What is progress? How exactly do we define it? Not only should we look at we value as progress, we should look at how others value it. After all, another man's trash is another man's treasure and in America, we sure do like to label others as "trash." Sure we don't call them trash, we use other adjectives: primitive, uncivilized, third-world country, etc.
In history classes, I was always under the impression that we were learning history to help us in the future, but I guess that was not the case, looking back. History is simply there to tell us the facts and for us to memorize the rights and wrongs that the country has decided upon, not for us to make our own inferences through multiple sources. America's long standing tale of history is a tale of progress. Textbooks stay on this even with issues that are obviously not progress by categorizing them under the umbrella of America working for the common good. We are often left oblivious to circumstances surrounding events. The rest of the world is left mocking us, and we never know why.
A few events that have gotten in the way of America's continual progress, as discussed by Loewen:
-Enviromentalism: textbooks typically imply that the environmental crisis was taken care of by the government; however, they fail to mention current issues that have continued past the government's initial reaction.
-Religion: President Lincoln was the last non-Christian to take office. Our society has become less tolerant even though we do not like to acknowledge this.
-Ignorance in past societies' lives has allowed us to believe that a longer life is part of progress; however, people of the America's lived very long lives before Europeans brought diseases, thus there is a fluctuation on the timeline.
If the textbook had its say, we would constantly be getting better in all aspects, "from race relations to transportation." I sure wish this was a reality, but there is always a demon and we must understand where it came from and why to understand the problem. In reality, what seems to be a problem to us, might not always be a problem to the rest of the world. With our self-centered ethnocentrism, we are less tolerant to other cultures and desire for everyone to fit into our mold. Teachers, we must challenge our students to think about history in order to make it relevant (aka not boring) to our students! Think of the possibilities of what your history class might look like if you take me up on this suggestion.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Our Disappearing Recent Past
In school, I always wondered why is such and such not covered in the social studies textbook, after all the event happened within my lifetime (for example, 9/11). Teachers always provided the answer that "we just haven't gotten new textbooks yet." After reading Loewen's Chapter 10, "Down the Memory Hole: The Disappearance of Recent Past," it becomes apparent that although the publishing date of a text determines the current topic it covers; however, the more current a topic is, the less controversial it becomes...or at least in a textbook.
Teachers are often stressed about teaching social studies because of the chance of offending students' parents different viewpoints. This especially applies when talking about current events. Teachers, students, and parents often have varying views on current policies, therefore, leaving it too controversial to cover, so it is often tiptoed around or skipped completely. Readers are able to bring their own knowledge to the text and form their own opinion. (Being a teacher, isn't one of the first things we learn about reading strategies, is activating prior knowledge?...I think this could be key in engaging our students in past history and present events!)
Textbook authors as well as highly publicized government briefs would like us to believe that everything our country does is for the common good. If we are never challenged to think any differently, it can be hard to see anything else. This statement from the Pentagon, although released remains virtually unheard of in news reports and textbooks, "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies."Why is this left out? President Bush explained 9/11, as an act committed by people that hate americans, our freedoms, and our democracy. American people are little aware of the events that led up to 9/11 or our other wars fought within the Middle East. America is quick to put the blame on someone else to remain the "good guy" looking out for the common good. If we were to look at multiple stances and taught how to decipher them from textbooks, we might have a different outlook on how America should conduct itself; however, it can almost be seen as a textbook's job to help continue the complacent, positive, ethnocentric country. Americans become unable to understand why others are unhappy with us.
Authors claim that historians will understand the period once many years have passed, and we are detached. Therefore, simply mere basic "facts" are told in a monotone, historical tone asking students to memorize the information. What good is memorization if we cannot apply our knowledge to the current? If the passage of time is the textbook's defense to not providing multiple views on an issue, it does not change overtime, in fact, perspective is lost. Things do not have to be presented in a matter of fact manner, but instead authors could present the material as this is the information we currently have and allow students to analyze it and research it further. In the present, we have much more access to materials that are available then possibly losing them in the future. Events are often portrayed by the view of a particular social practice of the time that determines the historical perspective presented. (For example, until after the Civil Right's Movement, Reconstruction was portrayed from the viewpoint of "Negro domination." Following the change in social practice, textbooks revised their perspective on Reconstruction.
By censoring the information that we are receiving, textbooks, teachers, and the government are not allowing us to become true critical thinkers. The material is out there telling the whole story of various aspects of American history, so even if the textbooks leave out the material, teachers can still present students with primary sources that will probably be more revealing than the textbook's tertiary source, especially with history of our recent past. Students will learn much more this way on how to be an effective American citizen as opposed to a complacent, non-questioning citizen.
Teachers are often stressed about teaching social studies because of the chance of offending students' parents different viewpoints. This especially applies when talking about current events. Teachers, students, and parents often have varying views on current policies, therefore, leaving it too controversial to cover, so it is often tiptoed around or skipped completely. Readers are able to bring their own knowledge to the text and form their own opinion. (Being a teacher, isn't one of the first things we learn about reading strategies, is activating prior knowledge?...I think this could be key in engaging our students in past history and present events!)
Textbook authors as well as highly publicized government briefs would like us to believe that everything our country does is for the common good. If we are never challenged to think any differently, it can be hard to see anything else. This statement from the Pentagon, although released remains virtually unheard of in news reports and textbooks, "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies."Why is this left out? President Bush explained 9/11, as an act committed by people that hate americans, our freedoms, and our democracy. American people are little aware of the events that led up to 9/11 or our other wars fought within the Middle East. America is quick to put the blame on someone else to remain the "good guy" looking out for the common good. If we were to look at multiple stances and taught how to decipher them from textbooks, we might have a different outlook on how America should conduct itself; however, it can almost be seen as a textbook's job to help continue the complacent, positive, ethnocentric country. Americans become unable to understand why others are unhappy with us.
Authors claim that historians will understand the period once many years have passed, and we are detached. Therefore, simply mere basic "facts" are told in a monotone, historical tone asking students to memorize the information. What good is memorization if we cannot apply our knowledge to the current? If the passage of time is the textbook's defense to not providing multiple views on an issue, it does not change overtime, in fact, perspective is lost. Things do not have to be presented in a matter of fact manner, but instead authors could present the material as this is the information we currently have and allow students to analyze it and research it further. In the present, we have much more access to materials that are available then possibly losing them in the future. Events are often portrayed by the view of a particular social practice of the time that determines the historical perspective presented. (For example, until after the Civil Right's Movement, Reconstruction was portrayed from the viewpoint of "Negro domination." Following the change in social practice, textbooks revised their perspective on Reconstruction.
By censoring the information that we are receiving, textbooks, teachers, and the government are not allowing us to become true critical thinkers. The material is out there telling the whole story of various aspects of American history, so even if the textbooks leave out the material, teachers can still present students with primary sources that will probably be more revealing than the textbook's tertiary source, especially with history of our recent past. Students will learn much more this way on how to be an effective American citizen as opposed to a complacent, non-questioning citizen.
What Really Happened in Vietnam: What Our Textbooks Do Not Want Us to Know.
Who chooses what information sticks in students' memory for a lifetime? My guess, textbooks and of course, actually living through an event. Textbooks glorification of American "good" overshadows any controversy in American history. It becomes all too easy to overlook the items that are glazed over due to controversy because the authors do not put emphasis on the events, instead they focus on less important details of history. For example, the Vietnam War is widely unknown by students today due to textbooks' descriptions that eliminate any vivid detail or discussion. It is not only the text that the authors choose to censor; the images are chosen as uncontroversial, not for their historical impact. In my freshman English class, I chose to write a research paper on the protests against the Vietnam War due to my lack of knowledge on the topic. It was one of the most interesting paper topics that I have written on; it even got submitted to a textbook!-Should this not alert us to something very telling about our students? If students are engaged and find a topic interesting, aren't they more likely to work harder (without event thinking about it)? So, why shelter students, sure it might cause students to question things, but that's what supposed to make our country so great-being part of a democracy. Back to my paper topic, while researching, I encountered the same pictures that Loewen presented in the text that have been eliminated from textbooks due to the controversial nature of the picture; however, these are pictures of war; they are a reality; the students should see all sides to the nature of war, not be sheltered, hence stunting true learning. The pictures I encountered and the first hand accounts that I read have left a burning impression of the war in my mind just as it did with Americans that lived through the War.
"Watching Big Brother"
Textbooks teach us that our government is the "people's servant, manageable and tractable." By portraying the federal government in this way, textbooks manage to "underplay the role of non governmental institutions or private citizens in bringing about improvements in the environment, race relations, education, and other social issues." We want to see the nation as a hero, not doing anything wrong. If the federal government does something wrong, textbooks would like us to believe that we were misunderstood or we misunderstood the situation. It is much easier to live in a state that is free from errors and always strives to be the good guy, but what if this is not the case? Should we believe it to remain complacent, or should we truly study our history and events to analyze WHY we make the decisions we make?
The United States foreign policy is never far from controversy even in today's world. Current Americans see and question what we are seeing our government do in other countries; however, what will our children think 20 years from now? Will they think all Americans agree with our policies; will they believe that there was just one, simple explanation for our actions, or will they see the governments actions as multifaceted and see the need to look deeper? This is not likely; after all, they didn't live through the event just as we didn't live through Vietnam, making our judgements of Vietnam based on the textbook's viewpoint that we were taught from in school; they are likely to do the same with the U.S.'s current foreign policies. Textbooks typically leave out underlying issues that affect foreign policy, for example multinationals, who influence policy through their desire for economic gain in a country. Scary, right? Textbooks often leave out statements such as, all "the people in charge of U.S. foreign policy were on the Rockerfeller family payroll," surely this causes some type of conflict of interest, and readers should made aware of these alternative motivations. However, textbooks steer clear of portraying the government in any sort of controversial light, instead they present the policies as a "rational humanitarian response" without exploring the issues surrounding a policy or without questioning the government's response decision.
Let's not ignore the government's actions; instead, let's REALLY look at them. For example, what really is our executive branch and federal agencies doing in the rest of the world? We are aware that the CIA goes into other nations "secure" our safety. However, when I visited the National Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. this summer, I learned about incidents that my textbooks or teachers left out while I was in school, for example, the hostage situation in Iran in the 1970s. Ironically enough, they are about to release a movie on the crisis. Doesn't this raise the question that true history interests Americans more than the "boring" history that so many students complain about? The executive branch has historically engaged in secretive, covert action. Can this still be considered a part of a democracy if the American people have no way of knowing the government's actions to oppose them? I think not. These policies are shortsighted and abandon the American people for alternative gain and simply blaming national security as the culprit.
The questions our textbooks should answer is why was national security at risk; does it justify the nation's actions; what could have been done differently; how did the policy affect relationships abroad and in the nation? If these questions cannot be adequately answered, it may be necessary to research further to understand the historical event. Teachers should take note to this: if the textbooks are not going to present all the facts, there are other resources out there. Use primary sources, then students can interpret information straight from the horse's mouth, instead of summarized, revised information.
I may have guessed some of the foreign policies, but some the internal policies, frankly, blew me away. The FBI and Presidents allowed for many of the injustices against African Americans to be committed. I guess I knew some of that from watching shows on television but definitely not from my textbook. I knew there was racism within the federal government, but I did not realize at the level they went to perpetuate segregation. The FBI spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. through bugging; they used their information to blackmail the civil right's leader. What is most troubling is that the FBI failed to alert the leader of death threats that they considered serious. The U.S. federal government is credited with the end of the Civil Right's Movement by textbooks, sure they mention historical figures, such as Dr. King, now, but that doesn't stop them from glorifying the government's role in ending segregation. The government, eventually, did pass laws that would benefit the civil right's movement; however, this is far from the whole story, and the American people have a right to know all of it.
The United States foreign policy is never far from controversy even in today's world. Current Americans see and question what we are seeing our government do in other countries; however, what will our children think 20 years from now? Will they think all Americans agree with our policies; will they believe that there was just one, simple explanation for our actions, or will they see the governments actions as multifaceted and see the need to look deeper? This is not likely; after all, they didn't live through the event just as we didn't live through Vietnam, making our judgements of Vietnam based on the textbook's viewpoint that we were taught from in school; they are likely to do the same with the U.S.'s current foreign policies. Textbooks typically leave out underlying issues that affect foreign policy, for example multinationals, who influence policy through their desire for economic gain in a country. Scary, right? Textbooks often leave out statements such as, all "the people in charge of U.S. foreign policy were on the Rockerfeller family payroll," surely this causes some type of conflict of interest, and readers should made aware of these alternative motivations. However, textbooks steer clear of portraying the government in any sort of controversial light, instead they present the policies as a "rational humanitarian response" without exploring the issues surrounding a policy or without questioning the government's response decision.
Let's not ignore the government's actions; instead, let's REALLY look at them. For example, what really is our executive branch and federal agencies doing in the rest of the world? We are aware that the CIA goes into other nations "secure" our safety. However, when I visited the National Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. this summer, I learned about incidents that my textbooks or teachers left out while I was in school, for example, the hostage situation in Iran in the 1970s. Ironically enough, they are about to release a movie on the crisis. Doesn't this raise the question that true history interests Americans more than the "boring" history that so many students complain about? The executive branch has historically engaged in secretive, covert action. Can this still be considered a part of a democracy if the American people have no way of knowing the government's actions to oppose them? I think not. These policies are shortsighted and abandon the American people for alternative gain and simply blaming national security as the culprit.
The questions our textbooks should answer is why was national security at risk; does it justify the nation's actions; what could have been done differently; how did the policy affect relationships abroad and in the nation? If these questions cannot be adequately answered, it may be necessary to research further to understand the historical event. Teachers should take note to this: if the textbooks are not going to present all the facts, there are other resources out there. Use primary sources, then students can interpret information straight from the horse's mouth, instead of summarized, revised information.
I may have guessed some of the foreign policies, but some the internal policies, frankly, blew me away. The FBI and Presidents allowed for many of the injustices against African Americans to be committed. I guess I knew some of that from watching shows on television but definitely not from my textbook. I knew there was racism within the federal government, but I did not realize at the level they went to perpetuate segregation. The FBI spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. through bugging; they used their information to blackmail the civil right's leader. What is most troubling is that the FBI failed to alert the leader of death threats that they considered serious. The U.S. federal government is credited with the end of the Civil Right's Movement by textbooks, sure they mention historical figures, such as Dr. King, now, but that doesn't stop them from glorifying the government's role in ending segregation. The government, eventually, did pass laws that would benefit the civil right's movement; however, this is far from the whole story, and the American people have a right to know all of it.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Is America Really the Land of Opportunity?
From a young age, we have been indoctrinated that America is "the land of opportunity;" however, is this really the case? If we examine social structure, we find a different scenario that leaves us routinely stuck in the social class that we are born into.
Textbooks relay the notion that the middle class is the class is most. This is a dangerous assertion, by presenting this as fact, we leave room for students to feel alienated. Textbooks leave out that there are barriers and social injustices for those not born into a life of privilege. Most are not middle class in today's society; the median income has fallen steadily since 1967, but has fallen even more since President Reagan and Bush implemented greater tax breaks for the wealthy, which created an even larger social divide.
Business leaders blame poverty on the poor instead of the system. Labor leaders had an opposing view. Does it make one a bad person just because they were not born into the "perfect" American dream home? No, people with less money have less resources; therefore, they have less means to obtain something that is not within their immediate reach. This starts before a child is even born. Healthcare is a huge issue for those of poverty and cannot be understood by those of the upper/middle class. Unborn babies do not receive the prenatal care that affluent Americans do. They are born into their circumstances; they did not choose their life. However, when class systems are not given any acknowledgement in American history, past and present, we leave room for Americans to assume that what they grew up in is the norm, especially with the affluent group. The lower income group also have struggles because of the way the system is presented to them. They may feel as if they are alone and it is their fault that they are not successful. There are always variables; we just often choose to ignore them.
There are injustices everywhere. Schools, for example, are not always equipped equal resources depending on where a student may reside. Do textbooks ever ask students to research their socio-economic background of the area to find out why the distribution is unequal for some students?
Even though students may not realize it, they are being alienated and become disenchanted with learning, which leads to school drop outs, low attendance, etc. So instead of ignoring the problem, why not face it head on and quit turning a blind eye or blaming the victim? It may be easier to do these things, but the social structure will remain the same leaving the idea of American exceptionalism perpetuated.
Textbooks relay the notion that the middle class is the class is most. This is a dangerous assertion, by presenting this as fact, we leave room for students to feel alienated. Textbooks leave out that there are barriers and social injustices for those not born into a life of privilege. Most are not middle class in today's society; the median income has fallen steadily since 1967, but has fallen even more since President Reagan and Bush implemented greater tax breaks for the wealthy, which created an even larger social divide.
Business leaders blame poverty on the poor instead of the system. Labor leaders had an opposing view. Does it make one a bad person just because they were not born into the "perfect" American dream home? No, people with less money have less resources; therefore, they have less means to obtain something that is not within their immediate reach. This starts before a child is even born. Healthcare is a huge issue for those of poverty and cannot be understood by those of the upper/middle class. Unborn babies do not receive the prenatal care that affluent Americans do. They are born into their circumstances; they did not choose their life. However, when class systems are not given any acknowledgement in American history, past and present, we leave room for Americans to assume that what they grew up in is the norm, especially with the affluent group. The lower income group also have struggles because of the way the system is presented to them. They may feel as if they are alone and it is their fault that they are not successful. There are always variables; we just often choose to ignore them.
There are injustices everywhere. Schools, for example, are not always equipped equal resources depending on where a student may reside. Do textbooks ever ask students to research their socio-economic background of the area to find out why the distribution is unequal for some students?
Even though students may not realize it, they are being alienated and become disenchanted with learning, which leads to school drop outs, low attendance, etc. So instead of ignoring the problem, why not face it head on and quit turning a blind eye or blaming the victim? It may be easier to do these things, but the social structure will remain the same leaving the idea of American exceptionalism perpetuated.
Antiracism's Invisibility
We may leave out aspects of racism in our texts, but we also leave out antiracism. It seems to me that textbook authors are trying to remain neutral to all sides of the issue and paint a perfect America by leaving out the gritty stuff.
There's no real drama or suspense in history books. (Maybe, the reason why students always complain that history is boring?!) Authors do choose to employ melodrama to exaggerate people's role in history; this can be seen in the heroification process.
Idealism is something that remains constant in being omitted from textbooks, in this case, the idealism is abolitionism. John Brown, a radical, white abolitionist was seen as intelligent man...until...wait for it....he took a stand against slavery! People labeled him as clearly mentally insane, although there is no evidence of this. In fact, when arrested for treason for his actions, he still clearly wrote in a sophisticated manner about his ideals up until his hanging. John Brown did take aggressive action to obtain his goals. However, through his armed action, other abolitionist verbal viewpoints became less radical. As other white Americans helped during the Civil Rights Movement, John Brown began to seem less "insane." Other Americans could be portrayed as a murderer, for example, Christopher Columbus, but our textbooks chose to create a hero instead.
President Lincoln's own internal conflict with racism has been left out of textbooks because then we would have to accept that it was a conflict even with the "normal," heroic Americans. Lincoln did have an epiphany that allowed for his future aspirations to obtain basic humanity for all. Even with his epiphany, he still struggled with issues internally, he investigated how feasible it was of deporting African Americans. Students sometimes are unaware of how political figures word their speeches to appeal to a particular group. President Lincoln did just that; he appealed to northern, white supremacists by vowing to save the union with or without slaves. However, in other accounts, such as the Gettysburg Address and off the record accounts, he came to claim his personal belief was for all to be free everywhere. Textbook authors often only use parts of various speeches that are taken out of context or do not include any of Lincoln's actual words. This is a problem. Readers are simply to take what the textbook tells them, instead of reading and interpreting primary sources for themselves.
After the war, the slavery in the Union states was not officially abolished; however, the people chose to abolish it due to the change of ideas and morale that had occurred during the war. Most telling was the Maryland election determining the end of slavery. The absentee ballots are what decided the election. Where did they come from? The white soldiers fighting along side the black soldiers on the side of the Union.
The Confederacy had a different ideological effect. During the war, they governed and fought under the law of the new Confederacy by capturing Northern blacks and placing them into slavery. However, the use of black soldiers allowed them to see that maybe they weren't lacking in abilities. This was important aspect of the war effort. The Union now had an advantage: they were mostly united on their ideology; however, the Confederacy stumbled with their own ideological confusion that resulted in their loss. Textbooks would like us to ignore the ideological background, instead they would like us to focus on identical people fighting "for the preservation of their rights and freedom to decide for themselves." This definition leaves room to miss that one side was fighting to end slavery and the other was fighting to perpetuate it.
Textbooks do a great job of leaving ideas out, so why would readers think they are of any importance? What exactly does it accomplish?
There's no real drama or suspense in history books. (Maybe, the reason why students always complain that history is boring?!) Authors do choose to employ melodrama to exaggerate people's role in history; this can be seen in the heroification process.
Idealism is something that remains constant in being omitted from textbooks, in this case, the idealism is abolitionism. John Brown, a radical, white abolitionist was seen as intelligent man...until...wait for it....he took a stand against slavery! People labeled him as clearly mentally insane, although there is no evidence of this. In fact, when arrested for treason for his actions, he still clearly wrote in a sophisticated manner about his ideals up until his hanging. John Brown did take aggressive action to obtain his goals. However, through his armed action, other abolitionist verbal viewpoints became less radical. As other white Americans helped during the Civil Rights Movement, John Brown began to seem less "insane." Other Americans could be portrayed as a murderer, for example, Christopher Columbus, but our textbooks chose to create a hero instead.
President Lincoln's own internal conflict with racism has been left out of textbooks because then we would have to accept that it was a conflict even with the "normal," heroic Americans. Lincoln did have an epiphany that allowed for his future aspirations to obtain basic humanity for all. Even with his epiphany, he still struggled with issues internally, he investigated how feasible it was of deporting African Americans. Students sometimes are unaware of how political figures word their speeches to appeal to a particular group. President Lincoln did just that; he appealed to northern, white supremacists by vowing to save the union with or without slaves. However, in other accounts, such as the Gettysburg Address and off the record accounts, he came to claim his personal belief was for all to be free everywhere. Textbook authors often only use parts of various speeches that are taken out of context or do not include any of Lincoln's actual words. This is a problem. Readers are simply to take what the textbook tells them, instead of reading and interpreting primary sources for themselves.
After the war, the slavery in the Union states was not officially abolished; however, the people chose to abolish it due to the change of ideas and morale that had occurred during the war. Most telling was the Maryland election determining the end of slavery. The absentee ballots are what decided the election. Where did they come from? The white soldiers fighting along side the black soldiers on the side of the Union.
The Confederacy had a different ideological effect. During the war, they governed and fought under the law of the new Confederacy by capturing Northern blacks and placing them into slavery. However, the use of black soldiers allowed them to see that maybe they weren't lacking in abilities. This was important aspect of the war effort. The Union now had an advantage: they were mostly united on their ideology; however, the Confederacy stumbled with their own ideological confusion that resulted in their loss. Textbooks would like us to ignore the ideological background, instead they would like us to focus on identical people fighting "for the preservation of their rights and freedom to decide for themselves." This definition leaves room to miss that one side was fighting to end slavery and the other was fighting to perpetuate it.
Textbooks do a great job of leaving ideas out, so why would readers think they are of any importance? What exactly does it accomplish?
Racism's Invisibility
I have discussed the implications of leaving races out of textbooks in previous posts. However, Loewen's Chapter 5, "Gone With the Wind" goes a step further to analyze just how racism is being left out and why it should not be.
Loewen states, "Race is the sharpest and deepest division in American life." So my question is, why are we ignoring the issue of racism? Surely, we all know it exists. Being born and raised in Mississippi, I was surrounded by reminders of our past, slavery and segregation. Although, I did not live to witness these events, I have lived through events that have made me question my fellow American citizens. In most recent times, we elected and recently reelected our first non-white president, which caused quite a stir. I was appalled to see that some people I knew were using derogatory terms of our past to refer to our President. Why would we use these terms from a shunned slavery and/or segregated past if there was not an underlying issue?--racism. Most people fret when they are accused of being racist, but if you attribute a quality (or in their reasoning, downfall) to a particular race, there is only one word for it-racism.
It is important to analyze what information textbooks choose to include, why they include it, and what they leave out and why? It is easiest to present racism as a flaw of the times and choose to represent the story as part of progress. However, history books fail to examine the flip flop nature of the United States' policies that hurt the path to equality.
First we must analyze, what causes racism? It stems from Native Americans' land being stripped of them and the enslaving of Africans. No one in their just mind would look at another human being and see them as a slave, but as the socioeconomic system developed so did the false stereotype. Whites had to justify their ideals for their own moral, so they began to "forget" all the viable information they had gained from Africans during the Renaissance, meanwhile they began classifying them as stupid and uncivilized and claiming that slavery would be for their benefit.
We all remember learning about slavery from as early as grade school, but textbooks carefully word passages to minimize the white complicity in it. Therefore, slavery is seen as a sad tragedy. I believe a lot of teachers perpetuate this because of the fear of causing conflict within their classroom amongst the races. Textbooks only like to mention those who made a positive contribution to our history through heroification; therefore, the less favorable characters of history are simply omitted or glazed over. Slavery not only occurred in the south, but also the north. Many are unaware of this fact due to omission. Famous Presidents, such as Jefferson owned 267 slaves at the time of his death, but historians leave this out or use pity as a man caught in the wrong time to describe his choices. They choose only to describe the good things he did. The upper class enjoyed the benefits of slave labor; they became very wealthy. Others admired their lifestyle, which increased the ideology of the justification of slavery. In many of our wars with the Native Americans, we omit the real reason for American intrusion, instead attributing it to obtaining land. However, runaway slaves often took refuge with the Natives, which uncovers the true reason for war.
The Civil War allowed for Union troops to fight side by side with African Americans for the same cause. This began to disenfranchise the notion that their race makes them less valuable and less intellectual. This brought great change to the morale and ideals of the American people; even in the South, people began to see slavery as inhumane. With the Confederacy's ideology of slavery beginning to waiver, the war would be lost.
Those that were accepting of the change began to help during the Reconstruction phase following the war. Some terms that are still used in textbooks carrying negative connotations are carpetbagger and scalawag. Why would we still ask students to memorize the definition for these words? We don't ask students to memorize the definition of other offensive terms? Why not call them the white Americans from the North (carpetbagger) and from the South (scalawag) that assisted the African Americans during the Reconstruction phase? Yet, textbooks attribute their reasoning to help the African Americans as greedy, but there was almost never financial gains or they were in unsafe conditions.
Textbooks discuss the terrible actions that were opposed upon black people, yet we still manage to minimize it, but how? During Reconstruction, in Hinds County, Mississippi, whites killed an average of one black person a day. That's a fact; how can you hide it? Well, you can't hide it, but you can make it VERY hard to infer through fact omission and textbook wording. Another issue that is left out is the inequality in the non-whites' education. If not dangerous to go to school, the educational resources were far from equal. African Americans who succeeded financially were often attacked by whites who wished to suppress them.
So we must ask ourselves, what was the real problem of reconstruction- the African Americans or the confederates? The answer is simple: the confederates. They held resistance to change and did not want to see the blacks prosper, thus hindering their ability to integrate into society.
The flip-flop of American policy began in 1890 during "the nadir of American race relations." During this period African Americans were restricted in their rights by people of the North and the South. Segregation became the law of the land. The Supreme Court held up segregation laws, such as "separate but equal." Things could never be separate and equal at the same time because if you are denying one's right to something then they are not receiving equal treatment. Through the cultural response, many of these became social norms. Presidents supported these types of laws; therefore, it perpetuated the American citizens viewpoint on racial segregation.
It is important that we examine racism through African Americans' viewpoint instead of the typical white viewpoint that is told in textbooks. If the same white viewpoint is continued, racism's true harm will never be fully understood because it will always be sugar coated. Loewen cited a startling study that found young white adults have the least tolerant viewpoints. He attributes this to the ignorance of American history. OF COURSE, if textbooks are glazing over racism and the young adults did not grow up when civil rights were stripped from African Americans, how could they understand? As teachers, isn't it our job to educate students on history and create relatable moments to the present. Racism fits perfectly here. It is still widely present in our society, just covered by the blanket to make America be the ideal nation. Not until we understand and fix the issue of racism, can we truly be the ideal nation.
I found this extremely interesting and eye opening from Loewen by examining how racism won in America after our reconstruction period as compared to Germany's own battle with Nazism. Their country moved forward, sure there are some people still subscribing to those viewpoints, but it did not continue in their future policies as it did in ours through segregation. Thus we must see the importance of explaining the causes of racism to provide our students with the power to understand why it is still present and what can be done in the future.
Loewen states, "Race is the sharpest and deepest division in American life." So my question is, why are we ignoring the issue of racism? Surely, we all know it exists. Being born and raised in Mississippi, I was surrounded by reminders of our past, slavery and segregation. Although, I did not live to witness these events, I have lived through events that have made me question my fellow American citizens. In most recent times, we elected and recently reelected our first non-white president, which caused quite a stir. I was appalled to see that some people I knew were using derogatory terms of our past to refer to our President. Why would we use these terms from a shunned slavery and/or segregated past if there was not an underlying issue?--racism. Most people fret when they are accused of being racist, but if you attribute a quality (or in their reasoning, downfall) to a particular race, there is only one word for it-racism.
It is important to analyze what information textbooks choose to include, why they include it, and what they leave out and why? It is easiest to present racism as a flaw of the times and choose to represent the story as part of progress. However, history books fail to examine the flip flop nature of the United States' policies that hurt the path to equality.
First we must analyze, what causes racism? It stems from Native Americans' land being stripped of them and the enslaving of Africans. No one in their just mind would look at another human being and see them as a slave, but as the socioeconomic system developed so did the false stereotype. Whites had to justify their ideals for their own moral, so they began to "forget" all the viable information they had gained from Africans during the Renaissance, meanwhile they began classifying them as stupid and uncivilized and claiming that slavery would be for their benefit.
We all remember learning about slavery from as early as grade school, but textbooks carefully word passages to minimize the white complicity in it. Therefore, slavery is seen as a sad tragedy. I believe a lot of teachers perpetuate this because of the fear of causing conflict within their classroom amongst the races. Textbooks only like to mention those who made a positive contribution to our history through heroification; therefore, the less favorable characters of history are simply omitted or glazed over. Slavery not only occurred in the south, but also the north. Many are unaware of this fact due to omission. Famous Presidents, such as Jefferson owned 267 slaves at the time of his death, but historians leave this out or use pity as a man caught in the wrong time to describe his choices. They choose only to describe the good things he did. The upper class enjoyed the benefits of slave labor; they became very wealthy. Others admired their lifestyle, which increased the ideology of the justification of slavery. In many of our wars with the Native Americans, we omit the real reason for American intrusion, instead attributing it to obtaining land. However, runaway slaves often took refuge with the Natives, which uncovers the true reason for war.
The Civil War allowed for Union troops to fight side by side with African Americans for the same cause. This began to disenfranchise the notion that their race makes them less valuable and less intellectual. This brought great change to the morale and ideals of the American people; even in the South, people began to see slavery as inhumane. With the Confederacy's ideology of slavery beginning to waiver, the war would be lost.
Those that were accepting of the change began to help during the Reconstruction phase following the war. Some terms that are still used in textbooks carrying negative connotations are carpetbagger and scalawag. Why would we still ask students to memorize the definition for these words? We don't ask students to memorize the definition of other offensive terms? Why not call them the white Americans from the North (carpetbagger) and from the South (scalawag) that assisted the African Americans during the Reconstruction phase? Yet, textbooks attribute their reasoning to help the African Americans as greedy, but there was almost never financial gains or they were in unsafe conditions.
Textbooks discuss the terrible actions that were opposed upon black people, yet we still manage to minimize it, but how? During Reconstruction, in Hinds County, Mississippi, whites killed an average of one black person a day. That's a fact; how can you hide it? Well, you can't hide it, but you can make it VERY hard to infer through fact omission and textbook wording. Another issue that is left out is the inequality in the non-whites' education. If not dangerous to go to school, the educational resources were far from equal. African Americans who succeeded financially were often attacked by whites who wished to suppress them.
So we must ask ourselves, what was the real problem of reconstruction- the African Americans or the confederates? The answer is simple: the confederates. They held resistance to change and did not want to see the blacks prosper, thus hindering their ability to integrate into society.
The flip-flop of American policy began in 1890 during "the nadir of American race relations." During this period African Americans were restricted in their rights by people of the North and the South. Segregation became the law of the land. The Supreme Court held up segregation laws, such as "separate but equal." Things could never be separate and equal at the same time because if you are denying one's right to something then they are not receiving equal treatment. Through the cultural response, many of these became social norms. Presidents supported these types of laws; therefore, it perpetuated the American citizens viewpoint on racial segregation.
It is important that we examine racism through African Americans' viewpoint instead of the typical white viewpoint that is told in textbooks. If the same white viewpoint is continued, racism's true harm will never be fully understood because it will always be sugar coated. Loewen cited a startling study that found young white adults have the least tolerant viewpoints. He attributes this to the ignorance of American history. OF COURSE, if textbooks are glazing over racism and the young adults did not grow up when civil rights were stripped from African Americans, how could they understand? As teachers, isn't it our job to educate students on history and create relatable moments to the present. Racism fits perfectly here. It is still widely present in our society, just covered by the blanket to make America be the ideal nation. Not until we understand and fix the issue of racism, can we truly be the ideal nation.
I found this extremely interesting and eye opening from Loewen by examining how racism won in America after our reconstruction period as compared to Germany's own battle with Nazism. Their country moved forward, sure there are some people still subscribing to those viewpoints, but it did not continue in their future policies as it did in ours through segregation. Thus we must see the importance of explaining the causes of racism to provide our students with the power to understand why it is still present and what can be done in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)