history research paper

Written Exercise #3

In this class I have learned so many things. However, above all I have learned

that without correctly learning and understanding our history, we are nothing

more than a ship with a broken mast drifting aimlessly through the sea of time.

Without understanding our past, we cannot understand the present. Without

understanding the present, we cannot have faith in a bright future for all

mankind. Unless we accurately understand our history, we leave ourselves open

to manipulation by those who do. Most of all without accurate understanding of

our history, we are forever trapped in a feedback loop, doomed to constantly

repeat the mistakes of the past.

I struggle thinking about how to correct our course, as it seems so many people

are indoctrinated to believe lies and myths. They cling to them just as they cling

to the beliefs of their given religious denomination. To put forth any kind of

contradictory information or inquiry is treated as blasphemous. Textbook

publishers are an even bigger problem as they chase the profits of big markets

like Texas. Even if the actual textbook authors may wish to provide accurate

and inclusive information, by the time a textbook publisher is done editing the

book to meet the standards of approval boards, the book may indeed stand in

contrast to the author’s original draft. As Loewen points out:

1“Some of these boards function explicitly as censors, making sure that books

not only meet criteria for length coverage and reading level, but also that they

avoid topics and treatments that might offend some parents. Therefore states

without adoption have less influence on publishers, who orient their best efforts

toward the large states with adoption boards. California and Texas, in particular,

directly affect publishers and textbooks because they are large markets with

statewide adoption ad active lobbying groups. Schools and districts in non-

adoption states must choose among books designed for the larger markets.”

(Loewen 307)

One pathway I see forward is exemplified by this very class. If teachers use

secondary sources to provide opposing viewpoints, they can challenge students

to think critically and come to their own conclusions. But therein lies a really big

problem; a problem that could end up costing teachers their jobs. Stirring up

controversy in the classroom often times puts teachers in a bad position when

having to answer to authority figures such as principals and parents. As Loewen

points out:

“Teaching against a textbook can also be scary. Textbooks offer security.

Teachers can hide behind them when principals, parents, or students challenge

them to defend their work. Teaching against the textbook might be constructed

as critical of the school system, supervisor, principal, or department head who

selected it. Teachers could get in trouble for doing that. Or so they imagine.”

(Loewen 331)

The path forward isn’t as easy as it sounds. Teachers like their jobs and have

families to provide for, so they can’t just do what they want even if they feel it’s

the right thing to do. Teachers do lose their jobs over issues like these. So many

teachers think twice before going against the grain. I am thankful for a class

such as this in which we are provided with texts that at one point were

considered extremely controversial, such as Zinn’s A People’s History of The

United States. For me it has been such a refreshing look at the past and a really

good chance to self examine what I believe about history. It encourages further

exploration of the events of the past through more secondary texts. I am

thankful and feel very fortunate that this professor cares enough to not take the

easy route by sticking to the recommended textbooks and lesson plans.

Regardless of where we place the blame or what path forward we believe is

best, there remains the fact that we must acknowledge there is a problem. We

are crippling our future generations from thinking critically about the past, and

that directly affects the direction in which we move in the future. History is like a

connect-the-dots picture. By not giving students an order in which the dots

should be connected, a student is left guessing, which produces a jumbled

mess. How can we expect future generations to have a clear overall picture of

who we are and where we come from? Loewen points out:

2“Only in history is stupidity the result of more, not less, schooling. 3Why do

educated people often display particularly nonsensical reasoning about the

social world? 2For some it’s in their ideological interest. Members of the upper-

middle classes are comforted by a view of society that emphasizes schooling as

the solution to intolerance, poverty, even war. Such a rosy view of education

and its effects lets them avoid considering the need to make major changes in

other institutions.” (Loewen 353)

We must admit to ourselves that there is a problem with the way in which we

presenting our history. Until we do, we will not be able to escape from the traps

and bindings of our past. Like Sisyphus we will eternally be pushing a heavy

boulder up hill only to watch helplessly as it rolls back down. We have the

obligation not only to ourselves but also to future generations to face these hard

truths and accept them. We must bring them out into the open for discussion

and debate. Once we are able to do this we can begin to move forward. It’s

not about condemnation or blame; it’s simply about acceptance. Learning

what I have in this class has given me a new set of eyes from which I see the

connections of the past and present. It gives me a clear understanding of the

troubles in our society between nations, races, and classes. Now I can start to

understand where we go from here, and how I can identify and avoid the

mistakes of the past in my own life. Maybe the path forward isn’t the sweeping

change of institutions, but our individual responsibility to better understand the

past in order to understand the world around us, and our place within it.