Tuesday, February 1, 2011
EL 128 for Spring 2011
Blog at least twice a week, but not on the same day, and try to separate your entries out 1-2 days so that you're responding to different readings, assignments, class meetings, campus/community events (for extra credit). When you blog, don't just gush. Use the terms from the readings, CRT terms, literary terms--but do respond to the class material, discussions, multicultural events you've attended, and your classmates' blogs. Be analytical when you respond, please. Don't attack people. That's mean.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I was reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me", I started to realize just how extensively my high school history textbook has impacted my own thinking. I remember next to none of what I learned throughout all my history classes; yet, the way it was taught has caused me to look at the United States in a way that is not necessarily accurate. I'm not saying that I think America is perfect; however, there are certain characteristics that I have long attributed to the United States, characteristics that I assume are always present, no matter the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOne of these characteristics is the way United States citizens treat other people. I assume that, in most cases, they treated other races decently. Yes, I know there are notorious exceptions, such as slavery and concentration camps; but I thought those were the only exceptions.
One particular sentence in "Lies" caught me very much by surprise. It says, "American troops forced peasants in shackles to work on road construction crews" (18). The moment I read this, I was automatically skeptical, and defensive in favor of the U.S. If it had referred to either black slavery or concentration camps, I would not have reacted this way; however, it referred to the conduct of U.S. troops in Haiti. I am used to seeing America as the giant who talks softly and carries the big stick, as the one who usually just steps in to promote the welfare of other countries. Of course, I knew there were numerous exceptions to this too, but I assumed that even in these cases, the U.S. would not go so far as to make slaves of another nation, especially not as recently as 1920.
As a child, I loved reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and took pride in doing so all through my grade and high school careers. It was a way for me to repay our country for all that it had given me: freedom, security, hope. So passionate was I about the pledge that it enraged me to see some of my classmates choose to opt out and sit silently during this morning ritual. Once high school began, everyone was given the choice of whether or not to stand and speak the words that I revered and, more often than not, a majority of the class would decide not to. Seeking an explanation for this behavior, I thought it could be because they were perhaps lazy or indifferent or even unpatriotic. “Lies My Teacher Told Me” has begun to open my eyes to an answer that could actually be true. Loewen takes Woodrow Wilson and presents facts that make it impossible for the African American community to call him a hero. It struck me that those who did not take part in the Pledge of Allegiance were typically non-white students. Could it be that they saw no reason to pledge anything to a country that treated them differently than it did me? How different could our lives have been? Loewen reports that Helen Keller “learned how the social class system controls people’s opportunities in life,” (14). Born into a fairly well off white family separated me from my classmates in, not only my opportunities, but my beliefs about our country. Fierce patriotism has coursed through my veins for a great many years, making anything less than full devotion seem like a treasonous act. I adore the “heroes” of American history, but I see now that I was never given the full picture. What if, like Wilson, these champions of liberty are only villains in disguise? What does that mean for those who look up to them? Loewen claims that Helen Keller jokes exist in order for students to humanize “a pretentious symbol that is too good to be real.” (29). While I agree with this statement, I’m not convinced that it is better to have flawed heroes than perfected ones. Yes, it is good to know the entire story and I agree whole-heartedly that students today should be told even the embarrassing details. But a hero still needs to be one whom many can look up to. I appreciated it when Loewen reminded his readers of the good things that Wilson accomplished, “including tariff reform, an income tax, the Federal Reserve Act, and the workingmen’s Compensation Act,” (26). The whole story behind our “heroes” needs to be told. Perhaps we can find a way to tell it while still remembering the good that they did. Just as the good cannot nullify the bad, focusing on the mistakes shouldn’t wipe out all reasons for admiration.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me," I became surprisingly defensive of my high school history courses. My (albeit somewhat giant)textbook from my junior year was entitled "A People and A Nation: A History of the United States." There was no waving American flag or glorious image of the Washington monument gracing its cover. This text was designed to prepare us for the A.P. exam, and my well-respected history teacher worked hard to develop far-reaching conversations which caused his students to explore various perspectives from across the timeline of American history. Undoubtedly there were shortcomings in the course material, but nothing of the sort which Loewen seems to accept as the norm in modern history classrooms across the United States.
ReplyDeleteOne quotation in particular grabbed my attention. Loewen describes his college students' responses to his asking of who their heroes in American history are. "In one sense this is a healthy development. Surely we want students to be skeptical. Probably we want them to challenge being told whom to believe in. But replying "none" is too glib, too nihilistic, for my taste. It is, however, an understandable respnse to heroification." (29) This is the result of both poorly and well-taught history courses. Each, whether as an opposition to the teacher's preached ideals or as an agreement with his or her taught skepticism, breeds a generation of teenage cynics. Is this the end goal? Surely there must be more to the mission of educating today's youth about the history of this nation than to cause them to view the world ever so negatively.
I have to agree with Lindsay on several points. After reading this first Section of "Lies My Teacher Told Me," I definitely regard those forgotten high school history courses in a different light.
ReplyDeleteI had a wonderful history teacher the last two years of high school; he has greatly influenced me as a mentor. He knows so much more about American history than was set forth for him to teach in the curriculum. Though he hinted towards misleading of the sort Loewen points out, I had no idea just how drastically wrong some of facts about Hellen Keller, for example, really were. I had never heard more about her than most of the college students that Loewen polled.
Wilson, on the other hand, though I definitely learned of his life through the lens of heroification, I knew was not the hero everyone said. My father influenced me in this, because I was well aware that he, as well as the above-mentioned history teacher, did not approve of Wilson or his policies.
I think it is sad that a country that has been such a world power like ours, has to be hidden behind veils of heroification like Loewen describes. If the U.S. is as wonderful as the textbooks would lead us to believe, why not tell the whole truth without omissions? If it is not as wonderful, I feel that as citizens of a free country, we have a right to that knowledge also. Is it not important and, in its own right, great that Hellen Keller helped to found the ACLU? Shouldn’t we learn from the consequences of Wilson’s decisions to invade so many countries seemingly needlessly? I am very interested in delving into Loewen’s book and learning more on this topic.
What happens when we grow up? DO these textbook writers ask themselves this question? These children are going to grow up believing their half-truths as full truths, or will just make up the information that is not given them. For instance, Helen Keller; most kids, including myself, just learn about her younger years and then assume she went on learning how to read and write all the rest of her days. Or teaching other little blind-deaf children like her. I was never told what happened to her, so I just made up the most reasonable story I could and took it for fact. If this generation of students grows up to believe such things, then passes that on to their kids; eventually, we are going to have a generation that has no clue about their own history whatsoever. A lack of willing history students, as Loewen says there is, only serves to stroke the flame.
ReplyDeleteThe Authors of these textbooks may believe that a kid should not be taught anything but happy ideals and non-realistic historical figures. Yet it is only going to backfire.
What does this say about our society right now? That we only want happy things to be taught. Do we not realize that children need a dose of reality as well? Our generation seems to believe that we can get rich quick and do whatever we like without consequence. (Is it by mistake that reality shows are so popular?) It seems we want to forget the rest of reality and just live in our own little fantasies. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we teach kids what is real. How the world really works. Our idols are far from perfect. Presidents are not perfect. Democracy is not the only form of government, and some so notorious as Hellen Keller were for it. It is time we teach the children how to survive.
I was always a student who hated History in high school. It wasn’t just because of the fact that I was nearly falling asleep from those teachers who would drone on forever about whom their favorite president was that I despised these classes. The lessons themselves were packed with an unnecessarily large number of vocabulary words and seemed impossible to read because of the “mumbling lecturer” tone as described by James Loewen. After reading “Lies My Teacher Told Me” I realized why this was a class I dreaded going to everyday. The textbooks and curriculum that are being taught to students doesn’t provide them with good enough knowledge of history.
ReplyDeleteI guess I can understand why the people writing these textbooks wouldn’t want the students of our nation to be taught that Woodrow Wilson was an outspoken racist and Hellen Keller supported the communist revolution in Russia. They want us looking up to them as a great leader of our nation and a little girl who defied the odds.
Whether it felt like it or not, we were reading a history book when we read this first chapter. I actually was able to sit down and want to keep reading to find out more about these things our teachers left out of their lessons. This was definitely not the case when I read those horrible textbooks. If schools were to teach the history of our nation in a way where it wasn’t written in the most boring way possible, maybe students would actually want to learn more about it.
I quite enjoyed the reading of "Lies My Teacher Told Me," because I really love American History and this book will make what I have learned even more interesting. What I did not enjoy about it was that it went into extreme detail about Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson when it did not need to take two or three pages, but rather a quarter to half a page. While I see the point that Loewe was making, I feel it could have been condensed.
ReplyDeleteWhen I went to read "The Summer of the Black Widow," I was quite surprised when I looked at the back cover and read that it was a collection of poems, because I was expecting a shorter novel. I enjoyed "The Summer of the Black Widow" to the best of my ability, but poetry and I do not get along since I did two units of poetry last year back to back (Robert Frost and T.S. Eliot).
Like many, I grew up reading and learning from the usual history textbooks. I learned to be a proud American and to be proud of our nation's history. Luckily, when I was a high school junior, I was switched into the honors history course. My teacher could be described as a radical. He was adamantly against the publisher's textbooks and instead he would pick and choose from various academic journals for us to read. Throughout the year we also wrote research papers in which we had to find a historical figure and show how history has changed their image (e.g. Christopher Columbus or Thomas Jefferson). This history teacher actually recommended “Lies My Teacher Told Me” to the class to read and most of us bought it soon after.
ReplyDeleteSince I am in the process of becoming an elementary school teacher this book has really changed my perspective on teaching history. The United States is quickly changing into a very multicultural country and so it is inappropriate to teach school children about only white, “heroic” historical figures. School is one of the key social interaction centers for children. It is where they learn social cues and learn what is appropriate in society. The Critical Race Theory tenet #3 is that race is a social, and not a biological, construction. Children learn from adult example that some groups are better than others. Teachers need to stop teaching history from the white perspective and instead be culturally responsive. Children will hopefully learn by example and, with any luck, the white over color ascendency will disappear.
Looking back on the ideas from elementary school I completely believe that Loewen’s findings are valid. I remember learning about historical heroes and thinking that America could do no wrong. The teachers taught us that anyone that went against America’s history was traitorous and wrong. It is concerning to think that most adults in the US are ignorant to the facts of our nation’s history.
I have always had throughout my life trouble with my history classes. I used to be a die hard patriot but it was to the point where I would ignore even the most obvious sign that our country did/does anything wrong. Then I began to think and look at the evidence around me. I don't know what started it but I began to question all of the 'information' given to me by my teachers and the news. For instance, it never seemed very clear cut to me on why we invaded Iraq (though reasons were given, they didn't seem to have any basis in fact to me). Due to this I began to wonder, if the government is hiding their motives now, might not they have hidden them many times in the past as well? What else are we not being told? The book "Lies my Teacher Told Me" has shed light on this answer. While I was in high school I took and A.P. United States History class and we read virtually every page out of our history book which happens to have been mentioned by Leowen several times already. My teacher whom was very brilliant, still made it seem as though what the book said was pure gospel and so I believed the book because I trusted the teacher. Now I feel it was kind of a joke. Why bother even studying history if we cannot draw any firm conclusions on it because we aren't given enough information? I realize time constraints limit the ammount of material that a class could feasibly cover, similar to what Keely stated earlier, but why not at least cover several of the most important events thoroughly?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and several of the above posts I realized that I was incredibly fortunate in both the history teachers I had in high school and the text books they chose to use. I am a total history nerd so when we started US history sophomore year I was excited to learn more about the stories and battles I learned about in middle school. However, my school is one of few in our nation that uses the revised textbooks and I remember leaving history class either depressed or angry because of what I had learned about our nation that day. When my teacher told us about our government's lack of immediate response to victims of hurricane Katrina in comparison to our overnight shipment of aid to tsunami victims half way across the world and about how our government has the notion that the United States has the right to get in everyone’s business I kept thinking “Why didn’t anyone tell me? How did I not know this already? How could such important bits of history with such great impact on the world be kept so secret?” Like Lowen I believe that instead of putting so much energy into maintaining an unwarranted national prestige in classrooms, middle school and high school students need to be well informed about the controversial events in our nation instead of spoon fed half-baked history. If textbook comities and curriculum coordinators do not have the courage and integrity to show the future of our nation exactly what our country has done how can we, the youth, be expected to make and become the generation the world has been waiting for?
ReplyDeleteI would have been perfectly happy if James Loewen had written all my history books. I was fortunate enough to have a history teacher who did not teach from our book (which is on the list of those Loewen consulted) and who was not afraid to tell the truth about historical figures. However, I feel I would have benefited in the years before this from a textbook which showed the nitty-gritty side of history as well as the rosy side. I am afraid for the next students to go through my school, since my teacher retired this year. What kind of historical education will they receive if the new teacher worships the book, like so many others?
ReplyDelete(On a side note, I used my new-found knowledge of Helen Keller to impress my folks today.)
I find I've enjoyed "The Summer of Black Widows" even more than "Lies My Teacher Told Me," though, especially the sort-of-sonnets. To me, history illustrated by poem is more impactful than history handed to me on a silver platter (or, as the case may be, in a black book).
The poem that made the biggest impact on me was "The First and Last Ghost Dance of Lester FallsApart." I was struck by the sadness of it first, and then by its beauty. I enjoyed the contrast between the form-the 14 lines like a sonnet-and the content-sadness and despair instead of sonnet-like love. For me, it was very reminiscent of the Trail of Tears and of the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. It also reminded me of why I dislike zoos.
Everything beautiful
begins somewhere.
Hopefully, authors like Alexie and Loewen can use literature as a beginning point for a beautiful change in the way we view history.
I find Alexie's poetry absolutely amazing. Each individual poem is a work of art, and is in itself intricate, multi-layered, and thought-provoking. Each one is a complete entity by itself; it amazes me that despite their individual character, they all relate, they all share some common thread, yet they are each completely original.
ReplyDeleteMost of the poems in the "Why We Play Basketball" section are, of course, related somehow to basketball - but their connection runs deeper than subject; there are certain images or sets of images that run through several different ones. The last poem especially, the one called "Why We Play Basketball" really serves to wrap up all the other parts, because so many of its images are familiar. It starts with the burning of the snow on the basketball court; the image of a snow-covered court was first presented in "Mistranslation of a Traditional Spokane Indian Song", and was the reason the bear did not want to sleep through winter. (I guess if it knew the snow would soon be burnt away anyway, it would not mind sleeping through it so much.) Additionally, in "Defending Walt Whitman", when Walt Whitman smelled the basketball, he took noticed the scent of burning oil. This first stanza of "Why We Play Basketball" explains where that smell of burning oil comes from - it's from all the times they burnt the snow off the court using kerosene.
Another connection to "Defending Walt Whitman" comes in the fourth stanza of "Why We Play Basketball, which goes "We were small boys who would grow into small men." This serves as a little reminder of the kind of men we know they will become, because in "Defending Walt Whitman", we are told that they become "veterans of foreign wars", who will return home after the war to again play basketball as they did in their youth.
This theme of growing up runs through the entire second section of "Why We Play Basketball", but in this section it uses the slant of life at home, with wife and kids, rather than that of military service. Then, in the third section, Alexie once again brings in the sense of smell, except this time it is not merely Walt Whitman's trembling appreciation; this time, it is a sense of utmost importance for a blind, deaf basketball player named Seymore. His sense of smell is so powerful that he can even identify tribes by smell.
Basketball is not the only thread common through the poems in the collection entitled "Why We Play Basketball"; Walt Whitman is also a character of some importance, for he appears in not one, but two poems, both of which demonstrate a pretty deep knowledge of Whitman. The first one, "Defending Walt Whitman", shows his connection to nature, his orientation as a gay, and his propensity to wind up in random places during his travels, such as the basketball court of an Indian reservation. The second poem, "Song of Ourself", is pure irony, for it, as a couplet, stands in very sharp contrast to Whitman's own poem, "Song of Myself". Alexie's poem very consciously pokes fun at that, both by its own shortness, and by its content. It says that Whitman's song is so long that in the amount of time it took him to sing it, generations of Indians were born.
After reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" I started thinking about my highschool history class. It surprised me how much I agree with everything being said. History was my least favorite course in high school, even though it was always an easy A. The text book was by far my biggest text book. I hated the end of chapter reviews. Each chapter sounded the same. I procrastinated studying for it so I would just cram everything in at once and then forget it after the test. It was never interesting because as the reading said everything always turns out okay. The United States always pulls through, always does what's right, and is full of heroes. After realizing all of this and thinking about this I felt disappointed in the education system. Making everyone heroes is hypocritical to me. Along with this if so many students dislike history I do not understand why we do not change the system, and make textbooks that tell the history as it really happened. I understand why it is important to try and make kids grow up patriotic about the United States and proud of their country, but at the same time I think that a change should be made so that everything is not so idealized.
ReplyDeleteI began the reading for class on Tuesday and I must say that I am beginning to get irritated with Loewen. I liked what he had to say in the first chapter that we had to read but as I have continued with the chapter on Columbus I am finding more and more items of information that to me he is twisting to meet his own agenda. He wants us to think what he thinks even when he isn't giving all of the information or is warping it.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when Loewen writes about the Muslims and the West. In one section Loewen states that, "College students today are therefore astonished to learn that Turks and Moors allowed Jews and Christians freedom of worship at a time when European Christians tortured or expelled Jews and Muslims." This is all well and good, in fact it is what I like to hear because as far as I can tell it is absolutely true. In the world that we live in today it truly is typical to find this astonishment because, "the West's archetypal conviction that followers of Islam are likely to behave irrationally or nastily" is common after the events of 9/11. What irritates me however is the fact that the author, whether he admits it or not, has this prejudice too. It seems obvious to me when I look at what he wrote later about the same issue. Before he had been explaining that our history books are wrong because the claim that the Turks (Muslims) were blocking trade routes which caused them to require a new route which would eventually be the sea. He makes a fair effort to make the point that they weren't doing all the bad that was talked about but yet never makes the full connection later on that in actuality they were a good cause because the Arab traders contributed to their use of the decimal system. Without this they would likely not have made it as far as they did.
Later on however is what really bothers me. Loewen again shows what I see as prejudice when he speaks of "the Europeans believ[ing] in a tranportable, proselytizing religion that rationalized conquest." Yes he is stating a fact here, that I am most definitely not disputing. What I have a problem with is the random remark that "Followers of Islam share this characteristic." This is in bad taste for me because for one, the topic that Loewen was supposed to be discussing was the colonization by the Spaniards. What do Muslims have to do with it and why drag them into it when it is not necessary? I think that the reason that Loewen did this was because he did not want Christianity to look bad when he explained about what the Spaniards did to 'spread' their religion and so Loewen off-handedly wanted to make the point that hey it isn't so bad, Muslims would have done the same thing. Well I find this extremely unprofessional for many reasons. I may be readin to much into this but I don't care, I see it as a hypocritical act because earlier in the chapter he had been talking about the archetypal stereotype about muslims that is in the West but it seems to me that it is people like him that are perpetuating and continuing it. Not all people that are proselytizing are bad, in fact most religions do it or else they would die out. Loewen makes it seem like a dirty word to want new believers when in reality this is just one group. He drags the Muslims into the mix to make it seem as if they are a part of this 'group' when in reality they were half-way across the world and had nothing to do with it.
Throughout my high school history courses, I do not remember ever questioning the information from my textbooks or from my teachers. I guess I always trusted that what I was reading and hearing was true and I never throught that I was only getting a part of the story or an exaggeration. While reading “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” I was completely shocked by the information. I am now realizing that what I thought I knew about history is not all completely true. The textbooks I had in high school tried to capture the attention of the reader by making history seem more interesting and memorable. They tried to identify with the reader by not stating the accurate facts. However, I now understand that some of that was simply mindless optimism, exaggeration and lies. Loewen has spent many years trying to get the facts straight in order to help us realize that there is a lot more to history than we think. I believe that it is extremely important to know the real facts, because then we are not taking away from what really happened. We should be given the full picture and not just what textbook writers want us to know.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the section Why We Play Basketball in Sherman Alexie's "The Summer of Black Widows" and discussing the poems in class I am starting to understand some of Alexie's recurring metaphors and images. In all of the pomes we talked about as a class, the historical meaning had something to do with the freedom and natural beauty of Spokane and the aftereffects of the white man coming in and interrupting the natural order of life. My group focused on The First and Last Dance of Lester FallsApart and That Place where Ghosts of Salmon Jump. In these two poems it is clear that Alexie has a resentment for the destruction, confinement and exploitation of both the land and people that inhabited the Spokane valley before they were forced onto reservations and white people constructed zoos and concrete walls to control the Spokane River. He uses words like "rounded up", "shipped", "symbolic chain link fence" (the buffalo in the zoo representing the people that now live behind and within the boundaries of Indian reservations), "concrete" and "graveyard" to illustrate his frustration with the injustice of it all. At first glance the two poems don't appear all that meaningful but when read over a second time I saw the chain link fences and concrete as not only trapping in raw natural beauty but also destroying the former way of life and Alexie's commentary about the lack of freedom for Spokane Indians.
ReplyDeleteI have enjoyed reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" so far. Lowen both has the guts to stand up to a well established norm and he brings some interesting evidence to the table. I have agreed with everything that he has said so far, but I am wondering what his solution is exactly? After looking through the table of contents, I did not see any chapters that suggested a solution to the problem he is describing. I agree that when you do things in mass quantities, like education, the quality has a tendency to go down, however if you take away the strict guidelines that teachers must follow certain items will be left out of some schools. This will leave some students at a disadvantage when they exit high school. I don't want to judge Leowen to quickly, but I will read the rest of the book looking for both solutions and problems.
ReplyDeleteNot gonna lie "The Summer of Black Widows" went over my head the first time I read it. After further reading and the discussion in class though, I am now looking forward to finishing the book. The author is bent on explaining the story and feelings of his people to a western mind. Seeing how the Native American culture has been seriously traumatized and torn apart over the last 200 years, it will be interesting to get a modern insight into what their feelings are.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI definitely found Loewen's insight into the truth of history textbooks in "Lies My Teacher Told Me" to be a refreshing and interesting twist on America's past. Loewen displays this side of history that many including myself never would have thought to look into. From a young age, we are never taught to question higher authority or attempt at disproving their teachings, however Loewen does exactly that, and in a manner that makes complete sense. I found it interesting how he implies that much of history is twisted to serve the benefit of the country or publisher, and how many of those considered our heroes in reality did not necessarily contain the most heroic characteristics. As I continued reading, it made me question all of the history I have learned throughout my past education, and wonder which parts actually are true. The US is always the hero in textbooks in the past, and it of all the many history textbooks used throughout my education I never thought of an alternative. It is definitely questionable where the truth in history lies.
ReplyDeleteAs for Alexie, I enjoyed how the poems as a whole tell a story and give an idea of native American history, as well as how each poem in itself holds a profound meaning. While some were multiple pages and full of couplets, some were a single or a few couplets. While the poetry is very in depth in meaning, it is just as much captivating to read and the hidden meaning of the basketball and dancing give a good insight into his past and culture. The common thread of basketball and dancing in relation to the adults and children served as adequate symbols of the complexity and simplicity of the Antive American culture, as well.
I really enjoy Alexie. When I first read it I usually have trouble understanding it, and what the point of it is. As we pull it apart in class and discuss the meaning of it I have started to understand it more and learn how to interpret it for myself. I also think that Alexie does a great job of building on points and setting us up for what he wants us to get out of his poetry. I really like the poem "Why We Play Basketball". I love sports so I enjoyed this because I could relate to what Alexie was talking about as he waits to see if the shot is good or not, and how playing a sport gives you a break from reality and it is something you can control. I liked this poem because of that, but then when we talked about the symbolism of the 5 lines and 5 stanzas I enjoyed it even more because I learned that the poem was even more profound than I realized.
ReplyDeleteAnother poem that I like from Alexie was the one about the porcupines. If one of us were to pass a dead porcupine on the road we would not think anything of it. Kind of like how we do not really think about how Native Americans used to live or how different this location is now compared to when Native Americans lived here. To me this poem not only showed the importance that the porcupine had, but it also symbolized the change in the way of life for the Native Americans from before white people came to their new life on the reservations. I think that it is easy to forget that things used to be drastically different from how they are now.
The reading in Loewen has continued to be interesting to me. It looks like there are mixed feelings about Lowen. Some support him and some say that he is hypocritical. I too have mixed feelings when reading. At first I kind of thought that he was being hypocritical because he talked about how history books only tell one side and that they are boring, but he too was giving us a history lesson. However, then I was thinking about it and I realized that no matter who is writing about a subject they will always be viewed with a bias in some sense. Unless you write something that is extremely neutral there will always be someone that disagrees with you. That being said, I think that I like Loewen. Clearly he has a negative view of how American history is portrayed, and I think he has very good reason to. After reading about Christopher Columbus I was shocked about how little history I really know. Although Loewen may sometimes jump off track or say drastic things I think that his main goal is that people look for accurate, truthful history. I was horrified about how Christopher Columbus treated the people that he conquered. I knew that he enslaved some of them, but I had no idea how horrible he treated them. When I think about all the ways that the textbooks have glorified the United States it makes me wonder how different ( if different at all) our country would be if the people grew up learning the real history of their nation.
I must admit that I was not very fond of Sherman Alexie’s poetry at first. Not only was it strange, but it was also very difficult to understand. However, I now have a better understanding of Sherman and his poetry after discussing his poems in class. I really enjoyed the poems that we had to read for homework tonight. These poems were very deep and filled with emotions. I was able to connect and identify with them. I really like the poem “Elegies,” because it was shocking and yet very real. I enjoyed how Alexie talked about his past mistakes that almost got him killed. He states “This poem is for me. No. This poem is for the me I used to be” (50). And he told us about his fears and about the tragic loss of his sister. And now he has a new view of fire, since it is the thing that killed his sister. After learning these things about Alexie, I now have a deeper appreciation for him and for his poetry. I now realize that it holds more meaning than we may think. Even though it may sometimes be confusing, Alexie has a point that he is trying to convey through his words.
ReplyDeleteHeroes in History?
ReplyDeleteChapter Three of Loewen addresses the historical accounts of the first "Thanksgiving." The neat and tidy history provided in a majority of textbooks hardly stays true to the accurate accounts of violent coercion and manipulation. Yet Loewen writes, "...textbook authors clearly want to package the Piglrims as a pious and moral band who laid the antecedents of our democratic traditions" (83) Clearly, in the way Loewen depicts the interactions, this is wrong. However, the ambitious attitudes and motivational gain which students receive from the presentaion of such a "feel-good history" is hardly without benefit. Perhaps the solution, thus, is not the nonexistence of heroes from American society, but rather exploration of the literary realm to identify such heroes.
Fictional heroes provide students with the wonder and inspiration teachers so desperately wish to impart upon those whom they instruct, but without the historical manipulation which is necessary for the derivation of heroicism from the pages of truthful American history. Is this the proper solution? Or rather, should history teachers work to present fallible heroes with whom students could wholeheartedly relate? Either choice is more appropriate than the status quo of creating heroes out of the materialistically driven Europeans who "settled" the Americas.
I have really been enjoying the reading of of "The Summer of Black Widows." During my first reading of the poems I tend to write down a ton of thoughts that pop into my head while reading the poem and during the second time I try to mmake connections about the overall meaning as well as its connection to the rest of the section. This being said, it still amuses me when I seem to get everything wrong in comparison to what we discuss in class. I think I understand it and then when I get to class I get new information and the whole thing turns around in my head. It is like constant epiphanies for every poem and yet it is a downer because I wish that I could understand him better on my own as well.
ReplyDeleteThe poems that I most enjoyed from his book were the ones for the section that we had to read last night, "Sister Fire, Brother Smoke." I enjoyed the way that Alexie crafted the poems so that the forms fit the way that he was feeling during each poem. For example, during the Elegies poem he uses a lot of repetition at the beginning of each stanza and I like that because even though each dedication is different, it brings them together, gives them a common theme if you will. It almost feels like a chant and what I get out of it is that some of the people in the poem made bad choices that led to their demise while others could do nothing to stop what happened to them. I find it interesting as well that he puts the tribe at the end of the poem because they are in sort of both categories. They could do nothing to stop all the deaths that occured when the white people came, but they have choices that they coulld make now that would help them like not drinking but for so many of them, it is a hard choice to make, just like with any alcoholic.
I also appreciated the poem "Sonnet: tattoo tears" I liked that Alexie used a stream of consciousness style writing to shift from one paragraph to another and yet he still brought everything back together in the end. It was a good way to connect his ideas about death and guilt, memory and the way people see themselves.
Until now, I have always regarded Thanksgiving as just another holiday. I liked it because it meant a week off of school, and a little feast besides. I didn't care about the meaning behind the feast. Now, however, in learning about the history behind it, I find that this is not an event I want to celebrate. Sure, if white men had not taken over this land, I would probably be living in Hungary or someplace like that; however, my comfortable life is not worth 20 million deaths, or even 10 million.
ReplyDeleteI think the thing that shocked me most in chapter 3 was the part about how James was prevented from presenting the Indian side of the story at the 350th anniversary of the Pilgrims' landing. It's easier for me to digest the atrocities I read about from many centuries ago; however, I have higher expectations for the behavior of those in recent history. I think this is partly due to how the history books present us - as a society that had some troubles in the past, but those are all over now. We are no longer a racist society. If this is so, though, if we really are past all that, then why do we need to hide from the truth about our past?
Within chapter 4 of Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen states “If we look Indian history in the eye, we are going to get red eyes” (95). Textbooks need start teaching students about our true past. We need to start acknowledging our past for what it is. Loewen also declares “It is time for textbooks to send white children home, if not with red eyes, at least with thought-provoking questions”(95). I think that it is extremely important to know the real facts, instead of what people want us to know and think. Textbooks authors must stop writing history in a way that will comfort descendants of the settlers. Personally, I rather know the truth than a lie, even if it means hurting someone’s feelings.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, authors must go further in their writing. Instead of just giving one theory, they should be giving multiple theories. Then the students would have the chance to research the different theories and choose which one they want to believe is right. History still remains to be done and it is not “just an inert body of facts to be memorized”(96).
I really enjoyed the exercises that we did in class on friday, they legitimaely helped my understanding of the poems.
ReplyDeleteMy group at first got off to a rough start. What are we really supposed to do when none of us are used to going up in front of the class because we are all shy? Well, the exercise not only brought us out of our comfort zones and allowed us to trust each other when working together but as I said earlier, helped to bring deeper meaning to the poems.
We had read the poems for our homework the previous night and we had made our comments on the edges and that sort of thing but I at least did not have a full understanding of most of the poems until we worked with them during class. For example, I did not notice the repetition of certain lines and phrases in the poem Sister Fire, Brother Smoke, until we were forced to work with it and emphasize it through our actions. It got to me how emotional the poem was more than simply reading it ever could.
Another example would be the tattoo tears poems because I had been taking it from a certain persepctive but I didn't fully understand the metaphorical meaning of the tears until we were questioned by that group during class. Who knew it would mean not only that the Rez represented a prison but also that they all felt and knew somebody that had been killed?
In essence, the exeercise brought clarity to my understanding and for that I am grateful.
I like how human Alexie's poetry is. It has high points and low ones, funny parts along with sad, forgiving as well as condemning. These are the things that make his poetry worth reading. If he didn't include the funny parts, we would be bored to tears by the sad ones. I think this is part of what makes his poetry so touching. It helps us to relate to him. If he wrote in a way that directly and obviously condemned white people for the difficulties that Native Americans have suffered, many of his readers would probably react defensively, and would have much less compassion for what Alexie has to say. So instead of condemning us, he invites us to follow him onto the reservation, so that we can see for ourselves what we have done.
ReplyDeletePut another way, when we read Alexie's poetry, we step into Native American shoes, and we see that they experience life in the same way as the rest of us. They are intelligent human beings, not backward, lazy drunks clinging to an outmoded reservation lifestyle. By seeing life through their eyes, we begin to feel more empathetic for them than we do when simply hearing about them. We learn why they are who they are; we learn that they are not strangers.
I enjoyed what we did in class with Alexie. Hearing the poems read out loud help me to not only understand them better, but also it makes them come alive more and seem more real and personal. I'm starting to understand Alexie's symbolism more and see patterns in his writing. I like how he continues to get more and more personal. In Elegies the way that he sets up the poem is good because I think the first line "This is a poem for people who died in stupid ways" catches the reader's attentioin. At first some of the stupid deaths almost come across comicly. I think he does this to keep the readers attention then the deaths start to feel more tragic, and at the end of the poem he gets very personal about his sister and the ending really is devastating. We talked about the trajectory of the poem in class and we said it goes from background to more personal, and I also think it goes from more mediocre feelings to feelings of tragedy. I think the poem Fire as verb and noun is also set up very creatively. When reading the poem you feel fire almost as an emotion and then you also have an image of fire in mind so it appeals to the reader in more than one sense. I also enjoyed learning about the symbolism in tattoo tears.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I would like to suggest to everyone the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Diamond discusses the reasons why the Europeans were the most advanced and were able to take dominance over other countries. For instance, as Lowen made point of, and we discussed in class; horses are not native to North America. They were brought over by the Spanish. Lowen mentioned that we always seem to think of the horse as the American Cowboy ideal animal, when it really isn't American at all. It just goes to show how little we really don't know! Before I read about that, I would have sworn that the horse was native to our land. It was just an obvious yes, but a wrong one as well. I love all that Lowen is teaching us, but it seems that our historical knowledge is so skewed that his book would have to be ten volumes of a thousand pages to even do justice to all that we have not learned. Though I suspect that is for the history majors to do and Lowen just wants us to get down the basics. I really do suggest Jared Diamond's book though, to those who are interested in this kind of stuff. It is just as good as Lowen's.
ReplyDelete-Joshua Raver
My high school history teacher always found it a struggle to keep students interested in history. He tries to address this by finding ways of showing that history is relevant even today, and by telling them that they need to know their history so that their generation does not repeat the same mistakes. Well, these are good goals, but with standard textbooks this is also a hopeless battle. History books are not written with the individual in mind; they're written for the state, and only the state. If we really knew our own history, we would be repulsed by what we saw, and we would understand why we are learning it. The history we learn seems like just stuff from the past; however, it is still very much impacting the present. The very fact that the history books try so hard to cover up the truth is proof that it needs to be exposed. As a culture today, we are still making some of the same mistakes we made centuries ago, mistakes we might not make if we knew what that history really looked like. If we were taught our own true history, we might actually care about learning it.
ReplyDeleteMy history teacher puts so much effort into teaching his students; it seems like such a waste to think that the students are right: the things he teaches -or rather, his textbook teaches- really aren't worth learning.
When doing the reading for class today I thought it was interesting how Loewen and Alexie were talking about half breeds. In "How to Write the Great American Indian Novel" Alexie talks about how when Native Americans are written about in stories they are portrayed as tragic. The hero has to be white or a half breed. Then if the hero is a woman she has to be beautiful and she has to be in love with a white man. So, in Alexies writing the half breeds are considered heros because they have a bicultural background and can help deal with the differences between the two. Loewen talks about how Spanish and French would marry indian women, but not the English. According to Loewen New England and Virginia forbade interracial marriage. This was interesting to me to think about. I thought it was interesting how with the French and Spanish it said the men would marry indian women, it did not say that the French and Spanish women would marry the Indian men. I also find it interesting that to Alexie the half breed was like a hero. Does this mean that the Native Americans wanted to overcome the racial differences more than the whites, since the whites forbade interracial marriage?
ReplyDeleteWithin “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” Loewen states “at least todays textbooks no longer blame the Natives for all the violence, as did most textbooks written before the civil rights movement” (155). Students have a specific view of Native Americans that is reflected from the information they learn about them in these textbooks. I remember reading textbooks where the Native Americans were more than often portrayed as the ones who always started all of the violence. Loewen also declares “the savage stereotype derived not only from old textbooks but also from our popular culture” (116). What many textbooks do not tell us is that several American Indians helped the new settlers by giving them directions, showing them water holes, selling the food and horses, and serving as guides and interpreters. It is interesting to learn that natives actually considered European warfare far more savage tan their own. These stereotypes have affected and hurt the representation of Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Summer of Black Widows,” Alexie discusses his experiences and views of these stereotypes. Alexie, along with many other Native Americans, have been just as hurt from history as whites. In his poem, “Inside Dachau,” he has a section called “the American indian holocaust museum.” He talks about how natives too stand over mass graves and how they want and wait for the construction of their museum. He states “we too could stack the shoes of the our dead and fill a city to its thirteenth floor” (119). Only if people knew that American Indians went through the same things whites did. However, the natives got no recognition at all.
I agree with Kasey above when she speaks about Alexie's poem called, "How to write the Great American Indian Novel." I agree that I found the similarities between what Loewen said about the mixed race relationships and Alexie said about them were intriguing in their similarities. However, I also found what Alexie said in his poem kind of strange and it made me wonder if he were being straightforward or if he was actually trying to portray some irony or sarcasm somewhere. What I mean is that he goes into detail about how a woman should be described, and how in this way she should be related to nature, and also that a native woman must love a white man or at least one of mixed race. This simply doesn't make sense to me because when professor Sugano showed us the You-tube clip of Alexie, he was making fun of all of the stereotypes. I agree with Kasey that he meshed with Loewen and says that a mixed relatonship could be stronger but in our modern world is that really what Alexie thinks?
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I did find it interesting how most of the stuff that he listed did occur in another novel I read called "Ceremony" which Alexie also mentioned the lead character of in a previous poem. (the lead was Tayo) Does this mean that he is saying something about books like this or is he just trying to get to the point that he makes at the end of his poem?
I also questioned and wondered that Andrea. It seemed like in someways the two ideas were very contradicting to eachother.
ReplyDeleteIn Thursday's class the Alexie poem "Airplane" really made me do some thinking. It made sense to me when Alexie says "Up here, where no Indian was ever meant to be" that he feels like he does not fit in in the modern world and he wants to go home. Later at the end of the poem when he talks about everyone coming home I felt confused. It was like he was saying that traveling and learning new cultures is not a good thing and that we should just all go home to our original homes. For many of us that is now impossible. We really are a multicultural culture now. There are rare people that are pure bread so to say, so I do not see how anyone could really return to their home because many of us have such a mix in us. In a way it makes traveling and exploring new cultures seem like a bad thing because the result is always change. This could also be seen in Loewen. Loewen talks about how Lewis and Clark and some explorers were at peace with the Indians at first and had not completely set out to change them, but then they quickly started describing them as savages. It seems that when one culture invades another a change and mix of culture is unavoidable and I am not really sure how I feel about this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast night, I attended Marc Robinson’s speech on “The Black Power Movement on Campus.” Robinson discussed how black pride and self-determination are prominent aspects of the black power movement. The white acceptance of the black power movement would not solve the problem of equality. He strongly believes that the perception of the black power movement only arises from Carmichael and MLK in mid 1960s. There were three people who were extremely helpful during the black power movement. First, Gloria Richardson influenced many activists and argues for the need in self-defense in some cases. She was known for her push for civil and economic rights. Also, Robert Williams played a vital role in this movement. He provided a bridge between civil right and black power movement. Also, Malcolm X was an influential player. He was an inspiration for black power and encourage intention of black activist. The black student union organization spread to Seattle through black youth conference in Los Angeles. College students from many different campuses wanted their universities to have a special coordinator for students of color and to admit more students of color.
ReplyDeleteAfter learning all of this about the black power movement, I was reminded of what Loewen talks about in his book, “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” Loewen declares “History through red eyes offers our children a deeper understanding than comes from encountering the past as a story of inevitable triumph by the good news” (134). Marc Robinson’s lecture taught me that there is a lot about black history that I have yet to learn. This may be due to the fact that we are not taught history through red eyes. We do not want to know how terrible our people were to others of a different color. We should know how much the black power movement came to be and how it has affected us. Loewen also states “If we knew the extent to which American Indian ideas have shaped American culture, the United States might recognize Native American societies as cultural assets from which we can could continue to learn”(134). The same goes for blacks. Their ideas and actions have shaped our culture and we should pat more attention them.
I really enjoyed the last section of the book that we read for Sherman Alexie. I particularly liked the symbolism that kept creeping up because it gets his message across where simple language would just not cut it. For example in the poem "Going to the movies with Geronimo's wife" I loved all of the symbolism of the stones around Geronimo's wife. The represented many different things when we looked them up such as purity of a Native American soul and many others. They were seen to be very secretive and the only people that got to hear about them were the people in the tribe. I doubt that it is still that way today but it was wonderful to learn the different meanings that tribes confer onto the stones because then the reader (me) gains multiple understandings of the poem rather than just a flat understanding of the fact that you should be nice to Geronimo's wife if you take her to the movies. The stone symbolism also continnued on into the poem called, "The Museum of Tolerance" which I also deeply appreciated for much the same reasons as the previous one. Sherman Alexie is truly a good writer and people just need to understand more of the background behinid each of his poems for only then will we/they get the deeper meanings that he tries to convey.
ReplyDeleteI think what I like most about Alexie's poetry is the way he communicates. I have read (and written) many mediocre poems, but until I read Alexie's poetry, I didn't know what made them mediocre. They usually don't seem to be about anything concrete, they over-use big words, they have a lot of pure imagery without any real meaning behind it, and if they do communicate a message it is usually cliche and very straight-forward.
ReplyDeleteAlexie's poetry is completely different. With every poem, I feel like he's telling a story. His line of thinking is pretty easy to follow; he does use fancy words sometimes, but never just to fill space; he uses plenty of imagery, but only to move the story along; often, he brings his own meaning to the words by repeating them throughout the poem, and even the entire book, by placing them in different contexts. By the end of the book, words like "basketball" and "diabetes" have a completely different meaning. Not only is his poetry intricately woven into many layered, each layer has meaning. His writing has a purpose: to show us who are not Indian what it truly means to be Indian. More than anything else, it is this purpose that sets his work apart from the bland, flowery poetry that I have read and written before.
I thought that all of the presentations were very interesting last week. I really enjoyed learning about the social concerns among Native Americans. I was surprised to learn about the high suicide rates, abuse of alcohol, and the poverty among them. I had no idea that suicide ranks the second leading cause of death for Native Americans from ages 10-34. Also, I never knew about the high likelihood of the abuse of alcohol from people growing up on a reservation. It is just so intriguing to learn these things, because they are things that we don’t learn from our textbooks or teachers. This reminds me of “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” because Loewen discusses how the textbooks leave out an abundance of important information.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I really liked the idea that Alexie may have subconsciously used the idea of the medicine wheel in his poems. The medicine wheel helped to show a balance between mental and physical health, while also giving guidance for treatments. This means that Alexie may have been using the medicine wheel to show the need for a balance here and the need for healing.
I took a look at the White Fawn silent film that James Young Deer made. I did not expect it to portray the white man in such a good light, considering that it was created by a Native American - and especially because most of the actors were also real Native Americans. It's interesting that they would regard him as an equal among them, for though they almost killed him, they forgave him when they realized that he had been wrongly accused of murdering his wife.
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised by the level of affection that the Native woman had for the white man. I mean, she wanted to die when she thought that her husband might leave her, even for a (relatively) short length of time - so much so that she even tried to kill herself. Then later, she somehow manages to muster the strength to save her husband when her daughter almost kills him, despite the fact that she is still recovering from attempted suicide.
Even in this film, the Natives seem to be portrayed to a certain extent as savages - for though they were justified in trying to kill the white man, they were still ultimately mistaken, and the way they chased him down seemed to fit the general stereotype of Indian ruthlessness.
Urrea's writing is just amazing - although, I think its as much his subject matter as it is his writing that makes it so unique. He writes about life in such a normal, matter-of-fact way. Of course, this makes sense, because for the people he is writing about, the things he says about them are all common-sensical. To Americans, however, this isn't common sense. The sensible manner it's written in takes down our guard, so we might easily read straight past something, and then think, "wait, WHAT?!"
ReplyDeleteI think Urrea strives very intentionally for just such an effect, for in the afterward he mentions a piece of advice that a former teacher once gave him: "Tell it coldly. Let me feel it for myself" (144). Urrea says this is "one of the best bits of advice [he] ever got".
It's funny, we notice the parts that are so different in these other cultures, it's very easy to miss how much they are the same. The attitudes and beliefs that they hold are different from ours, but the way they talk about them and experience them is the same. Their lifestyles are different from ours, but for them it feels just as ordinary and orderly as our lives seem to us.
Reading Urrea's work makes me want to go to a Mexican village and just live there for a time, not as a missionary but as a Mexican, picking through trash and sleeping in a room with fifteen people. It sounds like a terribly difficult way of life, and it probably is, but I suspect that many of the things they find difficult are not what we would expect them to be.
At the beginning of “Six Kinds of Sky,” I was very skeptical of the book. I thought that the stories were odd and random. However, after reading more into the novel, I started to really enjoy Urrea’s writing. Urrea usually uses Hispanics and Native Americans as the protagonists of the stories. He documents their struggles through stories such as “A Day in the Life.” In this story, he describes the lives of people living in poverty in Tijuana. Urrea is able to give a clear depiction of what life is truly life there, because he is from Tijuana himself. Unlike many authors, Urrea presents the reader with real events and things that actually occur there. The reader gets a better sense of what it is really like.
ReplyDeleteI feel like many people often don’t want to learn about all the bad things happening in the world. I agree with Josie that Urrea is trying to show what Loewen wants to see. Urrea gives clear and accurate depictions of ethnic people. He does not try to follow the stereotypes that we give those people. Within “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” Loewen discusses the stereotypes put upon those people by us. Loewen declares “the United States might recognize Native American societies as cultural assets from which we could continue to learn” (134). Our society needs to accept the fact that we may still benefit from American Indian ideas and ideas from other cultures and ethnicities.
I really enjoyed doing the presentations. I thought that it tied everything that we learned from reaing Alexie and Loewen together. Its one thing to read about how history textbooks are wrong and spend time with Alexie's petry, but then to do research and see how thins are being affected today in society was very reinforcing. I enjoyed learning about the artists and musicians. I found that very interesting. However, I thought that it was sad that in order for Native Americans to be successful and make a change in their lives they feel like they have to leave their people on the reservation and try to conform to a way of life in white society that is against their nature and that most of them are not comfortable in. I also found the presentation on healthcare in the reservations very interesting. I knew that there was alcoholism on the reservations, but I had know idea that alcoholism, suicide, and diabetes rates were so high. Those are the type of things that you do not see on the news or read in the paper. I think that doctors who are trying to help them while respecting their culture, and beliefs they have about medicine are doing a great thing.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading "A Day in the Life" I had a lot of thoughts running through my head. This January I went to Guatemala on a medical mission trip. I drove by houses that were similar to the one in the story. After reading the story and learning how the people viewed me as a white person coming over I realized a lot of things. The people there are just trying to survive. When we set up medical clinics and tried to help them they probably did not listen to what we were saying about preventing them from getting sick again or Jesus. They just wanted to get medicine that they could. They also probably looked at me and saw me in a way that I did not want to be seen while I was there. I wish that I had read this before I went there. When I go again I want to make more of an effort to speak the language and learn their culture. It wasn't that I did not respect their culture because I do. It was just that when I was there I did not think about how this is survival for them, and that they probably dressed nicer than usual and appeared to be more okay than they actually are when we came to set up the clinics. The story was definitely an eye opener to me. It made me thankful for what I have, but it also made me want to make a change.
ReplyDeleteI just started reading Malcom X, and within just the first few pages I was struck dumb by the depth of racism shown. From history, I know that in the 1930s a much greater level of racism and segregation still existed, but I never knew how it actually affected individuals lives. I mean, I knew they were only allowed to sit at the back of the bus, and only drink from "black" drinking fountains, but I never thought about the more personal implications it would have.
ReplyDeleteFor example, according to Malcom, there is not a single white person who regards blacks as equal. There are plenty of nice ones, certainly, plenty who are willing to lend a helping hand, or to offer charity; however, not a single one would offer a black woman a job, even one who looks white. The moment an employer learned that Malcom's mom was not white (or at least that her family wasn't - I couldn't quite tell which it was), they would fire her outright.
Additionally, even the kindest, friendliest, most generous whites Malcom knew still acted as though he was nothing more than a pet canary. They spoke of blacks in his presence as though he didn't exist. For a while, he went to a school where he was the only black and everyone liked him, but he realized later that this was only because they regarded him as a sort of mascot.
Even many decades later, when Malcom started sharing his story, he said that this was still the kind of treatment that blacks received, even though whites like to pretend they had improved. According to Malcom, whites may be willing to stand with blacks through thin, but never through thick. They may be nice people, but to blacks, they are not true friends.
The presentations last Tuesday were very well done. I especially enjoyed learning about the Hispanic American social concerns. For example, they have the highest uninsured rates. Also, seventy-three of Hispanic American women are obese, Aids is 2.5 times more likely between them, and teen pregnancy is two times more likely. What really surprised me was learning that only 52% of Hispanic Americans receive an education, while 85.5% of whites receive an education. Only 2.5% of teachers teaching English as a second language have a degree to teach it in Hispanic communities. I find this information ridiculous. It must be extremely difficult for Hispanic’s to learn English if there teachers are not fully educated themselves. It is always interesting to learn facts like these, because they are things that people don’t talk about.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I really liked the video clip about Selena’s life. He father said something that holds to be very true. He said “We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!” Many people in the United States are not as accepting as they should be. Mexican American’s should be able to just be them and we they shouldn’t have to try to be who we want them to be.
These presentations reminded me of “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” The reason we don’t know these facts about other races is because we are not taught them. Loewen discusses how “aboriginal we are culturally” (112). We need to start noticing that other races had and have effects on the United States. We must recognize that it is a two-way street and not just us. I believe that it is very important to learn these things and to learn with “red eyes.”
If I were asked my hero is American history, I would probably say someone like Rosa Parks or Harriet Tubman. Both these people were very strong, independent women who fought for what they believed in. They are also people that I have learned a lot about over the years through my history classes. Loewen discusses that when he asks his white college students this same question, most all respond with names such as Frederick Douglas, Malcolm X, or Sojourner Truth. He writes that only one or two in a hundred pick Lincoln and those who do choose him “know only that he was really great—they don’t know why” (Loewen 202). I personally do not remember learning about why Lincoln was really great. Loewen suggests that this ignorance makes sense because “textbooks present Abraham Lincoln almost devoid of content” (202). The same goes for John Brown.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this chapter in Loewen about Lincoln, I would change my answer to the question above to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was able to help African Americans mobilize to fight slavery. Because of this, he accomplished on a national scale what Brown tried to accomplish at Harpers Ferry. Lincoln’s courageous deeds helped him to become a martyr and a hero. Loewen describes Lincoln as “the blacks’ legitimate hero” (202). John Brown was another hero for the blacks. Both Brown and Lincoln were killed, because they were arming black people for their own liberation. Their deaths were mourned by many and their legacies should be better known today. Yes, Lincoln was great. But what did he do that made him great? Lincoln was concerned about the crime of racism and he sought to change it. However, textbooks ignore this and often leave out his impact on slavery. Lincoln fought for “a new birth of freedom” and he should be recognized for that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLast week, I attended a prime time in my dorm about racism. We watched a film called “Skin Deep” and had a discussion about it. The film was produced in response to the growing wave of racial hatred and violence in the United States. It was made out of the belief that talking about racial issues is the first step to undo racial inequalities that pervade our schools and other institutions. The film shows and tells the opinions and stories of twenty-three college students. These students come from different racial, religious, and economic backgrounds. One of the quotes from this film that really stood out to me was when one girl stated “If you are a white person, you are taught to love yourself because you are white. You were taught that you are better because you are white.” This is so interesting because it is definitely not what I was taught growing up. The students also discussed how people never initiate racial friendships. One student said “I would rather go with my people than spread out.” Personally, I have never thought of it in this way. I do not think that my people are all the white people. Yet, I have noticed people often are closer to those of the same color. This may appear to be racism, but it could also just be nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteAll of this can also be related back to what Loewen wrote about Lincoln. Most textbooks refer to Lincoln as someone who opposed slavery. However, many textbooks present him as someone “who was morally indifferent and certainly did not care about black people” (184). These textbooks also leave out a very significant and important quote that changes the entire context of Lincoln’s speech. People do not always get the whole story, which leads to differing perceptions. In this case, some people think that Lincoln is doesn’t even care about the blacks because of what the textbooks say. In reality, it was Lincoln’s personal wish for all men everywhere to be free.
In Malcolm X we get the true story of someone. We see the good and the bad and how Malcolm transforms from a young boy that has to do with racism to a rebellious adolescent, to a boy that likes to lindy hop, to someone that smokes every once in awhile, to someone that is addicted to drugs, burglarizing, and packing a gun. Through his story we see his human nature and faults that can happen to anyone. However, like Loewen says these faults are usually only shown in minorities sucha as african americans. In the history books many of our great leaders such as Lincoln had flaws and did things that would definitely not be acceptable as a leader of America, but they were not exposed. This is also illustrated in Malcolm X. When Malcolm was hustling most of his clients were white business men that most likely went to church and had a family at home. Then on the side they were doing disgraceful things. No one would have thought that upstanding businessmen would be taking part in something like this because as Loewen says whites are portrayed as only doing honorable acts, but as we know they have faults just like everyone else. I think that Malcolm X is great because we see someone's whole story. He is just a normal human being that has flaws and through series of events those flaws and weaknesses got magnified. I think it is admirable when someone can reveal their whole self, the good and the bad.
ReplyDeleteI greatly admire the way in which Malcolm chose to portray his story. After he was ousted from black muslim society in America, he felt very upset with Elijah Muhammad for betraying his trust, and he wanted to change his autobiography to reflect this change of heart; yet, he realized that by doing that, he would change the essence of his story to one that would not accurately reflect his life.
ReplyDeleteAlex Haley was right in telling Malcolm that “if those chapters [the ones describing Malcolm's 'father and son relationship with Elijah Muhammad'] contained such telegraphing to readers of what would lie ahead, then the book would automatically be robbed of some of its building suspense and drama” (421). With every change in Malcolm's life that was described in his autobiography, I felt as though he was telling it as it happened, as he experienced it then and not as he interprets it now. For me, this makes the story far more powerful, because I understand how he came to each point in his life. I see that anyone in these circumstances might reasonably lead this sort of life. What's more, it is possible for someone in these circumstances to change. It isn't likely – but it is possible. The fact that a person steals, gambles, pimps, and peddles drugs does not necessarily justify throwing him behind bars. Confinement is needed, for the protection of the rest of society, but treating that person as a caged animal won't make him inclined to change his views about stealing. It will only change his views on getting caught.
It isn't easy to be so honest about one's past, once a person decides that what he did was wrong. I greatly admire Malcolm, because by showing us his own past, he has made it possible for us to have compassion for those who live in similar situations. Indeed, he even shows us that our society has been the primary cause of many of these problems; thus, we as a society are obligated to show mercy to these people, for until we show them mercy, we cannot condemn them without condemning ourselves.