no “hi-story.” World History by its very nature devolves into a hodgepodge collection of “they did this, these others folks did that, and who cares?” This pedagogical nightmare structurally embodies relativism while snuffing out interest in actual history by burying narrative in a mountain of meaningless happenstances. Henry Ford actually would have been right if he had just said World “history is just one damn thing after another.” Successful history courses need an organizing narrative and World History typically cannot provide one. In fact, that very reason was why Western Civilization courses began at the beginning of the 20th century as educators attempted to reform the failure of World History at both the secondary and undergraduate levels.5 At the end of the 19th century, World History had already proven itself to be pedagogically untenable. How ironic that the academy seems to have forgotten its own history and is now seemingly doomed to repeat past mistakes.

Even if World History was not deeply flawed in its very nature, the strengths of teaching Western Civilization would still demand its predominance. The uniquely valuable nature of history is that it is the one discipline that can unite and encompass all of the others. Just as snippets of past events cannot hold one’s interest without an organizing story, scraps of subjects lose their potency when learned in isolation. A weakness of modern schooling (deserving far more attention and concern) is the breakdown of knowledge into artificial specialties. Students learn math, language arts, science, art, theology, and music in intellectual vacuums rather than seeing the interconnectedness of it all. While it might require an impossible reorganization of schooling to ensure students fully understand the interrelations of these disciplines, within today’s commonly used structures, a strong sense of history is the only hope students have of seeing how art, science, philosophy, and theology all developed alongside one another. Christian classical schools have committed to teaching the theology, art, literature, and science of the Christian and classical world (and this journal is exploring the wisdom of such a commitment). The teaching of Western Civilization is the way for students to see how their subjects interrelate. In other words, not only can Western Civilization be taught narratively, but it provides a narrative into which all the other subjects fit.

Though taboo to say, another crucial reason Western Civilization should have priority is because it is the best civilization. As R.V. Young writes, this fact ought to be self-evident to any disinterested observer whose vision is not warped by ideological astigmatism. Any rational, impartial evaluation will judge the material comfort and prosperity characteristic of the modern era, along with the rule of law and administrative prowess that make them possible, to be unique achievements of Western civilization. Moreover, their emergence in the West are not fortuitous, random phenomena: the sheer physical fact of triumphant modernity is directly attributable to the convergence of Greek thought and Judeo-Christian revelation in the formation of European culture. Imperialism, slavery, oppression, and violence – the sins with which the West has been saddled – are common to all civilizations; the industrial revolution, scientific medicine, the symphony orchestra – these benefits and countless others are exclusive creations of the West. To ignore this manifest reality requires a credence in coincidence verging on superstition.6