I don't think Loewen hit the bullseye with this chapter. Honestly, I don't think you can say that antiracism is invisible throughout American text books.
If by this point we as future educators/social scientists don't understand that we cannot rely on grade school/high school text books to fully educate our students, then perhaps we should begin looking at a different profession. We need to use those text books as only our first rung on the ladder of deeper education. It is up to us to be well versed in the content we will be teaching; this will include bringing in outside sources, introducing those figures overlooked or skimmed over in text books, etc. Not only will we not rely on text books to teach, we will be setting an example to our students in how to make history interesting, how to research, and how to look at a topic from mulitiple views.
Antiracism isn't invisible; it's simply skimmed. Think about milk processing. To get less fat concentration in a grade of milk, the fat is simply skimmed off of the top. In this case, antiracism is the fat filled, D grade milk. By the time the greedy text book authors get done with the nutrient rich antiracism, it's presented as skim milk. We get a little bit of Lincoln, a little bit of the civil rights movement (if the class is fortunate enough to have a teacher who gets them through the first 20 chapters of the book before the end of the year), and the rest is history. But you can't say it's invisible.
I don't hold it against the "authors" for condensing American history. The idea that text books are supposed to cover 500 years of history in 1000 pages is ridiculous. But it's a business. I hold it against the business. At the same time, I hold it against the teachers who complain about the lackluster educational tools they exploit yet fail to employ the use of the research methods and knowledge they spent thousands of dollars developing while at the post-secondary level.
If text books were meant to teach then teachers would be referred to as proctors, not educators.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Color Blind
Again my students didn't disappoint. I have no idea how the whirlwind of conversation led to the tip-toed topic of racism, but one student claimed that racism isn't as much of a factor in society as stereotyping. "People always say I talk 'white'. What does that even mean? Because I speak proper English I am trying to be something I'm not?"
It was a stimulating statement allowing the students people have told me to be misfits to rise to the occasion and show their true colors. (no pun) Eventually the conversation led to the class coming to the conclusion, as a whole, that race would eventually die out as an issue due to the "cross-breeding goin' on", as one student candidly spoke.
I was intrigued by the sudden maturity level at which the students posed themselves. While the conversation may have seemed off topic and took up most of the 40 minute class period, they were actually right on cue. The class is getting ready to create their own amendment for the U.S. Constitution, so while exploring the true meaning behind the phrasing of other amendments they were captivated by the idea that the founding fathers were the ones who agreed on the 3/5ths compromise.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to get at here. Perhaps it's the idea that students are capable of reaching higher orders of thinking if we only facilitate it. Or that regardless of the label society has given a group of people they are able to achieve great feats of intelligence and integrity. The students left class that day awake and attentive, carrying themselves as though they were proud of what they had accomplished together. Other teachers came and asked what we did because they noticed the students were "walking tall".
While Loewen does hit the nail a couple of times when referring to the "invisibility of racism in American textbooks" our students are capable of seeing through the facades put up by the textbook authors at the top of capitalism if we would only provide them with the proper looking glass. But again the struggle for me is how do I determine what truths I will and won't provide if teaching with a textbook as a primary source for my students?
It was a stimulating statement allowing the students people have told me to be misfits to rise to the occasion and show their true colors. (no pun) Eventually the conversation led to the class coming to the conclusion, as a whole, that race would eventually die out as an issue due to the "cross-breeding goin' on", as one student candidly spoke.
I was intrigued by the sudden maturity level at which the students posed themselves. While the conversation may have seemed off topic and took up most of the 40 minute class period, they were actually right on cue. The class is getting ready to create their own amendment for the U.S. Constitution, so while exploring the true meaning behind the phrasing of other amendments they were captivated by the idea that the founding fathers were the ones who agreed on the 3/5ths compromise.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to get at here. Perhaps it's the idea that students are capable of reaching higher orders of thinking if we only facilitate it. Or that regardless of the label society has given a group of people they are able to achieve great feats of intelligence and integrity. The students left class that day awake and attentive, carrying themselves as though they were proud of what they had accomplished together. Other teachers came and asked what we did because they noticed the students were "walking tall".
While Loewen does hit the nail a couple of times when referring to the "invisibility of racism in American textbooks" our students are capable of seeing through the facades put up by the textbook authors at the top of capitalism if we would only provide them with the proper looking glass. But again the struggle for me is how do I determine what truths I will and won't provide if teaching with a textbook as a primary source for my students?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)