{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"46647014","dateCreated":"1321706535","smartDate":"Nov 19, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"AshAndo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/AshAndo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1316883377\/AshAndo-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/integratingculture-at-nyu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/46647014"},"dateDigested":1532760507,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Chapters 4 and 5","description":"Heyo Everyone! This week's prompt is a mix between my thoughts of these chapters and a real-life incident that happened to me in my placement. I was conversing with my CCA kiddo (who is Black) about Seneca Village, and he asked me, "If we were living back then, would I have been a slave? Not in New York, obviously, but in the South." He didn't know that slavery existed up here! Later in the conversation, he asked, "Would you have wanted to own me as a slave?" To this question, my answer was "Absolutely not," and he disappointingly said, "Why not??"
\n
\nThe reasons this student is only partially aware of the realities of slavery could be many; however, for these purposes, I am going to follow Loewen's train of thought and blame it on textbooks. What critical American History aspects are students missing out on by not being fully informed about our country's disgraceful past?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"46685796","body":"Strange, because our class had a discussion last week (or maybe the week before) in which a LOT of people were saying the same thing as your student - we were basically taught that slavery did not exist up here, and it was just something in the South. I think this relates to our discussion last week, it definitely has to do with textbooks and curriculum as well leaving out things to cover up our past and make america look like this perfect land of the free.","dateCreated":"1321811606","smartDate":"Nov 20, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"francescaneedham","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/francescaneedham","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"46688454","body":"Wow. That was definitely an intense conversation. I do agree with you and Loewen that critical American History aspects are being left out. It's not that the topics are studied, but rather the way they are presented. In Chapter 4 Loewen writes how we are looking at American History through 'white eyes'. History to me has always been a story. We study chronological events, people, and locations under the assumption that those are the 'most important' aspects of American History. Why do we think this way? A combination of factors, I think an issue has to do with testing. The test drives the textbook publisher to print a specific book to make teachers buy it and 'better prepare' their studnets for the exam. This is the way I experienced history and from it I can definitely say that I am lacking knowledge to combat those arguements. For me, Loewen has shown history in a new light. It's sad that it takes until senior year of college to realize that everything I knew about American History was 'through white eyes'.
\nPresenting history as a story I realize I missing an entire component...the other side of the story. With this knowledge about 'giving a voice' to the other (the other being the other person\/group involved in this story) why is there still a gap in American education? Is it that opposing opinions do not exist, do we not understand where to find these resources, or is the textbook just an easy way out and we are too lazy to search for the truth? I'd vote for the third option. This is making me rethink everything I have ever learned. In US2 in highschool a driving theme was 'manifest destiny'. It was the reason we needed to move west, expand, push technology, and become a global competitor. I see it now as an excuse to deliberately destroy anyone and anything for personal gain. Noting how native populations were transformed "from barbarians to civilzed humans", I wonder what the thoughts about Hawaii was. The most I learned about Hawaii becoming a state in history class was 'and then the number of stars changed on the flag.' What is the voice of the Hawaiian in the process of joining the US?","dateCreated":"1321815614","smartDate":"Nov 20, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"smarositz","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/smarositz","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"47349896","body":""...Not in New York, obviously, but in the South."
\n
\nLike Loewen covers in these chapters about "red eyes" or the sadness slavery\/prejudice brings to children and adults, our history books paints a different picture to young students. They do not examine how Lincoln had slaves even at the time of abolition, nor how NY was number two on the list in the port of slave trade in the USA. I certainly was taught and believed a similar story to you CCA child, and it is disappointing how after all these years these 'untruths' still predicate our textbooks. Even if they are taught the facts become glossed over overall and passed off to students. As far as his questioning of why you wouldn't "own" him, I question a few things. It may be his lack of understanding yet or the depth of the definition of slavery. Perhaps he has never been exposed to themes of it at school or home of treatment of people\/children via books or media (film) by his parents. Otherwise some children are still less mature than their peers even on the same age level. Perhaps it is still an idea that has not become 'concrete' yet for him. You didn't mention the grade level, or age of your child so I am not sure where he might be on his development spectrum yet.","dateCreated":"1322762603","smartDate":"Dec 1, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"dawnyaddicted2life","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dawnyaddicted2life","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1318117565\/dawnyaddicted2life-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"47350474","body":"I also want to add...
\n
\nStudents are sorely missing out on the grey area that is most genuine of this young nation's oftentimes troubled past. I disagree with any historical curricula on different nations that paint it as white vs.black (not the ethnicity--the actual colors), good vs. bad or right or wrong. Giving them privy to all--including not so glamorous--facts and introducing high level thinking discussion\/talks to the curricula is more specific, truthful, thought provoking and marks more critical thinkers in students. These include racist Immigration Laws that covered the early twentieth century where certain ethnicities were named specifically to be prevented form even becoming citizens of the US based solely on their color.","dateCreated":"1322762959","smartDate":"Dec 1, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"dawnyaddicted2life","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dawnyaddicted2life","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1318117565\/dawnyaddicted2life-lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"46217832","dateCreated":"1321239021","smartDate":"Nov 13, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"dawnyaddicted2life","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dawnyaddicted2life","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1318117565\/dawnyaddicted2life-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/integratingculture-at-nyu.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/46217832"},"dateDigested":1532760507,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Continuation of our discussion from 11\/6 - 11\/13\/2011 here","description":"Ashley, Dawny, Stephen, Francesca, Jasmine- Book Group
\n
\nsmarositz on Nov 6, 2011 11:30 am
\n
\nHey group! Not really sure if this is the proper place to start this thread, but it is a space nevertheless! =)
\nFor this week what struck me the most was the absence of truth in social studies education. On page 42 in the Columbus section the author writes, "Should textbooks therefore leave them out? Is impace on the present the sole reason for including an event or fact?" Lowen was discussing this in terms of the general disregard for Viking exploration in history education, but that sentiment can be applied to any topic in American history. As noted on page 87, "What do most books leave out about Squanto?" Clearly there is a disconnect. My question for this week is...what role does censorship play in education? What I am wondering is, if we know the "truth" or at least a more comprehensive presentation of the facts as shown by Loewen's work, why does historical falsehood still drive American history education. Thinking in terms of social justice and multicultural education, to what extent does this relate to the 'reading a European history of the world'?
\nJust some questions I had when reading. Can't wait to see what you think.
\n
\nStephen
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nAshAndo on Nov 6, 2011 5:28 pm
\n
\nStephen, I was thinking a very similar thing as I was reading these chapters. My thoughts were along the lines of, "Why is it that children aren't thought to be able to handle the real truths in history (as with the realities of the Pilgrims vs. Jamestown settlers), and adults have to be re-taught about what actually went down?"
\n
\nNothing good comes of censorship in education. What is the point of going through the motions of teaching about something that is clearly incorrect? It is such a waste of time, energy, and effort. Part of me thinks that this cycle perpetuates because the curriculum has already been developed, resources are at the ready, and it's simply easier to stick with "the norm", especially with early American history. The other part of me thinks it is because teachers truly don't know that they are not teaching the truth. They have never been given the opportunity, nor shown the interest, in challenging what they were taught as elementary schoolers. These people may even firmly believe that they are teaching the truth! This is one of the many times, I'm sure, that we will have to be pioneers for our generation in setting the records straight.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\ndawnyaddicted2life on Nov 13, 2011 5:22 pm
\n
\nThose are good questions Stephen--I think I was thinking along the same lines as I was reading Chapter 2. What I think is that censorship plays a similarly damaging role in the classroom, just like it plays out with omissions of historical "truths" in textbooks. A teacher who is "colorblind," and does not speak about or create discussions about racism, prejudice and how to treat peers fairly--is sending an equally loud message to her students: that it is not important enough to talk about. Omission of information, facts, and history is just as damaging as failing to bring up uncomfortable but equally as qualitative subjects in the classroom and our history books. What is the point of paving our paths as educators, if we do wish to educate? What are the points of textbooks if they erroneously censor some facts, and altogether fabricate others? It is a waste of our students' time to read them and a waste of ours to streamline a curriculum according to an irrelevant history, based on Anglo-Western ideals.
\n
\nIt seems to me that the reason why historical falsehood still drives American history education is, as the book states, that the world or at least our Western scope of the world is still comfortable regenerating testaments that our 'literary ancestors' of sorts perpetuated according to pro-Christian and anti-Islamic Western standings. It is sad that this has such a long-time historical grasp over our society that it even trickles down to the teachings of our youth in the present day. It seems publishing textbooks (texts derive predominantly from publishers in Texas; not a coincidence) is the largest proponent of this as well. Teachers regurgitate without research, and they may be at fault only to a point if they unknowingly expose these fictitious facts to their students. But it is still their responsibility in the end to educate themselves.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"46219436","body":"I totally agree with what Dawny says about it reminding her of the colorblind teacher. That's what jumped to my head at first. I think the textbooks choose to write only from one standpoint because that makes us, the typical population of America seem more powerful. If we were to admit our wrong doings or injustices that we have committed, it would be tougher to try and teach what we do - that white man is essentially all powerful and inherently good.
\n
\nI feel like a classroom in which both sides of the stories are shared, let's say from the Native Americans and the settlers, would be much more successful. Students should be taught that they can question and inquire, and not that there is one essential power. Not to mention, this is what we were taught (at least I was), and trying to re-teach yourself is always difficult.","dateCreated":"1321240439","smartDate":"Nov 13, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"francescaneedham","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/francescaneedham","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}