simplysly

I'm currently reading Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James Loewen. It really is quite interesting. Anyway, to remind myself (and, apparently my roommate that is too lazy to read the damn book themself) here is a summary of the first eight chapters, followed by my response. Yes, it's cutted. It would be f-locked too, but self same roommate has no LJ. Silly Pae, LJ's are better than SIMs.

Loewen, Chapter 1:

The first chapter sets the precedent for the rest of the book. Loewen talks about heroification, and how it has shaped the lens through which we view history. He remarks on the statue of George Washington, depicting him as unblemished, and neigh on perfect. This is how we view him, although he was pockmarked, owned slaves, and was all together human. He expounds by comparing Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson; their stories as they are taught in textbooks, and how primary sources actually say these two “well known” figures were.

I have known since elementary school that Woodrow Wilson was a president, but it wasn’t until high school that I learned anything else about him. In contrast, I read a biography of Helen Keller in elementary school and became enthralled. I knew she was a socialist, and a left-wing radical long before I understood the context of what these words meant. To me, these were good things, designed to help others, and it wasn’t until high school that I learned and understood about communism and the negativity attached to the extreme left. It was very interesting for me to see historical figures actually depicted as people, instead of icons. Perhaps it is something to do with our God Complex. We don’t want to believe that a God (or idol) can do any wrong, but we do want them accessible enough for us to have a glimmer of comprehension of them. What I found most interesting about Loewen’s list of Wilson’s crimes and faults was his neglect of the influenza outbreak of 1918. As this outbreak attacked the young and healthy, many U.S. soldiers had been exposed before boarding their vessels that took them to Europe and WWI. This is responsible for the deaths of many of our soldiers, as well as making the outbreak more of a global issue, as opposed to ‘merely’ an American devastation. Instead, Loewen expounded upon Wilson’s racism, which is something that I had already attributed to him, having heard that he came from the south in such a time when it was unusual not to be racist.

Loewen, Chapter 2:

Chapter 2 deals primarily with the “discovery” of the Americas, Christopher Columbus, and the atrocities committed against the native people. Loewen brings up evidence showing many European and African nations visiting the Americas including Africans, Phoenicians, Romans, Norse, and Irish. He confronted several myths about Columbus, particularly those revolving around his motives and death. He also discussed why it was Columbus’ “discovery” that had such a major impact upon Europe, as opposed to all of the previous visitations. Impacts on religion, philosophy, race, and economy were explained, filling in several holes left by the textbook answers.

This was a disturbing chapter, not so much for the debasing of Columbus (I’ve known that for awhile), but for the details of the brutality imposed by the Europeans over the native people. This is possibly a reason why Columbus is painted with such white-wash, there’s no easy way to explain what occurred to children when they first begin learning about America. How can we tell them about the cutting off of limbs, the raping, the pillaging? I was relieved to discover that very few of what I considered facts about Columbus were wrong. I had believed that the ships were storm beaten, more because I’m from Florida, and hurricanes and tropical storms are pretty much a given. Of course, all I knew was that he landed in 1942, that he landed on Oct. 12 was new to me. Loewen discusses cognitive dissonance, and attributes its existence to Columbus and the treatment of the natives. This strikes me as wrong, an exaggeration to show the vastness of Columbus’ impact on the way of life for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. I do also find it interesting that he also attributes the concept of race as we understand to this same time period. I’m not entirely certain whether or not I agree with it, but it has piqued my interest, which is, I’m sure, part of what Loewen is trying to do.

Loewen, Chapter 3:

Chapter 3 deals with the first thanksgiving, and carries over the main points from the previous two chapters, mainly that we apply heroification to white European males who may or may not have actually done what they are said to have, as well as that the European colonists were generally terrible to the native people as well as being directly and indirectly responsible for the decimation of as much as 98% of the pre-Columbian population. As the natives died, they left behind cleared tracks of land, which the colonists then took over. Loewen makes the point that if it weren’t for the diseases, the colonies might have failed, as well as reiterating the lack of personification granted to the native peoples in today’s textbooks. He addresses the politics surrounding the Thanksgiving of today, as well as attribution of much of the colonists victories to God, which then inspires ethnocentrism.

This chapter was easier on a personal level to deal with, a lot of the more gruesome details, I had been previously informed of. Also, I have been aware of the controversy surrounding Thanksgiving and whether it should actually be celebrated for quite some time. I’m not sure if I was ever expressly taught that it was the Native American’s that made the first Thanksgiving possible, but I also do not remember believing that the Native American’s had taught the colonists how and what to plant, but that they would have “never seen such a feast!” In the hazy recollections I have of discussing and reenacting Thanksgiving in elementary school, the Native American’s brought more to the table than the colonists did. My own story was something more along the lines of this:

November came, and with it snow. The colonists knew that this time would come, and had been dreading it. They had been unable to produce the bounty they had hoped for, and had little for the coming winter. They struggled, and got by, barely. At the end of November, a wondrous thing happened! The colonists’ Native American neighbors had decided to bring extra food to the starving people. The colonists rejoiced in such a feast, and gave thanks to God and their kind hearted neighbors.

Obviously, this is false as well. Gee, thanks for destroying my treasured delusions. Then again, with a title like that, what else could one expect?

Loewen, Chapter 4

In chapter 4, we delve more firmly into the past of the Native American and how it is presented in today’s textbooks. Loewen again mentions the idea of changing the past to a more idealized version, designed to make people ‘happy’. He discusses and highlights their unfair treatment, and even the mistakes in the publication of the time (for example, the idea that if the Native American’s had just settled down on farms like good Americans, everything would have been hunky dory). Included is the mention of triracial groups, which seems to have been left out of the textbooks. One of the few good points of the textbooks he surveyed were their inclusion of modern issues that Native Americans are dealing with. This, however, does not mean that they included the most pressing issue: can the Native Americans keep their culture in today’s changing society?

I’ll admit that most of what I know of the conflicts between Native American’s and the European settlers I have obtained through sources other than my textbooks. Mainly historical fiction, which has been surprisingly accurate, at least according to Loewen. I always take what they say with a grain of salt, as it is called fiction for a reason. Still, I am surprised that this chapter didn’t pay more attention to the Trail of Tears. In my experience, it has been consistently mentioned in textbooks, even if detail is hazy at best. So while, perhaps, this wouldn’t have done much to support Loewen’s trend of mentioning what the textbooks don’t include, it still would have been nice to see if what I know of this tragic event is true, or a completely bastardized compilation of too many historical fiction novels.

Mention of the triracial groups were excluded from my textbooks as well, although it does make sense. If Native Americans and whites can live together, or whites and escaped/freed slaves, or Native Americans and escaped/freed slaves, then there really is no reason that some sort of mixture of the three (or more) races couldn’t live together. I do have to wonder if the whites of these communities were looked down upon more by other communities for associating with the former slaves or the Native Americans. And now that it’s been brought up, I too now wonder if the Native Americans can keep their culture as the forced isolation fades. The nature of American culture has to do with both its youth, and its diversity. In contrast, Native American culture is steeped in tradition and a history. If they are not careful, they will become Americans, with no real idea of their identity beyond that. I know that I come from Irish, Scottish, Spanish and German heritages, but I couldn’t name where in these countries my family hailed from, or even a family tale passed down from ancestors that had actually lived there.

Loewen, Chapter 5

“Gone with the Wind,” the chapter all about racism. Not, technically, the lack of it in the textbooks of today, more of the lack of direct confrontation with a topic that so fully invades all of our lives. Loewen discusses the mythical heroes of the Revolution in regards to the slaves they held, as well as their conflicting personal views. The territorial expansions, wars, literature, plays, movies and more in the context of race, and attempts to clarify how this way of looking at the world has reached the very core of ourselves. Many ideas about the Reconstruction and the Civil War are torn apart, to leave behind Loewen’s firm belief that the Civil War was about slavery.

To say that the Civil War is entirely about slavery is as wrong as claiming it was entirely for economic gains. This is not to say that slavery was not a key factor in the timing, nor in the multiple of civil rights movements afterwards. This is also not to say that slavery is in anyway excusable. Nonetheless, Loewen himself mentions that believing that slavery existed solely in terms of geography is an assumption that could prove all others based upon it false as well. Loewen mentions what some textbooks had included as reasons for the Civil War, including tariffs and the inherent differences between an industrial North and an agrarian, and then dismisses them as “Southern Apologetics”. I agree that these were not the whole of the why of the Civil War, to dismiss them as inconsequential is a grave disservice to everyone. Slavery was a rallying point, something of a banner than people who otherwise wouldn’t fight could flock to and tell their grandchildren about how they helped defeat the ‘abominable institution of slavery.’ Like the Crusades, if you say that you are fighting for something good, people want to believe you. However, in reality, the heart of it deals more with money, and who will have it after the war is over.

As stated previously, slavery did have its place in the civil war. Loewen makes mention of how race had (and continues to) touched every facet of life at the time, even becoming entrenched in our core understandings of the world and ourselves. Knowing this, is it really possible for everyone in the North to have forsaken enough of their racism to fight a long, bloody war in which families were divided and often met on opposite sides of the battle field? Greed is an ugly thing that no one wants to admit fighting for. And after the Civil War, what happened? The Reconstruction, which left these now ‘freed’ slaves economic slaves that owed everything to the company store. In theory, they had more rights than before the Civil War, but in practice, there was little difference, up to and including the ‘Joe Crow’ laws that did not, despite claims to the contrary, exist solely in the South (Sundown towns, yes?).

I do not know when I first learned about race and racism. I do know that in the fourth grade I had a racist thought that I recognized, and severely berated myself for. While I do not remember the exact thought, and though I remember that I never vocalized it, I managed to beat into my brain that I needed to be constantly on alert for similar thoughts to try and not let them influence my actions. Born and raised in Florida (although not considered by many other Southerners as truly “South”), segregation was still a hot button topic. In theory, there were no black or white sections. In reality, there was a large “black part of town,” which could house white people, if they were really poor. One of the issues a couple of years ago was zoning, and the segregation laws that required a certain percent of students of each ethnicity to attend each school. By the time of my graduation, there were 9 high schools in the area, with more than 40 miles separating many of them. Buses were taking some students 30 minutes to a full hour to a school, when there was one less than fifteen minutes away in an attempt to create racial diversity. I don’t remember off the top of my head how this was resolved. Still, for all of my hometown’s difficulties with regards to race, I’m not convinced that Eugene is that much better. I didn’t have a whole lot of friends, and the groups I was involved in (JROTC, math team, AP courses) were predominately white at any of the three high schools I went to. Still, since coming to Eugene and even with my experience in the dorms, I’ve only really come into contact and lengthy conversation with two people of African American descent. Two. Most of my classes (yes, I looked this past week to be sure) are made up of Caucasians, with a higher percentage of those of Asian descent than I am accustomed to. Riding the buses doesn’t do much either, as those I have encountered are filled with predominately white passengers.

Yes, racism, as Loewen said, has invaded us to our very cores, making us think in terms of race and make judgments and reactions accordingly. Geography, in America at least, has little to do with it. (Also, just to prove that I did read the chapter, Jefferson was shown with his later views, and Loewen failed to mention his earlier ones (such as trying to blame Britain for slavery in the Declaration of Independence). Yes, the five slaves he freed were most likely related to him by blood (not an altogether uncommon occurrence) and how we tend to heroification to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry makes it unlikely for the average person to associate them with slavery. I’m not entirely certain why not, as they were men of the times. Also, it was good to know where the term Seminole came from, and that it was one of the triracial groups. I actually didn’t know this, but considering how little time I actually spent on Floridian history, that’s not surprising. Additionally, it was highly amusing reading about how America is presented as a series of problems caused by no one. Perhaps because my teacher drilled it into me, or perhaps because I had different textbooks, I rarely noticed this occurrence. It’s true that there was a definite reluctance to blame someone, but a lot of it was presented with a slightly better side, a slightly worse side, and a whole bunch of gray area.)

Loewen, Chapter 6

While the previous chapter was devoted to the lack of racism presented in textbooks, this chapter is devoted to the lack of antiracism. While at first this seems as a diconomy (if there isn’t racism or antiracism, then what is there?), an intelligent reader will quickly realize that this is one of Loewen’s main points: that there isn’t a lot of anything presented in the textbooks used today, not of fact or idea. Instead, he asserts (and I paraphrase from this and previous chapters), there is a bunch of rhetoric passed off as feel good history that never actually happened. The main focus rests on John Brown and Abraham Lincoln, the former one of the most radical (as well as controversial and forgotten) white abolitionists of the time, and the later remembered as one of this nation’s best presidents, and the man who abolished slavery. In truth, Lincoln wrestled with race and had to consciously make an effort to extend democracy to races other than his own. Loewen reiterates his argument that this dumbing down of historical figures in an attempt of heroification does a great disservice to anyone hoping to learn about history, but especially students who are expected to model themselves after these unattainable myths.

I had heard of John Brown and Harper’s Ferry previously, though admittedly in not near as much detail as Loewen mentioned. Having Brown be given the title of “religious fanatic” instead of Turner is ridiculous. Turner was at least a product of his upbringing (having been told from a young age that he was having true visions, so could he keep on doing that, pleasekthanks), but that doesn’t make him any less insane. One would think that a white abolitionist that actually did more than try to drum up support or run the underground railroad (the individuals of which are also conspicuously absent from any textbook I’ve read) would earn more of a mention than he has been given, showing that the hatred of slavery was not just something that slaves had. As many have pointed out, no one likes to be enslaved. So, it should be notable that a white man who had never been slaved had such strong views against it. At least there were those among his contemporaries who did not consider him completely insane, and his death, faced with such willingness, should have made him a martyr. It’s truly sad that he has been so maligned instead.

Concerning ‘Honest Abe.’ It is a refreshing change to see him as a human being and as a real person that struggled with issues and changed his words to match his audience. To hear that he used the term ‘nigger’ is not, to me, incredibly surprising, although it is a nice touch by Loewen. Today that term is hardly ever used as the commonplace expression with little meaning behind it as it was in years past, so placing it in terms of Lincoln provides an extra umph of shock to the unwary reader. What I found amusing was Loewen’s comparison of Lincoln to Jefferson, in which Jefferson is the clear loser (Gasp! Oh no, one of the Founding Father’s found lacking! Blasphemy!). I highly enjoyed learning about some of Lincoln’s motivations, and the proper context for said same. I hadn’t heard of the Greely letter, so having both the letter and the benefit of the context at the same time was enlightening. He spoke of preserving the Union, and mentioned three different ways for slavery to go (all free, some free, or none free), the last of which I had been unaware of him even considering. As he had already mentioned the emancipation proclamation as definitely happening to his cabinet, this was a move worthy of any I would call a politician (and no, not necessarily in a negative way). As mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, it is inexcusable that textbooks are presenting such an extreme lack of ideas, both as for or against (something which has also been copied in a lot of journalism, not counting the bloggers of the Libby trial).

Loewen, Chapter 7

Chapter 7 presents us with the persistent idea that America is the Land of (Golden) Opportunity. Like most of the ideas presented and then torn apart in this book, it is something that lurks in the back of our minds but has little basis in fact. Loewen shows how the class system has changed over time, as well as how little movement there really is between classes. Additionally, he notes how learning has been tailored to off-put those off less-affluent backgrounds, while allowing another social class to go on to a more liberal education. The lack of discussion in textbooks, he claims, is due in part to how America identifies itself as the Land of Opportunity, and to discuss how this is not necessarily true would be detrimental to the moral of the readers, as well as forcing the writers themselves to face that it is the education they’re providing that leads to a drastic schism in how Americans view poverty and its causes.

While this is the shortest chapter thus far, it does have some of the hardest hitting ideas, due in part to how this is something that we are faced with everyday without being sure of why we are facing it. This was discussed in greater detail with Born Rich, and both the movie and this chapter show how little movement there is between the classes. We went back to our old pal Woodrow Wilson (didn’t we get tired of most of his ideas back in the first chapter?) which of course means that his recommendation should be the one we use in our lives.

I’m middle-class (generally lower middle, and for awhile we were down right poor) and I know that it’s not always lack of ambition or effort that causes poverty. I say not always, because I’m sure that there are instances where it is a lack of ambition and effort that keeps a person poor. My parents have both worked jobs slightly above minimum wage for the vast majority of their lives, even when they had four children to support. I am the first of these four children (and also the youngest) that my Mother has been able to put through college. Two of my other siblings have received some college (my brother is attending now with the GI bill), but the eldest never attended, and probably never will. Of course, the irony of all this is that he is the most successful and making the most money, more than my parents did with their college education. Social class is important. Children know this, as they tease other children for not having the same toys that they do, and for having handme-downs instead of new clothes. Part of the reason, I believe, for the lack of inclusion in text books, is that it is an ever evolving current issue, and these are textbooks designed to teach history, not, of course, considering that the evolution and context of social classes and revolutions might help better prepare students for the world that they will face, instead of the Land of Opportunity myth (question: is this another one of those Myths for Our Own Good like America and Religion?).

Loewen, Chapter 8

Another short(ish) chapter, “Watching Big Brother” concerns what textbooks currently teach about the Federal Government. This chapter focuses on the textbooks’ narrow view on the executive branch of the United States, to the almost total exclusion of the other two branches. Although the government was purposefully designed in a three branch system of checks and balances, it is incredibly rare to learn when someone other than the President issued any of these checks or balances. Additionally, effort is made to underplay the organizations and people that have made a difference in our foreign policy, environment, education, etc. This further strengthens Loewen’s claims that textbooks are choosing a select few to heroify, often to such an extent that it leaves the person inaccessible to the common person.

While I’ve often heard mention of Congress and the Supreme Court, I only know a few of the bigger cases, bills, and amendments that they have handled. It wasn’t until the American Government class that I spent more than a few minutes on either, and even then more effort was put forth into understand who is in place today, rather than any impact they have had in shaping history. I liked how Loewen mentioned the Peace Corps, while being a fine organization, has had (at this point in time) little impact on history. I have to wonder if this lack of education of any but the executive branch is at least partly responsible for the arrogance of the Presidents who got us involved in Korea, Vietnam, South and Central America, and the Middle East.

In 1995, Big Brother wasn’t quite as big a threat as it is today. True, George Orwell’s 1984 was frightening, and paranoia was still having loads of fun, the Patriot Act took a lot of my fun of the phrase away. Thankfully, the worst of it has officially gone away (I’m still not too sure about unofficially), and I can only hope that this means that I won’t be quite as paranoid in the future as I am currently. No, you don’t want to know. Trust me.