When public schools deliberately don't teach an important topic, is it right ?
- Thread starter Cazzo
- Start date
they were mentioned in every single history textbook I have had although in passing. it was the same for the holocuast. You screaming about nothing
just because they are typicaly forced to cover 50 year time in a week from WW2 to modern doesn't mean they are intentionally not bringing it up.
Name one published school book that covers the Communist democides of the 20th century with equal coverage as the Nazi holocaust, just one. Title, author, year please.
I don't fucking remember my middle school and high school text books. There is about one sentence about the holocuast in them. and they mention stalin's mass killing and pol potts. a sentence each. so shit that twice the coverage of the holocuast.
And the same doesn't apply to Communism? *cough* Cold War.
OK, but only if you name one recent published school book that covers the Holocaust with more coverage than the communist democide, just one. Title, author, year please
I granted you that Stalin did massacre, on purpose through starvation, the kulaks. Also Pol Pot did mass slaughter.cazzo said:
But Stalin did not deliberately slaughter 60 million Soviet citizens. Nor did Pol Pot kill all the missing Cambodians. And if we are going to teach a course in massacres, it will take a while.
Hitler's operation was quite different - for one thing, it was carried out against people enmeshed in German and European society, not a separate group. For another, it was done by machinery - industrially, in a factory setting. Stalin, even, did nothing like that. For a third, the regime that did it was supported by many - possibly most, at first - Americans. It's not that America has more Jews than Russians - it's that America has more Germans and fascists than Russians or communists.
Now it's your turn: How many Cambodians did the US kill in eleven years of bombing the peasantry of that thickly populated land? Laotians? Vietnamese? How much space do you want to use for that slaughter in an American high school history text?
Fundamental aspects of the problem at hand
Perhaps we should consider the question in terms of when and how to work genocide, atrocity, and human suffering into the curriculum.
So first of all, what issues and events?
Now, what do we wish to teach about these?
And how much time do we want to give it?
It's that last one that gets me. Indeed, it nearly defines the outcome of the other two.
Anyone? Anyone?
Perhaps we should consider the question in terms of when and how to work genocide, atrocity, and human suffering into the curriculum.
So first of all, what issues and events?
• Soviets under Stalin
• Holocaust
• Great Leap Forward
• Pol Pot
• Rwanda
• DRC
• Armenia
• Palestine
• American settlement
• Holocaust
• Great Leap Forward
• Pol Pot
• Rwanda
• DRC
• Armenia
• Palestine
• American settlement
Now, what do we wish to teach about these?
• Pure statistics
• Operational structure and theory
• Ethical critique
• Historical trends
• Operational structure and theory
• Ethical critique
• Historical trends
And how much time do we want to give it?
• ?
It's that last one that gets me. Indeed, it nearly defines the outcome of the other two.
Anyone? Anyone?
A few million Ukranians in his five-year plans, however.
That's a very good question, Tiassa. I wonder (and perhaps this is for a different thread) if it would be better to have a nationalized curriculum. I know that there are many things that friends of mine learned that I never did, and vice versa, despite only being one school district apart.
As to your question, I think we should find a way to teach all of that. Perhaps there should be an entire course dedicated to those atrocities?
head vs wall
That would be one of the most contentious curricula ever. I recall in the 1990s when Columbus was the issue, some people literally objected to teaching the truth about what he did and what happened under his authority because it would tarnish a hero of American lore. Revisionism! they cried. Well, sure, technically yes. But we have it in his own damn hand, so what's the problem?
Look at American settlement. There is a prevailing myth known as "empty continent"; that is, people suppose that the American continent was mostly empty. Dr. Chris Lewis, at University of Colorado-Boulder, explains,
Few students, it seems, ever encounter the assertion that European settlers and their descendants wiped out as much as ninety-five percent of the indigenous population. It is a contentious assertion, of course, both in its scale and period, but I found it crammed into the notes at the back of a college history text; it never actually worked its way into the curriculum.
So naturally some people pitch fits when they hear talk of biological warfare and genocide in the American heritage. But how do you balance this? Should an equal number of good and bad representations of American attitudes toward the indigenous population be presented? Should those representations be explored? For instance, Lewis explains further,
In the first place, poor representations of European and American conduct toward indigenous peoples far outweigh the good. Additionally, many of the good representations fall apart under closer scrutiny. Some—indeed, many—would still perceive a basic unfairness in the telling of an accurate history.
And that's just an American story. Thus, should we really give equal claim to the Turkish denials of the Armenian genocide? And what of Holocaust deniers, how should they be represented? Would high school teachers be allowed to teach the story of how the late Ariel Sharon—a former President of Israel—murdered Palestinian women and children? Would it be unfair to Israel and the United States to teach about the Christian Phalangists, who not only have the dubious credit in many people's eyes of starting the Lebanese Civil War, but in 1982 massacred Palestinian refugees°?
I think it would be a stimulating, enlightening class if done right. But it would come with built-in migraines and even concussions. Determining that curriculum would be one of the greatest head-vs.-wall experiences I can imagine in public education.
____________________
Notes:
° massacred Palestinian refugees — There is something of a strange movie about that event, called Waltz With Bashir. Reviewing the film for The Stranger, Lindy West notes:
Works Cited:
Lewis, Chris H. "American Indians and the Struggle for the West". University of Colorado at Boulder. Updated September 10, 2002. http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/indians.htm
West, Lindy. "On Screen". The Stranger. January 27, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/on-screen/Content?oid=1032110
JDawg said:
That would be one of the most contentious curricula ever. I recall in the 1990s when Columbus was the issue, some people literally objected to teaching the truth about what he did and what happened under his authority because it would tarnish a hero of American lore. Revisionism! they cried. Well, sure, technically yes. But we have it in his own damn hand, so what's the problem?
Look at American settlement. There is a prevailing myth known as "empty continent"; that is, people suppose that the American continent was mostly empty. Dr. Chris Lewis, at University of Colorado-Boulder, explains,
But our textbooks do not describe the settling of the Americas as a scramble for wealth and the brutal exploitation of Indians and Africans. Instead we celebrate Columbus, as President Bush did in 1989, "as a role model for the nation." .... High school textbooks do not describe the refusal of Europeans to recognize and respect the rights of Indians who had already settled and lived in America, who were themselves the First Americans. There is thus a major contradiction between our history of European settlement and the reality of the brutal dispossession of Indian land and culture from 1492 to the present. Loewen argues that in order to avoid this contradiction, Americans forget the brutal reality of Indian-White conflict and accept the myth of the "empty continent" peopled by a few wandering savages, who were very quickly pushed aside by the progress of civilization across the American continent. Loewen refers to this process of denial as cognitive dissonance. Because humans can't hold two mutually incompatible beliefs at the same time, we tend to deny or forget one of those beliefs in order to make one of them reasonable and acceptable. Thus, in order to celebrate the victory of progress, the movement of white settlers across the continent, and the triumph of American democracy and civilization, Americans forget that in order to settle the continent that they had to brutally deny Indians their rights and culture. The basic contradiction is this: Can America celebrate itself as a democratic society based the recognition of individual rights and freedoms while at the same recognizing that very democratic society denied the basic rights and freedoms of Indian peoples.
Few students, it seems, ever encounter the assertion that European settlers and their descendants wiped out as much as ninety-five percent of the indigenous population. It is a contentious assertion, of course, both in its scale and period, but I found it crammed into the notes at the back of a college history text; it never actually worked its way into the curriculum.
So naturally some people pitch fits when they hear talk of biological warfare and genocide in the American heritage. But how do you balance this? Should an equal number of good and bad representations of American attitudes toward the indigenous population be presented? Should those representations be explored? For instance, Lewis explains further,
The best example of what Loewen means by cognitive dissonance in Indian-White relations can be seen in Frederick Jackson Turner's famous 1893 history, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." This speech and Turner's larger argument is one of the most influential arguments in American history. Turner's point of view about Western settlement dominated the way American understood the history of American settlement up until the 1960s.
Turner argues that the best way to understand American history is to study the settlement of the continent: "Up to our own day American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West." He argues that American democratic institutions and values such as individualism, independence, self-reliance, and mistrust of government can be traced to the American settlement of the West. By facing and conquering the challenge of settling the frontier, Americans became who and what they are--they became Americans. For Turner, settlers contact with "free land" and the struggle to conquer the wilderness transformed them into Americans. But Turner does not mention anywhere the role of the Indians, who had lived and settled in the West. If settling the West made Americans who they are, why weren't Indians transformed and made into Americans already. The only time Turner mentions Indians is when he notes that the settler "fits himself into the Indian clearings and follows the Indian trails." But what happened to the Indians who made these trails and clearings? If Turner recognized the existence and prior settlement of America by Indians, his entire argument would fall apart. White settlers can't be celebrated as democratic heroes, settling and developing a continent, and in the process creating a democratic society, while at the same time denying Indians the very democratic rights America celebrates. As Loewen argues, Americans would rather have the myth than face the complex realities created by the massive contradictions between American democratic ideals and the reality of the brutal denial of Indians rights and place in American society.
Turner argues that the best way to understand American history is to study the settlement of the continent: "Up to our own day American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West." He argues that American democratic institutions and values such as individualism, independence, self-reliance, and mistrust of government can be traced to the American settlement of the West. By facing and conquering the challenge of settling the frontier, Americans became who and what they are--they became Americans. For Turner, settlers contact with "free land" and the struggle to conquer the wilderness transformed them into Americans. But Turner does not mention anywhere the role of the Indians, who had lived and settled in the West. If settling the West made Americans who they are, why weren't Indians transformed and made into Americans already. The only time Turner mentions Indians is when he notes that the settler "fits himself into the Indian clearings and follows the Indian trails." But what happened to the Indians who made these trails and clearings? If Turner recognized the existence and prior settlement of America by Indians, his entire argument would fall apart. White settlers can't be celebrated as democratic heroes, settling and developing a continent, and in the process creating a democratic society, while at the same time denying Indians the very democratic rights America celebrates. As Loewen argues, Americans would rather have the myth than face the complex realities created by the massive contradictions between American democratic ideals and the reality of the brutal denial of Indians rights and place in American society.
In the first place, poor representations of European and American conduct toward indigenous peoples far outweigh the good. Additionally, many of the good representations fall apart under closer scrutiny. Some—indeed, many—would still perceive a basic unfairness in the telling of an accurate history.
And that's just an American story. Thus, should we really give equal claim to the Turkish denials of the Armenian genocide? And what of Holocaust deniers, how should they be represented? Would high school teachers be allowed to teach the story of how the late Ariel Sharon—a former President of Israel—murdered Palestinian women and children? Would it be unfair to Israel and the United States to teach about the Christian Phalangists, who not only have the dubious credit in many people's eyes of starting the Lebanese Civil War, but in 1982 massacred Palestinian refugees°?
I think it would be a stimulating, enlightening class if done right. But it would come with built-in migraines and even concussions. Determining that curriculum would be one of the greatest head-vs.-wall experiences I can imagine in public education.
____________________
Notes:
° massacred Palestinian refugees — There is something of a strange movie about that event, called Waltz With Bashir. Reviewing the film for The Stranger, Lindy West notes:
In 1982, following the assassination of Lebanese president-elect Bashir Gemayel, Israeli Defense Forces allowed the Lebanese Phalangist militia to enter two Palestinian refugee camps, where they slaughtered at least 300—and possibly as many as 3,000—civilians. Filmmaker Ari Folman, at the time an Israeli soldier, was there, but he can't remember a thing. "The truth is, that's not stored in my system," he says.
Works Cited:
Lewis, Chris H. "American Indians and the Struggle for the West". University of Colorado at Boulder. Updated September 10, 2002. http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/indians.htm
West, Lindy. "On Screen". The Stranger. January 27, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/on-screen/Content?oid=1032110
It probably isn't so. The continent really was notably depopulated by the time the first Scotch Irish pioneers launched westward.tiassa said:
Most of the Reds died of disease and other Reds, without ever seeing a White. From the time of the first Spanish explorers into the densely populated southern Mississippi Valley, until the next Whites arrived and found almost no one (comparatively) living there any more, must have been one of the greatest mass die-offs of human history - but it happened without the presence of Whites.
And most of those who died directly at the hands or policies of Whites were not victims of genocides with, as they say, intent. The cholera epidemics that accompanied the dislocations and dispossessions in recorded history, for example, were not intended.
In common with the disaster of Mao's Great Leap Forward (coincident with a major drought, which some attribute to the early symptoms of global warming) these belong in a different category from Stalin's deliberate (as opposed to his even more lethal unintended) starvations, and even more distinctly Hitler's deliberate and industrial slaughters.
We should distinguish murder and maltreatment from quasi-justifiable negligence or ignorance, and both from simple bad fate. It is very difficult to see how the Europeans could have prevented the epidemiological disaster following their discovery of the Americas. And it even tends to blur or obscure the very particular evils of the European conquest, by folding things like Columbus's genocidal enslavements in with plagues and secondary dislocations far away from the Whites.
Last edited: