The Twisting of History for Ideological Purposes in America's Classrooms

[luckydevil]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3404

One of the reasons our children do not measure up academically to children in other countries is that so much time is spent in American classrooms twisting our history for ideological purposes.

"How would you feel if you were a Native American who saw the European invaders taking away your land?" is the kind of question our children are likely to be confronted with in our schools. It is a classic example of trying to look at the past with the assumptions -- and the ignorance -- of the present.

One of the things we take for granted today is that it is wrong to take other people's land by force. Neither American Indians nor the European invaders believed that.

Both took other people's land by force -- as did Asians, Africans and others. The Indians no doubt regretted losing so many battles. But that is wholly different from saying that they thought battles were the wrong way to settle ownership of land.

Today's child cannot possibly put himself or herself in the mindset of Indians centuries ago, without infinitely more knowledge of history than our schools have ever taught.

Nor is understanding history the purpose of such questions. The purpose is to score points against Western society. In short, propaganda has replaced education as the goal of too many "educators."

Schools are not the only institutions that twist history to score ideological points. "Never Forget That They Owned Lots of Slaves" is the huge headline across the front page of the New York Times' book review section in its December 14th issue. Inside is an indictment of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century.

People of every race and color were enslaved -- and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century -- and then only in Western civilization.

Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there.

But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century.

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the total population.

It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.

In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to America, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured. The crew were imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States -- despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal in both Africa and the U.S. at the time.

What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination but what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.

That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost for every six people freed. Maybe that was the only answer. But don't pretend today that it was an easy answer -- or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains, when most leaders and most people around the world at that time saw nothing wrong with slavery.

Incidentally, the September issue of National Geographic had an article about the millions of people enslaved around the world right now. But where is the moral indignation about that?

[aREDSKIN]

The use of force is as inate to the human race as taking a dump.

[endzone_dave]

I'm glad they're teaching kids that Washington and Jefferson did own slaves and that these people weren't perfect. I'd rather my kids learn the truth than be fed a bunch of crap.

If they felt slavery was such a horrible thing, why didn't they just free them. They may have disliked slavery but they didn't put their money where their mouth is.

Maybe that's a good lesson for our kids: if you think something is wrong but you still practice it, you're not a hero.

[The Evil Genius]

lucky,

Are you suggesting that schools shouldn't teach the other side of the story?

Instead, they should teach the status quo about how great Columbus was? And how great Custer was? Just to name a few...

[jbooma]

What I hate is teachers being politically correct when using terms. This is history so it shouldn't offend anyone. I was taking a class and instead of the religion the teacher mentioned many different types just to make everyone happy. :doh:

History needs to be told the way it was originally, no more changing it so we don't hurt people.

[luckydevil]

Are you suggesting that schools shouldn't teach the other side of the story?

I am not suggesting that at all. In fact I wish that was the case. We should here both sides of the story, sadly our schools are not giving both sides of the story.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by luckydevi

I am not suggesting that at all. In fact I wish that was the case. We should here both sides of the story, sadly we are not

Sadly, it totally depends on the teacher teaching the individual class.

I'm a history major and I've endured many many different professors and their point of view will enter into the picture.

There's no way around that, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's just a fact.

If a teacher is a conservative by nature, they add their "flavor" to it.

Same goes if they are liberal by nature.

There are certain keys that the teacher has to cover to make sure the students pass the SOL's, but the perspective often has lots of wiggle room.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Anyone who thinks we should just tell "history as it is" is the twisted one. I love the USA and am proud of its history, but what makes me even prouder is the way we have overcome great evil in our past.

What was taught in classrooms from the fifties up till the eighties was an account devised by a government-run propaganda machine. Most people today don't realize that Native Americans had towns and advanced settlements that humbled anything the colonists threw up until well into the 1700s or later. Concerning the acquisition of land by force--yes, both sides believed it was legitimate...but not after treaties had been signed. The early history of the colonies is a laundry list of broken treaties and betrayals of confidence, often of allies.

[endzone_dave]

Napolean said it best: "History is a set of lies agreed upon"

[Sarge]

Maybe that's a good lesson for our kids: if you think something is wrong but you still practice it, you're not a hero.

Washington and Jefferson both thought slavery wrong and wanted to end it. But the fact is, that they did not know how to opeate without slaves, nor the slaves without their owners.

Anyone who doesn't think that Washington and Jefferson both weren't heros is a dumbass.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Anyone who doesn't think that Washington and Jefferson both weren't heros is a dumbass.

Another day on which I agree with Sarge 100%! What is the world coming to?

A lot of people get furious when "liberals" (meaning people they disagree with) say that statements or ideas have to be taken "in context." They scream, "moral relativity!" or "cultural relativity!" or "special theory of relativity!" But this is precisely why context is so important.

Washington and Jefferson were truly great men who were also products of their time. In fact, Jefferson was extremely troubled by the idea of slavery and wrote about it extensively--so he was well beyond his times. They were also both mortal men, and I think that their human failings make them that much more appealing. They aren't gods. They aren't stories. They were real men, who really existed, who really did great good despite their humanity.

I think it gives us all hope.

[Larry]

I understand that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves.

I also understand that they argued in favor of making slavery unconstitutional in the original Constitution (and lost).

That fits my definition of a good politician: One who's in favor of a position that will hurt him, personally.

[Soliloquy]

Originally posted by Sarge

Anyone who doesn't think that Washington and Jefferson both weren't heros is a dumbass.

Crude, yet insightful. Do you write for South Park? :cool:

[SkinInsite]

Both Washington and Jefferson were great men, it doesn't mean they don't have flaws.

[endzone_dave]

Originally posted by Sarge

Anyone who doesn't think that Washington and Jefferson both weren't heros is a dumbass.

I feel bad about implying in any way that Washington wasn't a hero. That was stupid of me.

Jefferson was pro-slavery. We owned 175 slaves. He had them whipped. He wanted slavery to be expanded to the western territories. He reversed Adams policy that was in favor of the Hatians and allowed France to try to stop the slave revelion there.

My source is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewn

[TheDiplomat]

Originally posted by Sarge

But the fact is, that they did not know how to opeate without slaves, nor the slaves without their owners.

What do you mean nor the slaves without their owners? They knew how to operate before they were enslaved. Unless Im misunderstanding you, your wrong.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Champ24Bailey

What do you mean nor the slaves without their owners? They knew how to operate before they were enslaved. Unless Im misunderstanding you, your wrong.

No misunderstanding, but I will clarify. The did not know how to operate in this country. That is why when they were finally freed, many of them stayed on the plantations were the grew up to be sharecroppers, which really was another form of slavery

[Sarge]

Originally posted by endzone_dave

I feel bad about implying in any way that Washington wasn't a hero. That was stupid of me.

Jefferson was pro-slavery. We owned 175 slaves. He had them whipped. He wanted slavery to be expanded to the western territories. He reversed Adams policy that was in favor of the Hatians and allowed France to try to stop the slave revelion there.

My source is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewn

OK, you're not a dumbass:D And by having slaves, you can say Washington was pro-slave as well. he did free them on his death though

[TheDiplomat]

Oh okay I understand what you were saying. But apparently some did know how to operate in the US. Also, the ones that stayed on their plantations were most likely too poor to move up north and were forced to either live on their own while being humiliated, tortured, ridiculed, and threatened or still live under the control of their former slave owners, while FREE, but not have to deal with the horrible behavior of some of their fellow citizens (Caucasians)

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Champ24Bailey

Oh okay I understand what you were saying. But apparently some did know how to operate in the US. Also, the ones that stayed on their plantations were most likely too poor to move up north and were forced to either live on their own while being humiliated, tortured, ridiculed, and threatened or still live under the control of their former slave owners, while FREE, but not have to deal with the horrible behavior of some of their fellow citizens (Caucasians)

Read a little on what the ones that moved up North went through. Not much better treatment than they got in the South really, just different circumstances.

[Cskin]

If they felt slavery was such a horrible thing, why didn't they just free them. They may have disliked slavery but they didn't put their money where their mouth is.

You'll find that many of the forefathers were perplexed about what to do about slavery, alot of it spurned on by Jefferson's declaration that "all men created equal." Still, as their belief that slavery was wrong grew stronger, they realized the difficulty of running their businesses and plantations without the slave labor. Furthermore, and more importantly, they were concerned about what to do with these "captured" people unable to function in the United States society.....especially when they were in most cases denied the ability to learn to read and write. Many freed their slaves upon their death, for no other reason than they could no longer protect them and hoped they would somehow survive and prosper.

[Prosperity]

As I recall in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independance he acually wrote that slavery was to be banned, but had to take that out so everyone (including those that liked Slavery) would sign on to it.

[Cskin]

Yes....and those people who might not have signed it were owners of huge plantations who, if slavery were banned, would have had crops in the field and no one to harvest them. A perplexing problem for a fledgling nation relying solely on international commerce of America's cash crops at the time to finance the new nation.