I took a break from Ken Robinson and began this book by James W. Loewen.
So far it's quite interesting. The core thesis of the book is to examine the lies and half-truths our American History textbooks pass of as facts.
The first issue Loewen tackles related to this is the idea of heroification. History textbooks are notorious for this. He posits two examples: Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson.
He states that almost all of his students can tell him that Keller was existing in a child-like state until her teacher, Anne Sullivan, signed 'water' into her hand under a stream of water and from that moment on, Keller's world began to open up.
That tends to be the extent of his students' knowledge garnered from their textbooks. They also add that she became a prominent writer and speaker.
That's it.
He argues that textbooks have turned Keller into a hero for the disabilities she overcame. But by doing so, they leave out far too many key details about her life, details that might undermine the idea of Keller as hero (well, a good old American hero any way).
For instance - she was a radical socialist who supported communist Russia, even going so far as to hang a red flag over the desk in her office. Can you imagine?
She became a supporter of socialism after traveling and witnessing the appalling work conditions and treatment of laborers throughout the country. To become such a radical at that conservative and patriotic time in history - when she was the most famous woman on the planet! - is worthy of being looked at as heroic. Yet, all that is left out of the history textbooks.
Wilson, too, is often portrayed as a hero, and for just reasons, however, he was guilty of his share of shameful activities - racism (some African Americans had been appointed to rather lofty positions (given the era, such as post masters in all black areas in southern towns and port collector of New Orleans and the District of Columbia and register of the treasury), yet when Wilson came into office all of that ended. He had a vicious foreign policy - starting a war (yes, according to Loewen, we had American troops fighting Russian soldiers on their own soil. I never heard that one) with Russia and manipulating the overthrow of many a government of other countries.
Interestingly, Loewen states that Wilson was a nativist, quoting the President as stating "Any man who carries a hypen about with him, carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets read." What would he think of today's multi-cultural (ha - see there's hyphen) movement and the 'blending' of the colors of our country.
Now these negative aspects of Wilson should also be presented. We do students no good by just showing them the rosy side of life and our leaders. Wilson, it must be remembered, did great things in office, despite these blunders.
What can we learn from them? How can we view them in light of the world we live in today? How can we reconcile them?
These are questions students need to address, Loewen argues, in their history classes to make history come alive.
I agree.
Thanks to Chapter one, I have a great new quote.
Keller has a great line that I am going to put up in my room this fall: "People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant."
Loewen's second chapter is devoted to Columbus. Now that should be interesting.
Speaking of interesting, Loewen briefly discussed one thing a fellow professor does with his American history students on the first day of class. He asks them to list the first ten prominent Americans, pre Civil War, that come to their minds.
I struggled, but here are mine.
George Washington, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, Herman Melville, Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Emily Dickinson.
As an English teacher, it's easy to see that my list is dominated by authors.
I hope all of these are pre Civil War, but I'm not completely sure.
Because the professor's students gave him the same presidents and generals over and over, he made a new stipulation "excluding presidents, generals, statesmen, and so on."
The top two - Paul Revere and Betsy Ross.
3 comments:
It's funny to see Paul Revere on your list because the historical account of his ride is off as well. More history that isn't taught in the 100% accurate fashion.
Hi Kurt -
Whether aware of it or not, I always am looking for books to read. Of course, the "Lies" book is familiar, but I've never read it. I'll take your comments as a recommendation and put it on my to-read list.
Doesn't everyone know that "history" as taught in schools (and in adult reading material) is fiction. I won't say lies, as sometimes the author is presenting his/her truth, though it be fallacious.
The fact is there is no way to present history as a full truth. It would take to much time to include all the details. But the details that were left out in my time were BIG ones - like women, Negroes, Chinese, and such.
When I was in school, history indicated this country may have harbored some of the groups above, but they were insignificant, unimportant, and probably a detriment to the really important men who established this country.
History is written by the victor, I've heard. Perhaps, but for thousands of years it was also written by the European white man, and apparently they were unable to share any credit - or blame.
Still, history is interesting, if very slanted according to the views of the recorder.
I think students should be made aware of that - rather than have anything presented as the whole, unvarnished truth.
Hope you are well, Kurt.
You have a lovely family.
Thanks for both comments.
Mrs. Petey,
Much of Revere's historic ride is made up. However, after reading a book on him prior to my Boston trip last year, he was instrumental in the Revolution (though not in the way our history texts make it seem). The book took pains to sift through the lies to get at what really happened (Revere - and another rider (why didn't that rider get any credit? I mean you never hear about him, do you?) were actually captured by British soldiers!) And to be honest - I really had to stretch it to come up with a legitimate historical figure who wasn't a president or prominent political figure or a writer. I often think that what gets left out or marginalized (I was reading in a book on the Great Depression last night that Eleanor Roosevelt might have had a lesbian affair) is more interesting that the nice, cookie cutter history that textbooks often package. Just think of all the Thanksgiving propaganda in text books. Don't even get me started on that!
EDK,
I read a great line once while researching my thesis, "It is the job of the historian to accurately predict the past."
I think that gets at the heart of how history is not simply the study of facts. Rather, we view history through our own perspectives, thus it is tainted. Not only that, but as you noted, often the writers of history chose to simple neglect certain factions or simply edit them right out.
One line I will never forget from the best history professor I ever had was "We don't study history. We study peoples' interpretations of history."
I think it's vital for students to realize that.
So to much extent, history is fictitious. In an interview with Dan Carlon, the great historian James Burke, Burke said that he was reading a book about the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England, which I love to teach in my Brit Lit classes. However, this new view of the Anglo-Saxon invasion proposed that it was not as sudden and violent as it was initially made out to be. Burke reasoned that Victorian historians put forth the sudden and violent invasion theory to help make sense of their own times and to aid in British nationalism at the time - when they were colonizing much of the world.
There's another great line that your response triggered - not sure who to said it, though - "History is just a bunch of lies we all agree upon."
Thanks for the feedback.
Post a Comment