To start off, I thought authors of American history textbooks do not know the mechanism of interests of students who are forced to learn history. As Loewen repeatedly explains, they tend to hide disadvantageous facts that give students bad impressions about certain historical figures and exaggerate their beneficence. Does this heroification, "a degenerative process that makes people over into heroes"(11), as Loewen himself defines, actually entertain readers? I do not believe so. Humans tend to have twisted personality; we do not show much interest to flawless people, but tend to favor people who show a little flaws to see a gap. History is a type of anthropology; therefore, it is more interesting to learn history from the figures' personalities, their interaction with others, and how that influenced the course of events. In order to do so, it is necessary to reveal every part of figures to readers. In the first chapter, Loewen gives an additional reason of why revision of history textbook is necessary. Some historical figures obviously get much more attention in good ways than others. Loewen used Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson to illustrate this.
Helen Keller, on the one hand, was certainly a victim of history twist done by the authors. As I was reading this chapter, I was surprised to know that she was a radical socialist because I only knew that she was a blind and deaf girl who fought physical disabilities, as most readers probably did. Keller joined the Socialist Party of Massachusetts and always fought for rights of the handicaps. She learned the connection between social class system and people's opportunities in life and how that applies to distribution of blindness in population. She also wrote letters to NAACP or Elizabeth Flynn and composed essays on the women's movement, on politics and on economics. It is much harder than it sounds, especially for a blind and deaf like her; I wonder how she did it in the first place. There are many other female socialists in American history, and they are known for their social achievements; I wonder why Helen Keller, who has done laudable jobs, is only known for her disabilities to most people, including me. She should have known for her accomplishments as a socialist more, and her disabilities as a supporting fact that explains her anguish.
Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, is overly praised by the authors of textbook. He was actually much more egoistic and antidemocratic than most readers would have thought. First, it was shocking to know that he had suffragists arrested before he reformed women's suffrage. This background that explains the interrelationship between the figure and the people changes our impression on him 180 degrees: whether he was supportive of giving women rights to vote. Moreover, his racial segregation of the federal government, in which he appointed whites to offices reserved for blacks also shows his anti democracy. Second, I was surprised with not only Wilson's military interventions in other countries but also how textbooks make excuses. It is shocking to know that he intervened in Latin America and Russia's civil war, but textbooks even defend him by stating Wilson was just willing to build friendship with Latin America but he reluctantly ordered troops because negotiation did not go smoothly. He was the one who ordered, and even by his own decision. This act of blaming countries intervened should not be considered patriotic, but rather hypocritical.
After reading this chapter, I realized that perspectives are important. In fact, textbooks that illustrate Wilson as a hero are written from a white perspective. In order to publish an unbiased textbook, it should be written and edited by as many perspectives as possible. Otherwise, it is obvious that the authors try to give attention to their favorite historical figures. There are two choices; one is to give equal amount of attention to all, and another one is to reveal all historical facts. This "hide and seek" of historical facts should not be done on academic documents like textbooks. Next chapter is apparently about Christopher Columbus. I am curious to know what kinds of veiled truths will be revealed.
Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, is overly praised by the authors of textbook. He was actually much more egoistic and antidemocratic than most readers would have thought. First, it was shocking to know that he had suffragists arrested before he reformed women's suffrage. This background that explains the interrelationship between the figure and the people changes our impression on him 180 degrees: whether he was supportive of giving women rights to vote. Moreover, his racial segregation of the federal government, in which he appointed whites to offices reserved for blacks also shows his anti democracy. Second, I was surprised with not only Wilson's military interventions in other countries but also how textbooks make excuses. It is shocking to know that he intervened in Latin America and Russia's civil war, but textbooks even defend him by stating Wilson was just willing to build friendship with Latin America but he reluctantly ordered troops because negotiation did not go smoothly. He was the one who ordered, and even by his own decision. This act of blaming countries intervened should not be considered patriotic, but rather hypocritical.
After reading this chapter, I realized that perspectives are important. In fact, textbooks that illustrate Wilson as a hero are written from a white perspective. In order to publish an unbiased textbook, it should be written and edited by as many perspectives as possible. Otherwise, it is obvious that the authors try to give attention to their favorite historical figures. There are two choices; one is to give equal amount of attention to all, and another one is to reveal all historical facts. This "hide and seek" of historical facts should not be done on academic documents like textbooks. Next chapter is apparently about Christopher Columbus. I am curious to know what kinds of veiled truths will be revealed.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿