I am reposting part of a blog entry I made six years ago, because of its relevance to the attack on teaching about systemic racism, which is the real target of the rightwing nuts who are passing legislation to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory or anything else that points to the real history of these United States with regard to those whose story has traditionally be left out of our history books, that is, anyone but rich, straight white males.
On the Revised Revision of the APUS Curriculum
The following is a short response to an article which appeared in Ed Week on the 2015 revision of the AP US curriculum guide. This revision was produced by the College Board after a barrage of criticism from the right about the 2014 revision of the curriculum. The author of the article praises the latest revision as "balanced, neutral and contextual" - ie, sanitized.
I wish to respectfully disagree with Mr. Stern who has argued that the US Advanced Placement curriculum should be revised to eliminate certain aspects of US history. To teach history in a "balanced, neutral and contextual" manner is to rip out any real value in the study of the past (and probably to bore students to death in the process). That is precisely why the right has attacked the history taught, not only in AP classes, but in all public schools. Mr. Stern might want to "contextualize" that.
The study of history is only relevant if we can utilize it to understand the present. Those who seek to sanitize history do so because they want to control the narrative today. For example: to gloss over the immorality of slavery and to give Jefferson a pass when he writes "all men are created equal" while living off the backs of his slaves, to fail to address the why and how of the overthrow of Reconstruction, to fail to condemn the KKK (while excoriating their brothers-in-arms in Nazi Germany) gives cover to those today who continue to deny the legitimate demands of groups like BlackLivesMatter.
Speaking of "all MEN are created equal", was it merely an oversight that it didn't read "all women and men are created equal"? Nope. In fact, not only were women not considered equal in Jefferson's time, they actually experienced a well documented decline in status in the period following 1800 as a result of industrialization. Should we look at that as an unfortunate "side" effect of "progress"? Too bad ladies, but our economic development necessitates 78 cents on the dollar.
What exactly is the "balanced" approach to the exploitation of workers in the Gilded Age? How can one be "neutral" when teaching about how settlers gave blankets laced with TB to Native Americans or find justification for "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" slogan that guided policy during westward expansion.
Speaking of expansion, what exactly is the "context" of American Imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? All the other European countries (i.e., whites) were doing it?
I taught APUS History for 18 years, scored tests for the College Board for 6 of those years. In the classroom I presented what the right would consider an obviously "biased" analysis of our history with lessons for today, while at the same time emphasizing to my students that they should not accept anything that I said, that they read in the text or that they heard outside of class without thoroughly analyzing it themselves. I hope that today's teachers will do the same regardless of the tea party attacks or the College Board cave.
The study of history is only relevant if we can utilize it to understand the present. Those who seek to sanitize history do so because they want to control the narrative today. For example: to gloss over the immorality of slavery and to give Jefferson a pass when he writes "all men are created equal" while living off the backs of his slaves, to fail to address the why and how of the overthrow of Reconstruction, to fail to condemn the KKK (while excoriating their brothers-in-arms in Nazi Germany) gives cover to those today who continue to deny the legitimate demands of groups like BlackLivesMatter.
Speaking of "all MEN are created equal", was it merely an oversight that it didn't read "all women and men are created equal"? Nope. In fact, not only were women not considered equal in Jefferson's time, they actually experienced a well documented decline in status in the period following 1800 as a result of industrialization. Should we look at that as an unfortunate "side" effect of "progress"? Too bad ladies, but our economic development necessitates 78 cents on the dollar.
What exactly is the "balanced" approach to the exploitation of workers in the Gilded Age? How can one be "neutral" when teaching about how settlers gave blankets laced with TB to Native Americans or find justification for "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" slogan that guided policy during westward expansion.
Speaking of expansion, what exactly is the "context" of American Imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? All the other European countries (i.e., whites) were doing it?
I taught APUS History for 18 years, scored tests for the College Board for 6 of those years. In the classroom I presented what the right would consider an obviously "biased" analysis of our history with lessons for today, while at the same time emphasizing to my students that they should not accept anything that I said, that they read in the text or that they heard outside of class without thoroughly analyzing it themselves. I hope that today's teachers will do the same regardless of the tea party attacks or the College Board cave.
History does repeat, doesn't it.
No comments:
Post a Comment