Arg.

Jan. 29th, 2007 12:10 pm
velvetpage: (exterminate)
[personal profile] velvetpage
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] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-29 06:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pyat.livejournal.com
Erin, meet the Infinite Monkeys. Monkeys, meet Erin!

*hugs!*

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-29 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neebs.livejournal.com
Wait, you're NOT a racist misogynist? I feel like I don't even know you at all anymore!!! /sarcasm

Sorry the drama llama's got you. =(

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-29 06:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dagoski.livejournal.com
I do not think your assessment is out of line at all. The stark fact is that Europeans have shaped the world's history from the 1600s on to today. Before them, the Arabs probably had that role. Day after tomorrow? Hanged if I know. Maybe India. Maybe China. Maybe no one nationality does. Far more likely, the makers of the future will be a culture that does not fit into geopgraphic boundaries. If you go revising history by adding characters that make you feel good, you'll only wind up making your kids ignorant. I'm sort of a product of that my knowledge of history is pretty pathetic.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-29 06:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pyat.livejournal.com
Next you'll be telling us that the history of Europe from 50 AD to 300 AD was largely influenced by pale male Romans! You NAZI!

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-30 04:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dagoski.livejournal.com
Actually they were blue eyed swarthy gods not unlike a certain blogger with a Russian pseudoym. Hail Caesar, plebes!

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-29 08:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] neosis.livejournal.com
Apparently you are unaware of the "new feminism" where anything having to do with men is automatically mysogynistic.

No seriously. I've been told that the rules of debate are inherently mysogynistic because they were written by men. This then extends to history books, corporations, the government, TV, and well everything. Everything in the world is mysogynist, including any woman who dares to disagree with the "new feminism".

Oh, wait, am I being cynical again?

(no subject)

Date: 2007-01-29 08:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] velvetpage.livejournal.com
You and me both, hon. :)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-02-06 03:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dulcinbradbury.livejournal.com
Totally on-board with you here. And annoyed when people try to "fix" inequity by sacrificing teaching history. My brother had an American history textbook in high school that had ten pages featuring African-Americans from history & one paragraph on the Revolutionary war.

Am I saying that we shouldn't teach kids about women & minorities that *did* great things in white, male-dominated periods? Of course not.

I'm just saying that we can't *not* teach about the white men and their actions because we're afraid of offending someone.

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags