I hope you all enjoyed week two's reading and questions. This week we will be reading chapters 8-13. Answer the weeks questions and respond to others' posts. Next week we will be doing a project with the book, there will not be a reading section. We will then share the projects during PIR days in August.
Questions:
1)Do you think that thorough coverage of the Vietnam War is necessary to
“understand public discourse since then?” (p. 257.)
2)“Leaving out the recent past ensures that students will take little from their
history courses that they can apply to the world,” (p. 279.) How can teachers
make the past real to their students in order to give students the ability to
analyze and make judgments about current events?
3)On page 301 the author writes, “We have also seen that history textbooks
offer students no practice in applying their understandings of past to
present concerns, hence no basis for thinking rationally about anything in
the future.” Earlier we discussed some of the objectives of teaching
history. Using your previous response and reflecting upon knowledge
gained during the course of this discussion, has anything about your
objectives changed? Please discuss in detail.
4)Throughout this book, we have encountered many difficult issues that go
to the core of American history and, indeed, America in the present tense.
On page 339 the author suggests that “Perhaps openly facing topics that
seem divisive might actually unify Americans across racial, ethnic, and
other lines.” Would you agree with this statement? Do you think that this
unity is a valid objective of teaching American history? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. I do think a full coverage of the Vietnam War is important. It was a very unpopular war and students have grandparents that probably fought in it. They need to understand the reasons for American involvement and how it is the same or different from the present day Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. We don't need to just focus on the wars America has won.
ReplyDelete2.I think my answer to this question was what I said in #1. The Civil War, War of 1812, etc. are important but too much in the past. In general by the time teachers get to the Cold War, Vietnam War, 9/11, etc. the school year is almost over and they rush through these. I do speak from experience. These are the events that are now responsible for setting policies, etc. Students need to understand how these more recent events affect them.
3.I don't think my objectives have changed. It is vital students understand history and how each event has contributed to our way of thinking and acting today.
4. I do agree with this statement. Students of any race need to understand the concept of the Civil War and how it eventually led to the Civil Rights movement. Immigration is another hot topic. Start back when the first immigrants passed through Ellis Island up to the present Hispanic immigration. Talk about Native American issues. This are all opportunities to discuss how America is truly a melting pot and how there is a place for everyone. All Ameriacan history should have some connection to our students and this needs to be stressed.
1. I do believe the Vietnam War is important to cover in schools. It has many similarities that our people, government, and troops are facing today. There was so much controversy during that war. It relates to real world problems of today. I agree with Vicki, we do not just focus on wars we have won!
ReplyDelete2. I feel that teachers can bring the recent past into the classroom more easily than one could bring in history from 100-200 years ago. Teachers could use real people in the classroom from both positions, primary documents, and much more. Students need to understand recent past in order to be independent thinkers who will have to make the hard decisions for our country soon than some would like. There is so much to look at from recent pasts that shape where we are as a country and where we are going. Current events could be taught side-by-side with recent past issues.
3. I feel that history classrooms have to change. We as a country need students who can think critically, make decisions based on facts, not lies, and understand what is really going on. Students need to learn how to rely on many sources, not just one. Students need to know how to find primary documents and use them. This book has said so many things that I believe. I know that my government class was the only history type class that truly made students look at issues from many perspectives and interpret issues. Students may at times act like they do not care about things, but maybe that is because educators need to make history relevant, interesting, multi- dimensional in order to really catch the interest of the students. I understand that this means extra work for the educator, but we came into the field knowing we have to become life-long learners!
4. I do agree with Vicki and the author. I believe tolerance and unity come from truth and understanding. I feel our education system truly needs to work toward this type of education. We do not want a divided country that knows absolutely nothing about one another’s perspectives or past. Really the majority of Americans come from minorities and have no idea what our ancestors went through, nor do most understand the history of the true natives of the Americas.
I agree with your comments on question one, Vicki and Kim. Why skip it? I think the author's distinction about discussing the recent past still within our grasp so far as there still being people who lived through it is the real teachable opportunity. I will not forget the visceral experience of seeing the Pullitzer Photo exhibit at the Museum of Art and Culture a few years back. I had to warn parents on our permission slips that their kids would be seeing young village girl, Kim Phuc running naked down the road during an accidental napalm attack by South Vietnamese. The parents trusted that this would be educational, and the students behaved with maturity. The picture has to be seen in order to enable us to question our own humanity and elicit an empathic response to human suffering. Burning and killing people is primitive and Godless. It's perverse how certain factions can airbrush the facts so precisely in the name of God and country.
ReplyDeleteThe author does give proper respect for what some teachers do successfully in the last section, and I do think kids retain the knowledge they help create through local research and interviews. l also like his comment about teaching history backwards to make it more relevant to students.
I am lucky in that much of what I cover as far as art history has a hands on component that is ultimately a contemporary response which samples the past, but could never be anything but an extension of contemporary life. Such projects connect students to human history, which broadens their sense of cultural legacy.
It doesn't make any sense to continue to behave as if our country is only white and male. I thought it was interesting that the author cited the poor use of Norman Rockwell's powerful illustration "The Problem We All Live With", depicting a Ruby Bridges-type child walking escorted by Federal Marshals to school. It is one of Rockwell's very finest images done towards the end of his career. The editor at the Saturday Evening Post who gave him his initial break as a young illustrator had a rule where black people if portrayed in his magazine could only be depicted in service and blue collar industry uniforms. Rockwell moved on to do covers for Look magazine, which would have allowed for a more modern approach, but, again, since those magazines are still archived, students would be shocked at how backwards their narratives sound when discussing topics of race and gender.