How do the findings presented by Doppen and Barton & Levstik address the quote made by Cornel West?
"That democratic idea (that all are equal in the eyes of God) is one of the grand contributions of the age of Europe even given the imperial expansion, the colonial subjugation of Africa and Asia, the pernicious and vicious crimes against working people of color and so forth. So ambiguous a legacy means...we have got to keep two ideas in our minds at the same time. The achievements as well as the downfalls. The grand contributions and the viciouos crimes." Cornel West
I think the best way to describe how these two articles address this idea of West's is to say that the Doppen article articulates this idea through the teaching of multiple perspectives at the global level, whereas the Barton and Levstik article teaches multiple perspectives at the national level.
Doppen's article looks at the idea of building historical empathy in students through presenting them with history in the form of mulitple perspectives. This specific study focuses on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead of teaching the students with a standard textbook, the teacher presented the students with 18 different sources, each coming from a different viewpoint. By doing this, the students were given a much broader account of the events that took place. They were not just provided with the story from the American side, as is often the case when only textbooks are used. Some of the articles were from the American point of view, but others were also from the Japanese and British point of view. The students were able to form an educated opinion about what happened based on not only how it was viewed in the United States, but also around the world.
This directly links to the Cornel quote because, in many history classrooms, U.S. History is taught in a way that makes it appear that the United States has rarely ever done anything wrong. By teaching this way, the students were given the opportunity to form opinions for themselves based on much more information. I think it was especially important that the perspective of the Japanese was included because it actually gives them a human voice. When the dropping of the bombs is taught, most of the time, the idea of civilian casualties is glided over, or not mentioned at all. By exposing the students to the Japanese voice, it made those victims real and allowed them to take the civilian deaths into consideration when forming their beliefs.
The Barton and Levstik article obviously touches on this quote, seeing as it is the article that features the quote! As I said before, Barton and Levstik address the idea of looking at history from both sides through the idea of multiple national perspectives. They call these multiple perspectives "official" history and "vernacular" history. Official history is what is taught in the classroom. It is the textbook endorsed, government standardized history that students across the country are taught. This form of history focuses very heavily on America as the country of freedom and progression. If people in the past did not have the same rights as everyone else, somewhere in history they were given those rights, as seen in the Civil Rights movement and the Sufferage movement. America is also portrayed as the protector in official history. We are the country that comes to the rescue to help other countries. This is the undertone of most units about war taught in school. This is one perspective that the students are given on their national history, but there is another version that they get outside of the classroom. This is vernacular history. Vernacular histories "derive from lived experience in specific and general small-scale communities." (p 7) This is the story the students are given at home by their grandfather who was part of the Civil Rights Movement or the uncle who fought in Vietnam. It is the first hand experience that is supported by more than just a book.
These two perspectives relate to the Cornel article in that the students are being given a two sided picture. Often the picture that is portrayed by the official history is all about the "grand achievements" because that is what the government thinks our children should be learning about. It is through the vernacular history that the students are exposed to the "vicious crimes." When some who lived through the Civil Rights movement, the cruelties and prejudices are brought to life for the student. When a Vietnam vet talks about the experience of coming home to a country that doesn't want you anymore, the child is given a fuller account of the time period than is provided in the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Cassie,
What I liked about this post is how you concentrated on how "official" history is too often just the American version of events. I agree that this is a problem because not only does it entirely too one-dimensional, but it destroys all historical nuance. You mentioned that the "official" brand of history tends to justify most American actions as "good," which to me is a big problem because it oversimplifies all of history in a dichotomy of either "good" or "bad," "just" or "unjust." I rarely think that anything is ever so simple, so I agree that teaching in this manner does a disservice to everyone, and hinders a student's ability to make their own complicated judgments.
-Chris
Hi Cassie,
Your post gives a thorough description of how these two articles address the ideas of complexity and multiple perspectives in the teaching of history. I also appreciated your suggestion for first hand interaction at the end. I think a talk with a Vietnam Vet (or even an Iraq Vet!) would be an excellent way to create complexity. I often find myself stuck in the tendency to shield students from the ugliness of war and perhaps it is better to confront it head on.
My question for you is about your characterization of the Doppen article as being about global perspectives and the B & L article as being about national perspectives. My impression of the B&L article was that while it was focused on American History it still forced students to look at America globally. They often suggested that something was important because it distinguished us from other nations. Do you think we can ever really teach within a national context in a globalized world?
Great Post.
Alex
Very nice post, Cassie, and I think the comments made by Alex and Chris are interesting as well. Be sure to answer Alex's question regarding the global vs. U.S. history framework if you do decide to submit this entry for grading.
Good job all,
Ali
In regards to the question asked by Alex, I have to disagree. Yes the B&L article mentions the fact that certain things distinguish us from other countries, but that is still focusing on the United States and how WE are different. I am not saying that B&L are somehow dismissing the global viewpoint. I just do not think that is what they were trying to concentrate on in this article. They were pointing out the different sides of the story that come from within a student's life, the "official" versus the "vernacular." These are essentially American viewpoints in B&L's article. I don't recall them talking about an immigrant students "vernacular" history, which would of course give a much more global view of things. They mainly focused on American point of views, which is what makes the B&L article more national, whereas the Doppen article specifically focuses on a subject that includes multiple global viewpoints.
Cassie
Comment For Grading
I chose this article to be graded because this was a very important week of readings for me. I am very attatched to the idea of teaching from multiple perspectives. I do not agree with those who say that the American way is the right way. It is important for our children to understand not just the global view, but also the differing viewpoints that exist here in our own country. It was nice to be able to explore not only the difference between these two viewpoints, but also the extreme relevance of each in the lives of the students!
Cassie
Post a Comment