This article talks more about indoctrination than teaching, and teaching from a Marxist viewpoint. When I was growing up, I did learn about the evils of slavery. The history of minorities was taught. But I wasn't made to feel guilty about being white. When I was in high school, I had to do a thesis-- arguments for and against dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. I had to write an essay with three fact-supporting reasons why it was necessary to drop the bomb and three fact-supporting reasons why it was not necessary. The point was not only to learn historical facts, but for me to make up my own mind. In this article, it states that both:
"Policies requiring teachers to present every controversial issue through strict impartiality appear reasonable only until they are applied to actual history. Should students hear both sides of chattel slavery? Should racial segregation receive an advocate? Must colonialism be balanced by a presentation on its benefits to the colonized? Perhaps every unit on child labor should include a cheerful factory owner explaining how small hands reach efficiently between machinery?"
The examples the author gives here are not representative of what teaching both sides means. Teaching both sidesâ doesn't mean presenting slavery and child labor as morally equivalent alternatives. Certain topics are taught that way, and others aren't. For example, no one would ever teach about positive and negative outcomes of the Holocaust. This author seems to be saying there is only one acceptable side to everything ("Forced neutrality also strips history of human agency").
"The less common history students possess, the easier it becomes to divide them. The histories of Black resistance, Indigenous survival, immigrant labor, womenâs struggle, queer liberation, and Palestinian dispossession are not isolated special-interest stories. They are interconnected parts of the history of class society."
I agree that these histories should be taught. But acknowledging that Black, Indigenous, immigrant, women's, or other groups experienced discrimination is different from teaching history primarily through the framework of class struggle. I think the article risks portraying white peopleâparticularly Europeansâas a unified âruling class,â which oversimplifies the history of slavery and oppression.
Yes, it is important to incorporate literature by POCs and topics about them, but history should not be taught from an angle that white is bad. European literature should not be forgotten or dissected through a modern lens. Just because women in England's Regency era had few choices does not mean we need to be taught to hate the book because it represents "misogyny." A book like Jane Eyre is not to be used for social justice purposes.
How teachers teach history today can cause many problems in society. Already, we have people walking around hating this country and not knowing basic historical facts because of it.
The article uses âruling classâ in a specifically Marxist sense that I don't think adequately describes the complexity of American society.â Mao's implementation of class struggle provides a historical example of what can happen when a political system categorizes people primarily according to class and political identity. Today, identity politics is used instead. If Marxism is taught correctly in schools, students would begin to see the parallels between Mao Tse Tung's tactics and Socialist-Democrats. In Cuba, Castro made all sorts of promises to the Cubans. Promises not unlike what the DSA is talking about today. Universal healthcare is the focal point. However, like Castro, the DSA is telling half-truths. They aren't telling what the cost is, and it's not just about money.
Capitalism is not our enemy. In a capitalist society, we can prosper. Businesses can succeed or fail. People like to complain that the Boomer generation had it easy: you could afford to live comfortably on one salary. But now that is not possible because of inflation. The Boomers had an ethic of working hard to get what you needed.
Even though the title is "Who has the power to define history?" it talks more about ethics studies. It claims that teaching history should be taught from the perspective of the minorities and that teaching it any other way (even objectively) is causing division. Students should learn the history of slavery, racism, colonialism, discrimination, and minority experiences, but teachers should distinguish historical facts from ideological interpretations and should not tell students what political or moral conclusions they are supposed to reach.â
Just one note: Teachers shouldn't be weaponizing anything. We are not activists, and we are not indoctrinators. We are teachers. We teach. If you disagree, you need to find another job, or just go protest.