'American Ideal' Misinterpreted

To the editors:

Gautum Mukunda's flawed analysis of the historian's craft misinterprets both a student's moral burdens and what it means to be an American (Opinion, Sept. 28). In the first place, the study of history is not a quest for moralistic lessons that great people can later draw on as inspiration for their own feats. It is the quest for the truth of what happened in the past. Great people tend to draw their own lessons. Mukunda's jingoistic interpretation of the American ideal obscures this quest for truth and limits it to the American sphere of intellectual tradition. Martin Luther King drew lessons from Ghandi as well as Lincoln, yet this does not require that everyone study Indian history. Mukunda's misplaced emphasis on the unique and especially worthy moral truth of America's ideals contributes to the nationalistic and isolationist, "intellectual" climate in this country, lending credence to irresponsible foreign policy decisions.

Moreover, why do Harvard students especially bear the burden of studying American history? Why force a physics major to name the dates of the Civil War when she may have no interest at all in the subject matter? We face enough requirements as it is, and most students have a pretty good background in the history of America. Even if every student doesn't, however, the same philosophy that Mukunda uses to justify an American history requirement can be used to justify studies in philosophy, ethics, classics, economics, or any other discipline that "would be nice" for students to know. Ultimately, America is about letting people make their own choices, and here at Harvard we can most respect that ideal by studying what interests or benefits us most.

MATTHEW STOLLARS '00

September 28, 1998