![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 29th, 2007
Very sleepy today. Something to do with five wake-ups in four hours will do that to a girl.
According to one person in booju, who subsequently pointed it out in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
stupid_free, I'm a racist misogynist who is unworthy to teach her kids. The reason? I agreed with the statement that much of the history in North America, at the level taught to elementary school children, was created by white men. I also challenged her assertion that the only reason history books concentrate on white men is that the books are written by white men.
Where do I begin?
Okay, let's start with the pyramid example. Throughout history, it's been the people at the very top of the social pyramid who got the most press, because they had the power to direct events. When teaching elementary school history, I have to focus on that top of the pyramid because keeping it simple is absolutely necessary. Believe me, I've tried to get into the complexities. It generally doesn't work, and I end up giving A's to the kids who get it - which means I didn't expect them to get it, it was just a bonus. As you go further in the study of history, you start to learn about the next levels down - the supporting cast, if you will. These are the inventors, the writers, the philosophers, the rebels, and there are plenty of people of colour amongst them. I teach about these in elementary school, but usually, it's not as part of the grand scheme of history; it's more of an anecdotal story. They get woven into the Big Picture later, in middle school and high school, as kids get better at drawing links between disparate items. The next levels down on the pyramid start to get into people who weren't literate enough to leave us their own voices, or who chose not to, and except for painting a broad picture, their stories are mostly left for college/university studies.
Does it make me a racist to focus on the people who made the laws and ordered the armies to war? No - it makes me a teacher of history. After they have the idea of what happened, then they can go back and fill in the details, and that's where the broader picture will come in. But they need a framework to do that - and the framework, until the last forty or fifty years in North America, was provided mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) by white men.
As for misogyny - I find it rather ironic to accuse a woman who is as much a product of feminism as I am, of misogyny. I want everyone treated fairly, which means that I don't want one group to get ahead at the expense of another, innocent group. School isn't working for boys these days. They drop out more often, don't read as well, don't get as many helping hands, as girls do. Adjusting or adding to my teaching strategies in order to help everyone achieve their best is MY JOB. I'm not going to let the girls suffer for it, but I'm not going to encourage the girls at the expense of the boys, either. It's not fair to anyone to do that.
Okay, that's my rant.
According to one person in booju, who subsequently pointed it out in
stupid_free, I'm a racist misogynist who is unworthy to teach her kids. The reason? I agreed with the statement that much of the history in North America, at the level taught to elementary school children, was created by white men. I also challenged her assertion that the only reason history books concentrate on white men is that the books are written by white men.Where do I begin?
Okay, let's start with the pyramid example. Throughout history, it's been the people at the very top of the social pyramid who got the most press, because they had the power to direct events. When teaching elementary school history, I have to focus on that top of the pyramid because keeping it simple is absolutely necessary. Believe me, I've tried to get into the complexities. It generally doesn't work, and I end up giving A's to the kids who get it - which means I didn't expect them to get it, it was just a bonus. As you go further in the study of history, you start to learn about the next levels down - the supporting cast, if you will. These are the inventors, the writers, the philosophers, the rebels, and there are plenty of people of colour amongst them. I teach about these in elementary school, but usually, it's not as part of the grand scheme of history; it's more of an anecdotal story. They get woven into the Big Picture later, in middle school and high school, as kids get better at drawing links between disparate items. The next levels down on the pyramid start to get into people who weren't literate enough to leave us their own voices, or who chose not to, and except for painting a broad picture, their stories are mostly left for college/university studies.
Does it make me a racist to focus on the people who made the laws and ordered the armies to war? No - it makes me a teacher of history. After they have the idea of what happened, then they can go back and fill in the details, and that's where the broader picture will come in. But they need a framework to do that - and the framework, until the last forty or fifty years in North America, was provided mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) by white men.
As for misogyny - I find it rather ironic to accuse a woman who is as much a product of feminism as I am, of misogyny. I want everyone treated fairly, which means that I don't want one group to get ahead at the expense of another, innocent group. School isn't working for boys these days. They drop out more often, don't read as well, don't get as many helping hands, as girls do. Adjusting or adding to my teaching strategies in order to help everyone achieve their best is MY JOB. I'm not going to let the girls suffer for it, but I'm not going to encourage the girls at the expense of the boys, either. It's not fair to anyone to do that.
Okay, that's my rant.