Loewen: Chapter 13

Reflection:

"If knowledge is power, ignorance cannot be bliss."
                                                                                – Loewen, 342

      We have made it to the end of this book, and we finally find out the answer to the problem of bad history, and it is:...ask more questions. I was really hoping for a more definitive ending after we had been taken through 12 chapters of critiquing and finger-pointing social studies and textbooks. I really wanted a concluding action plan, so I read the afterward only to be told to ask five questions: when and why was something written, whose viewpoint is presented, is the account believable, is it backed up by other sources, and how is one supposed to feel about the America that was presented?
     The best point, in my opinion, that he brings up is that emotion is the glue that causes history to stick. We remember most vividly things that emotionally affected us, ie., 9/11, fights with friends, etc. So, in the end, my practical take-away question is, "How can I get my students' emotions involved?" Apparently, it will be different for varying personalities, socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicities, etc. As a teacher, part of my responsibility is to assess how to get each of my students emotions involved in our studies. Not an easy, one-size-fits-all task!

Japanese atomic bomb victim

Source: http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120618212214/fallout/images/8/83/Japanese-atomic-bomb-victims-47.jpg

Big Question: Loewen says history textbooks are too big already (and they are), how can we teach more in-depth when we cannot even cover all the material we need to as it is?

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJMf1Y9GBrA&feature=related
     This video could be used to expose students real people from a different viewpoint to give a broader understanding of peoples American experiences.

Loewen: Chapter 12

Reflection:

"When you're publishing a book, if there's something that's controversial, it's better to take it out."
                                                                                                    --Holt, Reinhart, and Winston Representative

"One person's point of view is another's ax to grind, so textbooks end up without axes or points of view."
                                                                                           – Loewen, 314

      In this penultimate chapter, Loewen asks the question, "Why is history taught like this?" He enlightens his readers regarding outside influences on the book publishers.  Publishers write for several audiences: students, historians, professors of education, teachers, parents, and textbook adoption boards. Though books are intended for the first on this list, in practice, they are written for the last. It's obvious when considered, textbook publishers are in business to make a profit, the more books they sell the greater the profit. How can they sell more books? by being adopted in the states as the official classroom textbook. The two biggest markets for textbook adoption are California and Texas, the choice is obvious, given the choice to appease let's say Texas or Rhode Island, the publishers will acquiesce to the demands of Texas' adoption board. So, in answer to the opening question–history is taught like this because of money.
      I can understand the publishers wanting to make a profit. I can empathize with parents and teachers having specific things they desire in a text. What perplexed me was finding out that there are historians who rent out their names to publishers for royalties! How can a professional lower him/herself to this standard?! Not only is this unethical, it seems illegal. In college, if I write a paper and my colleague submits it to the professor with his name on it, that is considered criminal. This brings up another point, that of plagiarism.
     Loewen has documented and shown examples of text in competing textbooks that are nearly identical. How did they end up with the same material? Did one copy another, or did they both copy from another source? As well, why have there been no lawsuits? This issue of plagiarism is concerning and needs to be addressed.

Big Question: If our school textbooks are plagiarizing and our textbook adoption boards are allowing it, how can we hold our students to the highest ethical levels in their work?

Source: http://www.craftsforlearning.com/images/TexasTextBookCartoon.gif

Link: http://www.texastextbooks.org/

     Website for the Texas curriculum

Loewen: Chapter 10 and Cantù: Chapter 9

Reflection:

 “It has been recognized since the founding of the nation that education has a civic mission: to prepare informed, rational, humane, and participating citizens committed to the values and principles of American constitutional democracy.” 

                                                                        

 ––preface to the National Standards for Civics and Government

"It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic."                                            

  ––Alexis de Tocqueville 

      Chapter nine of Cantù's book focuses on investigating the goals of civic education and is replete 

with yet more websites and links to helpful web material for the modern social studies teacher. The

introduction starts off with this quote from Thomas Jefferson that informs the understanding of social 

studies education: 
          I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people 
          themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with 
          a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their
          discretion.
Jefferson's ideology runs deep throughout modern American education: people, given the right information and the choice, will ultimately make the right choices and be able to govern themselves. Ergo, the key is teaching. 
     I do not wholly subscribe to this line of thought. It is not my observation in life, nor in the study of history, that people as a whole are rational creatures. For example, how can one explain the vices to which people are prone such as: drinking, smoking, drugs, and sexual promiscuity to name a few given the known dangers associated with these activities. A person fully motivated by rationale motives would understand that smoking leads to cancer, excessive drinking to cirrhosis, drugs to a multiplicity of problems mentally, socially, and physically, and sexual promiscuity to disease and pregnancy, yet "rational" people continue engage in these practices. I do believe that education is a part of making good decisions, but I do not believe it is the panacea.

Big Question: If education truly is the foundation to a stable democracy, why is it not fully funded and encouraged for all citizens?

Source: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/c0.119.403.403/p403x403/589_452145054823736_827897166_n.jpg

Link: http://www.worldology.com/Europe/enlightenment_imap.htm

     The ideas of the Founding Fathers are steeped in Enlightenment thinking, this site is a good interactive for the Age of Enlightenment.

Reflection: 

"We see things not as they are but as we are."

––Anaïs Nin

     In chapter ten of Lies, Loewen writes about the disappearance of the recent past. He describes three divisions of people in African culture: those living, those recently deceased (sasha), and those deceased long ago (zamani). Those more recently deceased, the sasha, he terms the "living-dead". By this he means that a person has died, but they live on in the memory of those still living who remember them personally. Several reasons given for the lack of "living-dead" in modern school textbooks are: lack of courage to write about them while they can be challenged by other people, lack of time in classes to cover older material and newer, and because textbooks are tertiary sources, not enough secondary sources have yet been written. 
     Last week I was scanning a textbook at Quest Charter Academy and I definitely noticed what Loewen was talking about. The majority of text ended with World War Two, everything from there on grew increasingly terse and hurried. In my opinion, the main reason not much attention is given to most recent history is because frankly, this material is not included in teaching standards or standardized tests. The majority of testing is on older history, or those in the category of zamani, not the sasha.
    The biggest take-away from this chapter is the international good-guy image we have of our country. Since we do not delve deeply into studies of the more recent past, we do not understand some of the modern problems we have, and why we are perceived the way we are globally. For example, the majority of students have no understanding of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in 1979, how we trained and funded and used Osama bin Laden and rebel forces to fight a proxy war with Russia. So, in 2001 when bin Laden bombed the twin towers, most Americans had no idea why, and were left to assume. Instead of being able to understand our mistakes in history, we merely blamed Osama and Muslims for this "rogue" attack. A lesson in sasha history would have gone a long way in understanding 9/11.

Big Question: Given the limited class time and material that needs to be covered, how can recent history be given its proper place in school curricula?

Source: http://i.qkme.me/35swzx.jpg

Link: http://www.timeforkids.com/

     Time site that has video, articles, and photos for kids to interact with current and recent events.

Loewen: Chapter 6

Reflection:

"The insanity with which historians have charged John Brown was never psychological. It was ideological."                                                   – Loewen

"Ideas are more important than battles."
                                                                       – Charles Sumner, 1865, abolitionist senator

        In chapter six, Loewen continues his analysis of history in school textbooks. This chapter specifically looks at the typical historical treatment of John Brown and Abraham Lincoln. John Brown is generally portrayed as a fanatic, "deranged," "gaunt," "grim," and "terrible." Loewen purports that historians charge of his "insanity" is not psychological, but ideological. (Loewen, 177) To the degree that John Brown is controversial, Abraham Lincoln is unchallengeable. Lincoln's words and actions are  portrayed as sound and pure.
     Let's reconsider some of the words used to describe John Brown the "extremist" and run them through what Loewen calls the "Walt Disney interpretation" to describe "Honest Abe". If people say that Brown was a fanatic, they might say that Lincoln was passionate. He would not be deranged, but single-minded for his cause. Lincoln was very thin, perhaps gaunt, but let's call him bony. If Brown was grim, Lincoln was steely. Not terrible, but shocking. What are they really describing here, these mens emotional constitution or their ideology? The author argues it is their ideology.
     My biggest take-away from this chapter is that ideas are more important than actions. Yet, typically, history has been stripped down to actions not ideas. What happened in 1492? Columbus set sail, but why? What was his ideological motivation? I applied this line of thinking to Loewen's argument that a majority of textbooks do not include the text of the Gettysburg address, or they do ever so briefly. One of the most important speeches in American history and students cannot read it. If they do read parts of it, the ideology of the one who spoke it is not discussed. Here we are, stranded, looking "at the battle" and not the idea. The battle here is the what. The idea is the why. Once again we see it is much cleaner to share bland, non-arguable facts rather than to pollute the stream of content with messy ideologies and questionable convictions!
 
Big Question: How has historical content been influenced by: political correctness, racism, and bias? As a secondary teacher, how can we make anti-racism visible in our classrooms?

Source: http://knowgoodwhitepeople.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/calling-a-few-adventurous-anti-racists/#comments

Link: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

     This interactive site is about the topic of race. My intention in visiting this site is that students would better comprehend racism and anti racism to gain a greater understanding of the ideological motivations in race relations.

Loewen: Chapter 5

Reflection:

"Race is our 'American obsession'"                                   – Studs Terkel

"Mr. Jefferson's remarks respecting us have sunk deep into the hearts of millions of whites, and never will be removed this side of eternity."
                                                                                          – David Walker, 1829

"What is identified as the problem determines the frame of rhetoric and solutions sought."
                                                                                         – James Loewen


    Gone With the Wind, we watched that film in our 7th grade history class. It was long, but we thought it was great, perhaps not because of the content but the freedom from class lecture. We got to eat snacks to boot! Little did we know while eating Cheese-its and Handy-Snaks we were also ingesting the Magnolia myth, and the Confederate myth of Reconstruction. I think Loewen does not overstate when he writes, "The struggle over racial slavery may be the predominant theme in American history."(Loewen, 137) Slavery may be finished in our land, but what of the mindset that allowed and even approved of slavery?
     The terms 'social structure' and 'superstructure' are introduced in chapter five. Slavery as the social structure has been abolished, but the superstructure of white superiority and black inferiority is still alive and well in many places! Racism still manacles the 'inferior' black person politically, socially, economically, and mentally. How will racism be abolished? How do we dismantle the superstructure of white superiority in America?
     The author of the book proclaims that in his survey of modern history textbooks, not one of them connected history and racism. Instead of exposing racism, textbooks model it! (Loewen, 145) In this point, Loewen is really starting to hit close to home. The issue of Columbus and the discovery of America is important, but not in people's daily lives. The issues concerning our treatment of and history with native Americans hits closer, yet most Americans are still not confronted with American indians on a regular basis. But, this last issue of black/white history and race relations hits home for almost all Americans. If we are not in contact with African Americans in some way, it is most likely because of our own choosing, precipitated by racist thinking.
     As a white American, I have had African American friends tell me that they still feel prejudice and oppression. At first, I thought they were being oversensitive. They told me that I could not see it because I was in the majority, and was not experiencing prejudice. Over time, I have become more aware and begun to notice at times the manner and ways in which I have been received by people and the way my African American friends have been treated by the same people. Yet, I also noticed that my friends were not always themselves around certain people either. It's as if the prejudice of some people causes others to react in the way they expected.
     I am a product of mainstream American education, and I did not see my own prejudice. Because racism is made invisible in history, those in the majority don't notice it, or worse, believe that it exists today. We, white Americans, only see the social structure and say, "Hey man, slavery is abolished, get over it!" Yet, the African American population and other minorities are still experiencing and feeling the affects of the superstructure which is still in place. What a mess we have inherited! :(
   
   

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Freedman's_bureau.jpg

Big Question: In what ways has the superstructure of American culture been formed by Thomas Jefferson and other early founder's words and actions? If what is identified as the problem determines the frame of rhetoric and thought, how do we teach our students and ourselves to identify the correct problems?

Link: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/neh/interactives/reconstruction/

     This site is an interactive page split into two parts, the South before Reconstruction and the South after Reconstruction.

Loewen: Chapter 4

Reflection:

"Old myths never die––they just become embedded in textbooks"
                                                                                    –– Thomas Bailey

"In the fateful year 1492, probably no more than 4 million Native Americans padded through the whispering, primeval forests and paddled across the sparkling virgin waters of North America."
                                                                                     –– Excerpt from The American Pageant

     In this chapter, Loewen turns a corner in his argument. Not only are textbooks telling half-truths and misinformation, many times they are continuing the mis-history even when it has been clearly shown to be wrong. The excerpt I quoted above is a clear case of this; the author states that this information was shown to be false when it was first written in 1956. He estimates that there were well over 20 million Indians in North America alone. As well, most Indians in the time of Columbus were farmers. So, why are these stories continued? Upon reflection, I believe Loewen hits on several key reasons. I will share on two of them.
     First, the author wrote, "Textbook authors still write history to comfort descendants of the "settlers" (Loewen, 95). I think this is an interesting idea that seems true from my experience with textbooks. I will keep this in mind as I review textbooks in the future. What he means by this is that the way stories and "history" is presented is with a view to make white Americans feel better about themselves. I feel bad to say, but when I read the escaped slave notice on page 103, I felt sympathy for the slave-owner and a twinge of annoyance with the enslaved Indian. When the slave owner wrote that his slave had a guilty countenance, I immediately had a visual of a typical indian from many older movies. Yet, what would an American Indian feel if he read this in a textbook. How would he/she feel if this topic were coldly and unemotionally discussed in a school classroom. Most likely, the American Indian would go away red-eyed, and the white American would go away cross-eyed!
     Second, Loewen wrote, "All of the textbooks are locked into the old savage-to barbaric-to-civilized schools of anthology dating back to L.H. Morgan and Karl Marx." This has been something I have noticed and been frustrated about for several years. I was surprised to find out that this is Marxist thinking; and equally surprised to see how modern this view is yet how pervasive it is in academia. In America we have historically resisted Communism and Marxist thought, yet this way of thought does not seem to have been challenged in American education.
     I feel that this kind of thought is strongly influenced by evolutionary theory. If evolution is true, than it would make sense that earlier people were ignorant, crude, and less humane than today. In this case, the savage-to barbaric-to-civilized model makes perfect sense. Yet, if there is another explanation, such as humans having been created by God, then it could be possible to think that in the distant past people might have been smarter and more advanced than today. Without making a definitive statement on this issue, I believe as educators we need to offer up more than one viewpoint and let the students work through them. This leads to my final thought of not making history so neat and clean with THE right answer given.
     I really like Loewen's call for giving students multiple theories, and letting them do the research to seek out truth. This is a perfect intersection between this book and teaching history! We need to spark the fires of interest in our students for ferreting out answers for themselves. So, in the case of American Indians, I would like to start with the present and work backwards, seeking to understand real historical Indians. I would like to have the class pick one modern Indian tribe, research about them, then work backwards: how did they arrive where they are, what is their history, what has been their historical interaction with the U.S. government, what is the earliest known story in their culture, etc. If possible, I would want my students to be able to talk with real Native Americans and hear their story. We could use Skype, e-mail, video, or a field trip. Why do this? I believe that the only way to truly know and understand another is to talk with them.

Big Question: How can we as social study teachers effectively remove old myths and promote real history in the short amount of time that we have with our students?

                                     http://media.photobucket.com/image/Native+Americans+/chitownladyj/Native%20American%20Indian/Native%20American%20Political/native-americans-fighting-terrorism.gif

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg310/Mayberry_08/COLONELHARVEY.jpg

Link:http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/multimedia/series/VideoStories/joseph-bruchac.aspx

     This site is an interactive way to learn more about Native Americans through video, story, and music.

   

Loewen: Chapter 2

Reflection:

"In fourteen hundred ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue"               ---Anonymous

"In fourteen hundred and ninety-three, Columbus stole all he could see"           --Bartolomé de las Casas

     Chapter two of Loewen's book, entitled The True Importance of Christopher Columbus, discusses further ways that the teaching of history is untruthful. Specifically in the common teaching about Christopher Columbus, he is regarded as a hero, a bold discover who found the "new land", one who was an innovative thinker (i.e. the earth is NOT flat, and he was going to find a new path to the Indies), and one who was a christian taking truth and light to savage lands. Yet, the untold facts are that he was not a kind person, he enslaved natives, stole land, harshly punished "offenders", and was primarily motivated by greed. Why have these facts been neglected? What are we trying to avoid, or perhaps what are we trying to advance through our historical telling? 

     The author asks a poignant question on page 37, "If crude factors such as military power or religiously sanctioned greed are perceived as reflecting baly on us, who exactly is 'us'?" Are we attempting to understand history, or are we attempting to provide and bolster a certain national identity? How would the real teaching about Columbus affect our nation, or our perception in the worlds eyes. I think white Americans would be shocked and offended. I think minorities and other nations would be shocked but in another way. I think they would be shocked by our honesty, and actually have more respect for this country. As well, white Americans could actually begin to see the world more like minorities and underprivileged people do, we might become more humble and more sensitive.

     I was very surprised, even as a history major, to discover how little I truly new of the "Discoverer"! I was unaware that Columbus was so brutal and apparently money driven. As well, I was surprised to see the long list of ante-Columbian explorers to America.
     As well, more and more I am beginning to recognize Eurocentrism in American history. For example we all learned about the renaissance in middle school. Supposedly Europeans began to be awakened to Roman and Greek culture and the arts, politics, and religion all experienced a rebirth. Yet, it was not until college that I learned how the Europeans were exposed to the Greek writings, through Muslim interpretations from Greek to Arabic to Latin! Wow! So we owe in part our Renaissance to the Muslims?! That changes things. Especially in todays world, how could this kind of information facilitate and forward Muslim/American relations? The emphasis is clearly on the "brilliance" and innovation of the Europeans leading to their own rebirth, while the impetus to that renaissance is neglected. Eurocentric!

Big Question: What really drives the narrative of education in America, and how can we extricate ourselves from the quagmire of traditional history to clearly see and tell the stories?

Link: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/columbus-makes-landfall/
 
     This short video shares the story of Columbus' arrival to the "new land". It is rather cliché, thought the end alludes to the real motivations why he was there. Could be a great discussion starter afterwards to discuss his motivations in exploration, etc.

Loewen: Intro & Chapter 1

Reflection:

"People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant."                                                                                                                                                  – Helen Keller, (Loewen, 28)


     What a fitting quote from this weeks readings to start my reflective blog with, for this is exactly what is required to complete these assignments. Though I would adapt this quote for the classroom something like this: People do not like to read. If one reads, they must think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. From the very beginning of this book, Lies My Teacher Told Me, I can see this will not be another boring history book. Loewen's quote made me chuckle when he wrote, "Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat the eleventh grade" (Loewen, 1).
     This idea of heroism has had me thinking all day. Is neglecting to give known negative information any better or worse than embellishing and adding to known truth? Are larger than life, flawless heroes actually more inspiring than those who are more realistic and flawed? When Loewen makes the point that students tend to think that historical figures are boring, I believe it must be because they have never really known them or about them.
     Even as a history student, I was unaware of much of Hellen Keller's later life. The fact that she was a staunch socialist, and supporter of communism makes me wince a bit. On top of that, to hear more details about Woodrow Wilson and his anti-communist, colonialist, racist ideas and actions made me realize that in reality, politics have not really changed much over the past century. The clincher for me is the thought that the way Hellen Keller and Woodrow Wilson are typically taught would appear to make them contemporaries who may have been friends, gone to similar cocktail parties, and been shining models to the nation. Yet, in reality, knowing more information about them, it struck me, they were contemporaries, but they did not get on well together. The mis-information that has been generally taught has not allowed the student 100 years later to rightly understand the historical reality. If this is missed, what is the point?! What lessons can be learned? What applications can be made today? What is the relevance? Suddenly, I sound like a typical high-school student again...

Big Question: In real life, we all have unseemly parts of our lives that we do not share with everyone, does this negate the real good we may do or success we may attain? In history then, is omission of certain unseemly parts of a persons life negate their status as a hero?

Link: http://www.woodrowwilson.org/

          Search around this site and try to find any evidence of his war invasions in Nicaragua or Russia, or anything negative at all about his life.