Bufus

I am a non-American with a Master's Degree in American History, so I can try to give you a legitimate answer.

First, I would note this: the study of history is in many ways the study of "conflict", whether political, social, diplomatic, cultural, etc. Even someone studying something seemingly fun and easy like, for instance, the history of fast food, is going to be looking for conflict, because that is where there is room for analysis. Facades don't start to crack until there is conflict. Now, conflict is by definition an adversarial process, meaning that there will be "winners" and "losers". What this means is that history generally has a fairly "negative" twinge to it, even at its most basic level.

However, I don't think that is really what you are talking about....

Yes, I would say as a rule that academic history is a pretty "negative" field. I would also say that history as a whole is pretty "leftist" (with some huge exceptions). I don't think this is a "hip fad" though; the reason for this is fairly simple....

Just as studying history is about looking for conflicts, writing history is also in part about "creating conflict". What I mean is this: no historian wants to write something that simply confirms the way we currently think about things. No one wants to write a book that says "how we currently think about Watergate: 100% accurate, and here is why". Historians want to upset the applecart. They want to change our minds about something. That is inherently conflictual.

Now, the thing that historians deep down really want to do is to change how society thinks about things. They don't just want to convince other lefty academics, they want to make REGULAR PEOPLE rethink their world. This is where the BIG CONFLICT in history is.

You see, while "academic history" is pretty leftist, "popular history" (i.e. the way that regular people interact with history) is very conservative and patriotic. Sure, regular people might be aware that there were a few 'dark days" here and there in American history, but in general they think "America is great, and have done so much for the world!" See, the USA still to this day has all sorts of prevailing narratives about freedom, liberty, the American dream, heroism, equality, etc. These narratives still persist in the American consciousness in a big way.

So this is the situation: we have a bunch of historians who want to change how people see things, and we have a general public who see history through the lens of these positive, patriotic narratives. The result of this combination: NEGATIVE HISTORY.

If I am a historian writing a paper, I don't want to write about a time when Americans were really patriotic or where equality was demonstrated. NO! We know that there are examples because they have been DRUMMED INTO OUR HEADS for decades. I don't want to spend hundreds of hours of painstaking reserach to just confirm these already present narratives. Where is the fun in that?

No, what I want to do is CHALLENGE those prevailing narratives. "You think America is a land of freedom and equality? Ha! Look at all the ways that black people have been subjugated for centuries!" "You think the American Dream is REAL!? Well here is an economic breakdown of the lack of class mobility over the last 200 years!" And guess what: there is an awful lot of negative American history you can draw on to disprove these narratives.

You see, despite what I have suggested so far, historians don't just see these "narratives" as a challenge to be overcome for their own sake. Historians see these narratives as a threat. For historians, the prevailing idea that America is a "land of the free" is not just wrong, it is used to cover up a lot of bad things that America does. These narratives often act as a shield for wrongdoing, and historians see it as their duty to uncover the roots of these narratives in order to expose the truth, and force society to have a discussion about what something like "the land of the free" really means. This is the case in a lot of societies that rely on "narratives" in this way.

The reason that "Negative History" seems so pronounced in the United States compared to other countries (although it still exists in other countries) is that the American Right still weaponizes and uses "history" to such an extreme degree that historians feel all the more reason to attack the country's history. For instance, the Republican Party still constantly references the Founding Fathers as justification for their policies. But like many aspects of American History, Republicans "canonize" the Founding Fathers, turning them from real historical figures into untouchable gods of virtue. So the counterreaction from historians (who, it turns out, really hate it when people do that) is to say "No no! These guys were assholes, and had flaws. Maybe we shouldn't listen to them as arbiters of good government!"

Anyway, the point is this: as long as the prevailing narratives in society about history are used to obfuscate the truth, and prevent society from really reckoning with their past in a meaningful way, then history as a discipline will remain fairly "negative". History as a discipline is about challenging narratives. It isn't a "hip trend" to attack America, it is just what is needed from historians right now.

Maybe your response is a function of the narrative that got drummed into your head...

Yep, kind of one of the subtexts of my whole post, actually. I am the first to admit that my thinking is guided by all sorts of narratives. In fact, a big part of modern historical training is learning to recognize your biases and recognizing the narratives that guide you and influence your perspective.

Modern historians have long since abandoned the notion that a historian can be "objective", in the sense that they are unclouded by bias or narrative. What most modern historians would say instead is: "my perspective on this issue is shaped by certain biases and narratives. By recognizing those influences, and acknowledging their presence in my work, I can provide a certain perspective on a subject, and give the reader a sense of where I am coming from."

The problem, and the point of my post, is when people simply accept their particular narratives as objective truth, rather than as a unique perspective. Many American citizens take their national narratives to be unassailable truths and so they refuse to really delve deep into what those narratives actually mean and how they are constituted. It is the lack of introspection that makes narratives dangerous. Narratives will always exist, but it is important to recognize them as narratives, not truths.

And I don't think people are "downing America", in the way you suggest. I think engaging with actual history and highlighting the history of oppression, racial struggle, etc. is exactly what makes America so great. Yes they are tragic, uncomfortable histories, but in trying to dissect them, and figure out "what went wrong", historians are trying to make America a better place for everyone moving forward. They aren't doing it to attack America, they are doing it so that America can REALLY look at itself and become better instead of just relying on lazy "rah rah" tropes that don't reflect the reality for many people. They are saying "no, despite what you think, America hasn't always been the land of the free, but it has been the land of people striving to be free." Maybe someday we will reach that, but only if people do some introspection.

As a follow up Canadian question...

Why are Archie comics so popular in Canada? Considering the very very "wholesome American" aesthetic of Archie, it seems very odd that Archie would be so popular here. Growing up in Canada, it seems that everyone read Archie comics and it seems less like that in the States (based on the few times I have been there).