- Oct 2024
-
bookshelf.vitalsource.com bookshelf.vitalsource.com
-
Ironically, Adolf Hitler displayed more knowledge of how we treated Native Americans than American high schoolers today who rely on their textbooks. Hitler admired our concentration camps for American Indians in the west and according to John Toland, his biographer, “often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven combat” as the model for his extermination of Jews and Gypsies (Rom people).
I feel like people would pay more attention to what is taught in schools if they read this sentence. Not only because they would learn that Hitler got his idea for concentration camps from the United States but because of the statement, "Ironically, Adolf Hitler displayed more knowledge of how we treated Native Americans than American high schoolers today who rely on their textbooks." This is a scary thought, In a sense, Loewen is highlighting that a terrible man in history, who is not an American, knows more about American history than kids sitting in a classroom in the United States. I feel like this statement alone sums up just how much the education system keeps from us. It kind of makes me mad to think that horrible dictator knew more about my country than I do. I feel like more people should feel this way and make sure a change happens for future generations.
-
Authors need to go further. Walking across Beringia (the isthmus across the Bering Strait) is only a hypothesis. They ought to give other theories, including boats, a hearing. They would not have to do all the work themselves, either, but could set students loose on the Web and in the library, arming them and their teachers with ideas about what to look for and how to assess reputed new findings.
This is a great start to how we should think about the information that is exposed to students. The main problem that we see from this book is that the education system does not think students are capable of forming their own opinions about history. I feel like that is why a lot of the history we learn in high school is 'watered down," so to speak. I believe the education system can make up for its mistakes by doing its research. The problem is that we do not know if everyone who is in charge of what is required for students to learn understands what information is being left out. They simply could be going with what they know. The other problem is that, sadly, there are people in charge of the education system who know exactly what FACTS they are withholding. Hopefully, deceiving of what truly happened in our country's history will change shortly.
-
All the textbooks tell how Jefferson “doubled the size of the United States by buying Louisiana from France.” Not one points out that it was not France’s land to sell—it was Indian land.
This statement shocked me. While we didn't go into deep detail about the Louisiana Purchase, it was emphasized that the United States bought the land from France. It is disappointing that this piece of history was withheld from my education. Loewen is correct when discussing how the Indians were portrayed in our education. All my life, I thought the stories of Native Americans not understanding land ownership were true. Because, sadly, those stories made sense. Native Americans were painted as people who just lived by the land and had no rule of law. However, Loewen gives us many examples of how the education system failed us by not debunking that statement,
-
The antidote to feel-good history is not feel-bad history but honest and inclusive history. If textbook authors feel compelled to give moral instruction, the way origin myths have always done, they could accomplish this aim by allowing students to learn both the “good” and the “bad” sides of the Pilgrim tale. Conflict would then become part of the story, and students might discover that the knowledge they gain has implications for their lives today. Correctly taught, the issues of the era of the first Thanksgiving could help Americans grow more thoughtful and more tolerant, rather than more ethnocentric.
Loewen likely intended this book to show us the raw, unfiltered truth of history. If we had been taught the full story from the beginning, we could use those lessons to improve our lives today. It's understandable why people often choose to ignore or downplay the negative aspects of history. They prefer to believe in heroic figures and a hopeful future rather than confront past mistakes. However, we can see how history is repeating itself because we were never taught the "dark side" of the past. This lack of knowledge prevents us from recognizing the warning signs and stopping harmful events from happening now.
-
To highlight that happy picture, textbooks underplay Jamestown and the sixteenth-century Spanish settlements in favor of Plymouth Rock as the archetypal birthplace of the United States. Virginia, according to T. H. Breen, “ill-served later historians in search of the mythic origins of American culture.”53 Historians could hardly tout Virginia as moral in intent, for, in the words of the first history of Virginia written by a Virginian: “The chief Design of all Parties concern’d was to fetch away the Treasure from thence, aiming more at sudden Gain, than to form any regular Colony.”54 The Virginians’ relations with American Indians were particularly unsavory: in contrast to Squanto, a volunteer, the English in Virginia took Indian prisoners and forced them to teach colonists how to farm.55 In 1623 the English indulged in the first use of chemical warfare in the colonies when negotiating a treaty with tribes near the Potomac River, headed by Chiskiack. The English offered a toast “symbolizing eternal friendship,” whereupon the chief, his family, advisors, and two hundred followers dropped dead of poison.56 Besides, the early Virginians engaged in bickering, sloth, even cannibalism. They spent their early days digging random holes in the ground, haplessly looking for gold instead of planting crops. Soon they were starving and digging up putrid Native corpses to eat or renting themselves out to American Indian families as servants—hardly the heroic founders that a great nation requires.57
The highlighted portion discusses the true nature of the early Virginians. When we are told the story of Columbus, Jamestown, and the Indians, we are told that everyone worked together. The Indians wanted to help the Virginians by teaching them how to plant crops, and in return, the Virginians educated the Natives in English culture. However, Loewen tells us that what happened was after Squanto volunteered to help them with fishing, other Virginians "took Indian prisoners and forced them to teach colonists how to farm."
-
During the next fifteen years, additional epidemics, most of which we know to have been smallpox, struck repeatedly. European Americans also contracted smallpox and the other maladies, to be sure, but they usually recovered, including, in a later century, the “heavily pockmarked George Washington.” Native Americans usually died. The impact of the epidemics on the two cultures was profound. The English Separatists, already seeing their lives as part of a divinely inspired morality play, found it easy to infer that God was on their side. John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, called the plague “miraculous.” In 1634 he wrote to a friend in England: “But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by the smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection. . . .”25 God, the Original Real Estate Agent! Many Natives likewise inferred that their god had abandoned them. Robert Cushman reported that “those that are left, have their courage much abated, and their countenance is dejected, and they seem as a people affrighted.” After a smallpox epidemic the Cherokee “despaired so much that they lost confidence in their gods and the priests destroyed the sacred objects of the tribe.”26 After all, neither American Indians nor Pilgrims had access to the germ theory of disease. Native healers could supply no cure; their medicines and herbs offered no relief. Their religion provided no explanation. That of the whites did. Like the Europeans three centuries before them, many American Indians surrendered to alcohol, converted to Christianity, or simply killed themselves.27
These couple of paragraphs do not sit right with me. The reason is because I did not know that this happened. In my years of education, I was never told that A) the disease during this time was so bad and B) that the American Indians were used this way. Loewen demonstrated how the European Americans used the fear of the Natives to gain power over them. In the last paragraph highlighted, Loewen states, "many American Indians surrendered to alcohol, converted to Christianity, or simply killed themselves."
-
- Sep 2024
-
bookshelf.vitalsource.com bookshelf.vitalsource.com
-
If textbooks included these facts, they might induce students to think intelligently about why the West dominates the world today.
I believe this is the root of the problem. Our education system has warped what we know about history into what they want us to know. Instead of teaching all of the facts from the start, they are picking and choosing the parts they want us to know. In my opinion, that is scary. The problem is that this has been the way for many years. What Loewen is saying in this sentence is if these facts were kept in the history books, then students would have the means to have a more critical opinion about Columbus rather then seeing him as a hero.
-
A new and more accurate history of Columbus—provided to students by just one of these textbooks (The Americans)—could assist this transformation.
Loewen has shown the differece between what we have been taught about American history and what actually happened. This can cause a need to rewrite our American history education. This story alone has caused me to question what I have been taught in school. Surely others will feel the same. Now, it is simply a matter of will the education change in order to teach us the cold hard facts or will we stay teaching a truth that is easier to swallow?
-
In so canonizing him, they reflect our national culture. Indeed, now that Presidents’ Day has combined Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays, Columbus is one of only two people the United States honors by name in a national holiday. The one date that every schoolchild remembers is 1492, and sure enough, every textbook I surveyed includes it. But most of them leave out virtually everything that is important to know about Columbus and the European exploration of the Americas. Meanwhile, they make up all kinds of details to tell a better story and to humanize Columbus so readers will identify with him.
This excerpt goes with the last chapter of this book. In chapter one, Loewen discusses how America heroifies people in history without shedding light on the whole truth. By combining the birthdays of Washington and Lincoln on one day while giving Columbus his own day, it automatically places him into a higher role than the president's. He also mentions the fact that EVERY textbook includes the date 1492 and the story that goes with it. However, "most of them leave out virtually everything that is important to know about Columbus and the European explorationg of the Americas." This ties in with what Loewen talked about before with Woodrow Wilson; leaving out details to make a person look better.
-
- Aug 2024
-
bookshelf.vitalsource.com bookshelf.vitalsource.com
-
These textbooks now retail for more than $100 and cost more than $70 even when ordered in quantity by states and school districts.
This goes to show that it is about making money instead of our education.
-
What role do alternative facts play in shaping public discourse, and how can education counteract misinformation?
Alternative facts are designed to support what we want to believe, rather than the unbiased truth. We see examples of this every day online. Depending on what side you lean towards, you are going to see more articles and news broadcasts that support what you believe. James W. Loewen talks about this in the preface. Loewen gives an example of how alternative facts look today. He mentions how on the morning after Trump's inauguration, Sean Spicer, his press secretary, stated, "That was the largest audience to withness an inauguration, period." Obviously, this statement was made to make Trump look good; and it did. Until Kellyanne Conway, Trump's former counselor, was questioned for her phrase "alternative facts." Shortly after, it was proved with pictures that Trump's inauguration did not in fact the largest audience. This one example shows just how far people will run with the "truth".
Schools are the main culprits on unreflective thinking. Loewen mentions how "criticial thinking" is excersiced in schools. I have found myself in these instances. He talks about how When teachers ask questions, they expect an immediate answer. However, most of the "critical thinking" exercises that teachers use are supposed to be met with well thought out answers. This simply cannot be done without proper research. Loewen states, "Teach who use the question, I suspect, simply invite students to opine off the top of their heads. Critical thinking requires assembling data to back one's opinion." I could not agree more with this statement. People want to throw around the phrase, "Do your research," not releaizing that we are not taught to research before we argue or try to justify a statement.
The education system is a great place to start learning how to detect misinformation. However, in order to do this, we need to rethink how we are teaching students. Loewen pinpoints the main areas that need attention to improve student thought processes. Loewen and a group of professors and students from Tougaloo College wrote a textbook that gave students questions to ask to help them decipher whether information was true or not. One of the questions is, "How do his/her conclusions compare with those of other authors you ahve read? Is s/he biased?" By asking this question, it forces students to do their own research on what they are reading. This builds important skills for future instances, such as elections.
I believe that we all have something to learn just from this short passage. If we took the time to research, break the thinking barriers that we have been taught, and compare different sources, then misinformation and "fake news" would be less of a problem.
-
their thinking rarely gets challenged, so they become still less likely or able to assess information critically.
This is a very important statement. With how easy it is to only see what you agree with, it is hard to see a different perspective. If you are only seeing how AI is a bad thing, then that is the argument you are going to side with. If you are only seeing that everyone should get a college education, then you are going to fight for that side more. The internet makes it easy to only see one side of the debate. We have to make a conscience effort to see from both sides. That means seeking out the opposite view that we might not agree with, but we have to do this to keep our minds open to
-
I believe that most Americans, once they understand why things are as they are, will work to foster justice where there was unfairness and truth where lies prevailed.
This might not be why she put this here, but I think she made this statement because she wanted to show that she had faith Americans coming together to fix this problem. I say this because throughout this preface, she seemed to bash Americans. She wasn't being down right terrible, but she made it known that these people were wrong. By adding this closing, she almost flips the switch on the mood of the passage. I think it was good that she added this because it shows that there is hope in fixing all of the things she mentioned previously.
-
About how people first got to the Americas, for example, textbooks and teachers could let students marshal evidence on behalf of one or another idea. The topic comes at the beginning of the school year, which is fortunate, because students could then build on these skills as they move on to the next topic and the next.
Showing a solution
-
“We should drop the idea of truth.”14
This was news to me. Why would people want to "drop the idea of truth?" That seems ridiculous.
-
In the world of evidence, however, states’ rights is the clear loser.
If we simply took the time to research, we would see that our assumptions are wrong. My biggest take away from the highlighted portion is that it's not a group of a few individuals that voted for the wrong answer; it was over half of the total of voters. This shows that uninformed opinions are not a small problem.
-
Again, this means less real news gets presented, and the various viewpoints that remain seem to be presented as moral and factual equivalents.
All for entertainment purposes
-
First, it has jeopardized the finances of newspapers.
This is a very good point. I hadn't out much thought into how the newspaper companies were being affected by the way current news is broadcasted. Where I am from, everyone still had a subscription to the newspaper, primarily due to the high school sports section. The author briefly mentioned how newspapers relied on "investigative journalism." I can only assume that this would lead to a lower amount of false information being spread. I believe this is one of the biggest things we are lacking when it comes to media and news today: investigative journalism. Now, obviously reporters for newspaper companies are investigating to for an article that will grab readers attentions, but they are also investigating for credible information.
-
Textbook authors also never invite students to critique their own work. Again, our Mississippi textbook shows this can be done. For example, we noted that only four of our twenty-five mini-biographies were of women. “Has the book therefore been guilty of discrimination against women?” we then asked. Such a question implies that students can think for themselves, which then helps them learn to do so. When students are not asked to assess, but only to remember, they do not learn how to assess or how to think for themselves.
It is not easy to crtitque your own work in a way such as these authors did. However, by stating in their book that "only four of our twenty-five mini-biographies were of women," shows that it is okay to admit your faults. Nobody is perfect and it is foolish to illustrate yourself as such. Another benefit of this particular group making these statements is that it draws the student to look closer at these types of things. To ask questions, such as, "Out of these authors, how many are women? How many are of a different race?" While these questions may cause some backlash for "discrimination", they are valid questions for this instance. As long as you are not using gender or race in a hateful way, it is okay to observe these things. It is common sense that people of different genders and races might have different opinions, life styles, experiences, and so much more.
-
Way back in 1974, I led a group of professors and students at Tougaloo College to write a new textbook of Mississippi history, Mississippi: Conflict and Change. Even though we intended it for ninth graders, we believed our job was to encourage students to think, not just “learn.” In an early boxed question, we referred readers to nine maps sprinkled throughout the book, “to try to answer this question: do soil resources attract industry? If not, try to discover what does bring about industrial growth.” We went on to say, “The answer is not easy. Possibly it involves the attitudes of a society, attitudes based on the kind of society it is; the society itself, in turn, was based long ago, in part, on the kind of land lying underneath.” Our hope was to get students thinking about causality in history, a topic mostly absent from U.S. high school textbooks. We also intended to increase students’ map literacy, so they could see how patterns from a shaded map or dot map might relate to a landform map. Again, nothing like this occurs in any high school history textbook. They merely ask students to opine.
Acknowledging that the questions asked were not typically asked in schools shows that they are trying to get students to think with a different perspective. As the text stated, causualities in history are not normally talked about in this way in high school. However, by asking questions like this particular group of professors did, the students were forced to think in a different way.
-
Teachers who use the question, I suspect, simply invite students to opine off the top of their heads. Critical thinking requires assembling data to back up one’s opinion.
This is a point that I find myself agreeing with; especially while looking back at some of my high school classes. It is overwhelming to be asked these types of questions without any time to do research and have a more educated answer. It almost feels like "critical thinking" exercises, like the ones mentioned, are designed to set you up for failure.
-
But why was I the only person to note the similarity? For more than a year before I got them, rating committees across the nation—statewide in half our states, district-wide in the rest—supposedly had been reading and rating both books. Why didn’t any of them notice?
This is a very good point. I am not exactly sure the number of committees or people that read these books, but it still amazes me that not one person noticed that these book were identical. This goes to show that there isn't much cross referencing happening in our education. It seems like teachers and professors are handing books out for students to read simply because they are told to.
-