Last week in our socratic circle several different fiews and ideas were shared amongst one another. While there was a moment of heatedness, people who had something to say were able to voice their own comments and concerns.
While the controversy of the textbook coninuous on, hearing things like it may become (more) biased through race or political backgrounds and/or unbalanced in the way it retells our history really raised concerns in the classroom. Several people commented on what seemed borderline racism in the books. By this I am referring to the way and what the board in Texas wants to have put into the textbooks. For instance, one guy wanted to really the push the violence of the Black Panthers during the Civil Rights Movement. While other people on that board thought it better to leave out the "little details" such as women roles in industrial and militarial jobs during WWII. These are miniorities being pushed out of history. They were and still our important in their own way to our development in this country. Say that these "little details" of how every group in American was dealing with its situation was taken out and the studens only learned about this one group or that one over there, wouldn't that be a bias? What the students should learn about is how every group dealt with it, not what a few people on a board in Texas are opinionated with teaching their views.
That part seems unfair to where the issue of a balanced textbook came about. But, I'll be honest this did confuse me. The way I see a balanced book is that of having equal amounts of each side in every situation in all of history. Now, personally that seems a bit extreme or hard. Having already taken U.S. History (go 6th period!!) I look back and see that not every event that happened was balanced. There were times when one group prevailed and there was no other group of people to stand up against them. Well isn't that unbalanced? How would the fact that there was nothing to "balance out" a time period fit into this idea of a balanced textbook? That is one thing I didn't fully understand.
Ad just to say, if anyone or group of people should be editing textbooks books, those people should definitely all be majors in that subject. Just like you wouldn't want some expert in mechanics being the vet for your dog, I dount you'd want anyone outside the field of history writing the history students will learn about this country for years to come.
haha oh gimpy and your mountain dew background. bahah it makes me smile:] any who awesome job! I really liked the point you made about minorities being pushed aside like they don't matter. It sucks to say that its happening, but it is. Some people don't seem to understand that the little things add up to be big things, and are important enough to be put into history textbooks. I also agree with the point you made about things not being balanced, so true. I totally remember reading my U.S. history book and seeing that some sections had more writing and pictures then others. Lastly i love what you say at the end about the editors to the textbooks needing to be experts in history.Common sense would tell you to pick someone who knows what there talking about, but i guess some people lack those skills. great work, and i can't wait to read your next blog! :]
ReplyDelete