recently i've been reading howard zinn's a people's history of the united states, which was recommended to me after a discussion in which i claimed my interest in looking at the effects of education on creating, perpetuating, and perhaps transforming long-standing conflicts. one of the more interesting chapters i've read focuses on the attempted 'taming of the masses' after the civil war to facilitate government service of big business [not too different from current government policies, is it?] zinn discusses the various forms through which this 'taming' occurred: one of which, no surprise, is education. zinn writes that public education in the latter half of the 19th century was designed to teach obedience to the system - effectively creating a buffer protecting government and businesses from the rebellious working class.
the chapter has brought home a point that i think is actually epitomized by the very existence of this book. when i told a friend i was reading it, he responded to me:
"took me 2 attempts to read a people's history. i had to put it down at first: i hadn't been exposed to that history; it was too painful to read."
which is exactly the point zinn makes in and by the existence of his book: that history as taught, here in the united states as elsewhere, is controlled by policy-makers, politicians, special interest groups. we are taught from a young age to accept a certain version of history as "correct" and superior to versions taught by the losers, by minorities, by the less powerful. we're spoonfed dates and names of battles and wars that white european men won, but taught almost nothing about minority groups or women, except a passing acknowledgement to the 14th and 15th amendments and the suffrage movement.
the united states is not the only country in which this occurs. in fact, i would venture to say that the history curriculum we are taught in american schools probably does more to include 'unheard voices' than that of many other nations. not that it does nearly enough. but the point is, this brings me back to the issue of education perpetuating conflict. when students are given only one point of view and taught to view sub-groups in their society as superior, more civilized, and correct in previous actions - - this is the foundation upon which stereotypes and animosity are born. israeli and palestinian curricula are a prime example of this: for decades, civics curricula in both israel and the palestinian territories have promoted differing versions of the region's history which have created polarized attitudes on the part of israeli and palestinian students. no doubt, these monolithic versions of history have helped create generations of young people who know almost nothing of, yet hate, one another - thus helping perpetuate the conflict. [note: i want to make it clear that i'm not trying to simplify this conflict - it's clear to me that there is much more driving this conflict than simply the versions of history presented in classroom textbooks].
luckily, there are organizations and people concerned about trying to change the way we teach. zinn, for example. or, in the middle east, the peace research institute in the middle east, which is engaged in a long-term project attempting to introduce palestinian and israeli students to each other's historical narratives, in the hope that this will break down stereotypes and help create mutual understanding.
ok, i'm rambling. my point is, this is an interesting aspect of conflict that i don't think has seen enough research. how does education help perpetuate or transform longstanding antagonisms? can teaching less monolithic versions of history - or promoting in-depth study of current events from multiple points of view, rather than just presenting biased soundbytes on TV [see my previous post for the rant about that] help create a generation of leaders less inclined to pursue warfare and more willing to accept and tolerate peaceful dissent? more willing to engage in peaceful means of resolving disputes? if every american high school student were required to read a people's history of the united states, would racism and bigotry endure as long as they have?
my intuition says yes. but, until someone gets out there and does some concrete research on the subject - your guess is as good as mine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
good, good stuff. there are probably places where zinn's point of view is taught. my guess it would be in urban areas where this type of education might not be as hard to swallow; youth in NYC or other areas are probably decently-aware of others and their different cultures. perhaps not as uch as we'd like, but more so than others.
what am i saying? i don't know. the research you suggest would be interesting, no doubt.
when i was in 11th grade and took advanced placement american history, i was able to learn a little bit about the non-dominant point of view. this was in a public school outside of NYC. so, i concede that this is possible, even within the public school system. but this was also well, well before the no child left behind act and in a class not based upon meeting state standards. on a large scale, this is really problematic. and, zinn's book only points out that it's been problematic for years. centuries, even.
[fisrt poster again]
i took AP history, too; and from one of the best teachers in our high school. very little of zinn's thoughts trickled into that class, except, perhaps, that even italians, irish and then jews were looked down upon as they entered the US.
i would say it is systemic.
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
Post a Comment