Whitewashing Reality

 Weekly Reading:
Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, Introduction and Chapter One (Handicapped by History; the Process of Hero-making)
 "Which Candidate Should We Elect and Why? An Inquiry Approach to Teaching about Elections" by Brett L.M. Levy. Social Education 80(4).


I took two different courses for my weekly reading. My first reading was the introduction and first chapter of Loewen's Lies my Teacher Told Me. To make it simple, he outlined how textbooks have gotten it wrong and teachers who stick to these bad textbook accounts are not helping students to really learn history. In essence, history is boring to many individuals because it is a glazed-over version of events that isn't always accurate. Furthermore, many individuals are not seeing representation of themselves in these textbooks (women, minorities, low socioeconomic status, etc.). We have made individuals into heroes over the years as well. Why do we constantly hide the uglier parts of our history? They happened! Yet textbooks, for a variety of reasons, choose not to broadcast (or will lightly mention them without placing blame) these shortcomings. In the first chapter, this is assessed by considering President Woodrow Wilson and Helen Keller. It was eye opening as I didn't know many of the details about them that Loewen revealed. If I hadn't read these chapters, would I have passed on misconceptions about them both to my students? Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes.

The second path I decided to take for my reading this week is related to my mock unit plan on elections. I was interested in this article because moving forward I want to have an idea of what a good election unit would look like. I'm glad I read the article because it gave me great ideas and resources that are directly related to the standards I chose. Levy provided insight on the whole process; begin by discussing prior knowledge, then move on to introducing a central question regarding the role that the student could play and which candidate should be elected and why (201).

In class we had discussed making my unit more "problematized" to make it more interesting. This article will help with that because students will compare issues that they are most interested in (say gun rights, abortion, immigration, etc.) and compare their beliefs to the positions of each candidate. They will also figure this out by looking at various news sources and spotting bias within sources. There are two great tables that I want to use in my unit if possible:

As Levy said, this exercise will not only help students figure out their own positions and really engage with the election, but they will also develop media literacy skills while working toward meeting their proficiencies. 

Three Things I Want to Remember:

• The realities about Woodrow Wilson. He did some great things, but it is also super important to know and remember the horrible things he did as well. Blatant racism is something that we can't ignore and pretend that it wasn't a part of his history. It certainly had an effect upon his presidency and our government.

•  Levy's research that found that students in 2012 "found political discussions, especially those about the election, to be among the most interesting activities of the semester" (203). I want to remember this because it means we really have to get these lessons right. We have to peak their interests and let them do some inquiry into topics that they're interested in and see where the candidates line up in comparison to their beliefs. I think making it more real will help students to enjoy these units, and figuring out how to carry that over to other units would be beneficial for the classroom. 

• Loewen asserted that "five-sixths of all Americans never take a course in American history beyond high school" (5). To me, that is crazy. This fact makes it even more important that we get it right when we are teaching history to our students. We need to make it more engaging. Students should be able to look into their own interests within history to make it even better. If we do this, then maybe more Americans would continue to study American history after they graduate.

Two Controversial Ideas:

• A quote from Loewen on what whitewashing and the heroification of white men is doing to our textbooks and the message it is sending to students: 

"While there is nothing wrong with optimism, it can be something of a burden for students of color, children of working-class parents, girls who notice the dearth of female historical figures, or members of any group that has not achieved socio-economic success. The optimistic approach prevents any understanding of failure other than blaming the victim" (Loewen, 3).

•  Educators are also at fault for this misunderstood version of history that students are learning. Rather than teaching what really happened or about the reality of the world sometimes, we give an idealistic version of sorts. As Loewen expressed above, it's okay to be optimistic but if the events are not portrayed realistically, then why are we even trying to say that we are teaching history? It is okay to encourage students, but they also deserve an accurate picture of the world.

"The notion that opportunity might be unequal in America, that not everyone has 'the power to rise in the world,' is anathema to textbook authors, and to many teachers as well. Educators would much rather present Keller as a bland source of encouragement and inspiration to our young..." (Loewen, 24). 

One Question:

•  How should we bring these new "versions" of history to light about individuals who have been made into heroes in prior history classes and textbooks? Do we treat these as misconceptions and use misconception strategies to address it? Is there enough information out there to convince students that they have, in fact, been made into heroes and that these other accounts are true and should be believed?