|
Educational Trends in American Public Schools: Social Studies and the Vilification of Hitler, Christianity, and White Culture
Educational Trends: Social Studies [Written for masters course; revised for website]
A Balanced Approach to Prevent Inter-Cultural Backlash
The very nature of the subject of social studies makes it difficult to discuss because the results of a thorough investigation into the trends can easily be misconstrued for various socio-political agendas. However, I believe it is an extremely relevant and important subject area that seems to be undergoing rapid and, oftentimes controversial, changes within the American public school system.
First of all, the area of social studies is an ever-changing subject that requires constant revision and reinvention, due to the very nature of politics, society, culture, and changing demographics. A social studies curriculum that does not delegate sufficient attention to certain ethnic, religious, or racial groups will not appeal to a huge majority of American students studying the subject or, their patriotic, taxpaying parents (Parkay, Stanford, 2001, p. 219).
Be that as it may, I do not believe that overt criticism, neglect, or the misconstruing of official history—specifically Eurocentric—is appropriate either (Parkay, Stanford, 2001, p. 220). What I aim to show is that balance is necessary when it comes to the study of social studies. No single group should be criticized, vilified, or neglected but, at the same time, no single group should be venerated, overly represented, or praised.
When I was in school, very little was written in the textbooks about women, African Americans, Amerindians, and so forth. If any of these subjects were discussed, they were discussed within a Eurocentric context.
Furthermore, these peoples and subjects were never given much more than a page or two, or perhaps a chapter’s worth, of social, political, and/or historical recognition. The textbooks were predominantly focused on the history, and socio-political structures and merits, of White Western European males.
Even though this was probably not the most all-inclusive approach that the textbooks could have had, it does not mean that the history of the White Western Europeans ought to be given less attention, negative attention, or so forth. Again, what I would like to see are trends in the social studies that advocate a balanced approach.
In 1938, Charles Beard commented on the aim of social studies. He basically said that social studies is about “the creation of rich and many-sided personalities,” and that these “personalities” ought to be endowed with “practical knowledge” and, be “inspired by ideals so that they can make their way and fulfill their mission in a changing society which is part of a world complex” (Parkay, Stanford, 2001, p. 217).
Now, context is important to consider when interpreting a statement such as this. Mr. Beard made this comment just before the outbreak of World War II, as Hitler did not invade Poland until the following year. Furthermore, Beard’s wife, Mary Ritter Beard, was an early proto-feminist; Beard, an ardent political isolationist and educational progressivist (Wikipedia, 2006). Thus, Beard was considered somewhat of a radical for his day, subsequently, his views were more than likely not mainstream, but rather, seemingly ahead of his time. Though, he was a very intelligent man and one of the most influential American historians of the early Twentieth Century, so his views were certainly not unpopular or shunned by the majority.
What is most striking is Beard’s belief that students of social studies ought to acquire a personality that is fit for a dynamic and complex world. This is so pertinent with regards to the current trends in social studies, as more and more students are going to need an education that helps them apply themselves in an increasingly globalized world. Students of both sexes and all races and ethnicities throughout America will have to be able to communicate effectively when they enter the workforce.
One enormously crucial element of effective communication is the ability to understand the worldviews of others, especially non-Americans. This will be an important linchpin in the business world, as no business owners or managers are going to want employees who lack the ability to adapt to various coworkers, clients, or customers from a myriad of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. As a matter of fact, one of the “strands” of the NCSS’s Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, is “Global interdependence” (Parkay, Stanford, 2001, p. 218).
Therefore, one of the only ways in which teachers will be able to educate their students with any measurable success in the area of the social studies will be, to help them focus on the differences amongst various cultures without unintentionally causing divisiveness. The fact that “racism” exists in America cannot be denied or ignored however, a balanced approach in the teaching of the social studies will, at least in part, help in the dissipation of this contentious socio-political phenomenon.
I do believe that the multicultural approach, with its progressive underpinnings, has its place in the American educational system. However, I contend with one aspect of this new approach, which oftentimes seems to vilify certain ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial groups.
For example, it seems as though the new history books still portray an evil, or villainous, portrait of Western Europe, especially during the Hitler years; the Soviet Union/Russia, particularly during the Stalinist years; and the Japan of the World War II era. If particular cultures and groups are going to be presented as inherently wicked, evil, or at all villainous, especially in light of other groups, serious problems may arise within the mind of students who may in some way have a history or relation with these cultures or groups; but, for fear of being ridiculed or shunned, they may not raise their disputations.
Demonizing Hitler, eradicating the teaching of Christianity and the historical role of Jesus Christ, and the refusal of textbook writers to address the predominant Jewish role in liberalism, the drafting and implementation of the Versailles Treaty, as well as, the Jewish role in immigration policy in America after World War II, are all topics of contention that need to be addressed by American public schools. Our educators and educational institutions are placating to Muslim parents and the Muslim political agenda, the gay and lesbian agenda, the illegal immigrant agenda, and so forth. American textbooks and educational systems cannot afford to undergo politicization, with the intention of misconstruing the study of social studies to a set of particular political agendas. Christianity and the Eurocentric worldview are suffering the consequences of the politicization of social studies more so than any other single area of study. Moreover, Hitler, a White Western European male leader, is depicted as the most heinous and evil man who ever lived. This is not only completely untrue, it is ludicrous, as well as, dangerous.
Imagine what kinds of subliminal messages are being triggered in children’s minds, especially White children, when they are taught history in this politicized way. Instead of teaching children the truth about Hitler; that he allowed 150,000 plus Jews to fight for his Wehrmacht and SS; that there were no “Black” and “White” segregated facilities in Nazi-Sozi Germany; that he personally exempted tens-of-thousands of Jews from forced deportation during the War; that he never ordered the mass murder of 6 million Jews; that he had tried time, and time again, to negotiate for peace with the Allies; that he had allowed some 350,000 British troops to escape at Dunkirk, etc., they lie about him. The truth about Hitler is “taboo.” The fact of the matter is, lying about Hitler not only makes White children apologetic for their people and leadership, as well as, carry an unnecessary burden of historical guilt, but, it also provides racist groups with lies, which they utilize for their own hostile, vicious, and ludicrous agendas.
For instance, lying about Hitler may have been one reason as to why Dylan Klebold sought revenge for the alleged Holocaust, subsequently resulting in the Columbine massacre. He murdered Christians, Blacks, and other non-Jews. Furthermore, Skinhead groups—that have hate-filled agendas that appeal to low-income Whites—are able to utilize this historical deception, with regards to Hitler, in order to justify their violence and hatred. Hitler’s SA and SS were not composed of rogue, low-income, hate-filled racists, but rather, highly intelligent, healthy, happy, patriotic, nationalistic, and wholesome young men who willed to do good for their fellow men and their leader. Hitler would have been ashamed of these Skinhead groups.
In fact, Hitler had told Wagener that he valued all races of mankind equally, as he believed all races had their own unique gifts and talents. He simply viewed his own race with extra ardor because he was a member of it. This is no different than a Black person viewing the Black race as more special than the White race. To act as though this is racist is outlandish and hypocritical. Most human beings prefer their own race over other races and that is perfectly okay and normal. For anyone to feel guilty about their own race is appalling in my opinion, and the demonization of particular races needs to stop, as it clearly is not working to anyone’s advantage. In fact, it may be causing a cultural backlash, especially here in the US.
Also, the removal of Christian activities from the classroom is very odd, especially when it is so deeply entrenched in America’s cultural and political historiography. Even the Founding Fathers alluded to the Christian rubric when they drafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For the first time in American history, Jesus is viewed as an “anti-Semite,” and Christianity is viewed as hostile to other religions, or peoples other than Westerners. However, I do not see Westerners sending their children to Middle Eastern schools and demanding that Middle Eastern educators placate to a politicized Christian agenda. Nor do I see Christians sending their children to Jewish schools and demanding that these Jewish schools endorse Christianity. So, the question must be raised: Why is this attack on Christianity happening in the US?
The approach of open attack on certain cultures or groups may actually cause inter-cultural or inter-ethnic divisiveness, unintentionally. As a consequence of this subjective approach, many students may actually begin to resent the multicultural approach which, in turn, completely defeats the intentions, and furthermore, ultimate purpose, of the multicultural approach.
This is at least one good reason for teachers to approach every social studies subject, and furthermore, every culture, group, or movement, in objective a manner as possible. Otherwise, the teacher may inadvertently subject a student to unintended criticism, or worse, feelings of inherent guilt or self-hatred. Therefore, it is my sincere belief that a subjective, politicized approach to the social studies may actually help perpetuate criticism of certain cultures, racism, or backlash against the multicultural approach.
“Education is becoming more about social issues as opposed to reading, writing, and arithmetic. Some of its fine, but I think schools need to stay with the basics.... You can’t get by in the business world on social issues if you can’t add and subtract” (Parkay, Stanford, 2001, p. 204).
I think that it is very important that people both in the educational field, and about to enter the educational field, consider that it is possible that the schools have gone too far toward one end of the educational spectrum.
I suppose we could call this the left end of the educational continuum, because social issues and multiculturalism in the classroom tends to resonate more readily with the political Left than the Right. In fact, the whole concept of diversity-education probably came about in the 1960s.
So, we have to make sure that we balance our own personal curricula, so as not to tip the balance too far in either direction. If we do not learn to balance our approach, then it will ultimately work to the children’s collective disadvantage. Furthermore, employers and college professors are noticing that American students are not up to par.
“... when asked whether public school graduates have the skills needed to succeed “in the work world” or “in college,” only 32 percent of employers surveyed and 39 percent of professors believe students have the skills” (Parkay, Stanford, 2001, p. 204).
In closing, these are clearly all serious problems that American educators face, and these are issues that public schools need to begin addressing, as opposed to ignoring. If America is going to remain a Christian country, with a predominantly Western/Eurocentric worldview, then Americans had better start steering their children in that direction. Furthermore, if America is going to reestablish its economic and political prowess, it had better begin rethinking where it is headed, because the direction it is going now is not conducive to national survival. In fact, I would say that the track America is following will ultimately lead to the balkanization of the United States, and possibly even another civil war.
My Educational Philosophy: Combating Anti-Europeanism in the American Classroom
My educational philosophy is based upon the Hegelian Dialectic, which essentially proposes that a thesis and antithesis can come together and recombine; hence, ushering in the realization of a higher synthesis. This higher synthesis is what I believe guides me in my own personal beliefs about how education in America ought to be approached, especially in light of the increasingly globalized world in which we live. Furthermore, my philosophy views students as desperately in search of guarantees, control, and consolation in an increasingly warring, chaotic, internationally-motivated world. My philosophy advocates that America is increasingly approaching a state of anomie and, as a result, the majority of students are ready, and more than willing, to be educated. Only certain people will be able to fulfill the role of the great educators for America’s future. As more and more jobs fall prey to outsourcing, America’s young people are going to have to learn to be flexible, and ready to change their focus, at any given moment.
My educational philosophy espouses the following dialectic:
· Willing, high quality students<—>Reluctant, inferior educational system—>Great educators who overcome
· Teaching must be taken seriously, as learning should be viewed as a commodity.
· Students are ready and willing to learn.
· “Knowledge is power.”
· Every subject is worth knowing, but English, reading, science, and math are the most essential.
· My philosophy is a synthesis of perennialism, essentialism and progressivism.
There is a trend in American education that seems to be stripping education of its importance. Once children leave the system, they do not have the opportunity to go back. If teachers disregard the importance of a good education, not only will the children suffer as adults but, more regrettably, the American economic and political systems will suffer (Rindlaub, 2004).
Uneducated and poorly educated adults do not do as well in the job market, and they are less likely to vote and take charge of America’s political future. This is extremely dangerous, especially in light of the fact that the world is becoming more globalized with each passing year.
I believe that it is very important that people both in the educational field and, about to enter the educational field, consider the possibility that American schools have leaned too far toward one end of the educational spectrum. I suppose we could call this the left end of the educational continuum, because social issues, and multiculturalism in the classroom, tend to resonate more readily with the political Left than the Right. In fact, the whole concept of multicultural education probably came about in the1960s (Banks, McGee Banks, 2004). So, we have to make sure that we balance our own personal curricula. If we do not learn to balance our approach, then it will ultimately work to the children's collective disadvantage. Employers and college professors are noticing that students are not up to par; “... when asked whether public school graduates have the skills needed to succeed “in the work world” or “in college,” only 32 percent of employers surveyed and 39 percent of professors believe students have the skills” (Parkay, Stanford, p. 204).
Students arrive at school ready and willing to learn, but it may be that the system is not responding to their real educational needs. Children need to learn less about their own socio-economic differences and focus more on how to limit the disparities that do exist via the fundamentals. If teachers and curricula focused more on the fundamentals, and less on the socio-political and socio-economic disparities, then I believe these issues would begin to resolve themselves. Besides, I believe that focusing too much on the disparities between the races, sexes, and various economic groups may actually cause resentment in children early on, which is certainly something educational institutions should try and avoid (Wilson, n.d.).
I believe in the saying: “knowledge is power.” Children will never be able to succeed in the working world as adults if they are not empowered to do so by their teachers. A good, solid, fundamental education that focuses more on the essentials of math, science, English, and reading is the best way to prepare children to deal with a myriad of different issues. Successful schools focus on the achievement of students in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing. The teachers tend to expect the most of their students, which subsequently results in higher achievement that is closely monitored, so that problems can be detected immediately, as opposed to too late (Parkay, Stanford, p. 251). I personally believe that a synthesis of perennialism, essentialism, and progressivism would be an outstanding educational approach that I would be inclined to implement in the classroom.
The perennial approach to education focuses on acquiring knowledge via teaching of “enduring great ideas” (Parkay, Stanford, p. 113). Perennialism, applied in the classroom, would translate into the study of great American thinkers, such as Thomas Jefferson, as well as, the study of concepts like freedom, capitalism, equality, and democracy. These are all, in my view, essential axioms for American students to fully comprehend, so that they can participate as active citizens, as opposed to allowing the nation to carry on about them.
Essentialism espouses the idea that particular “core knowledge and skills,” which are vital to a thorough education, must be emphasized. It also acknowledges that teaching methods should be regimented and methodical (Parkay, Stanford, p. 113).
Lastly, progressivism is an ideology that places students first; their needs and interests must be acknowledged and respected throughout their educational experiences (Parkay, Stanford, p. 113). “Coleman's success…was due in part to retooling strategies to meet the needs of more students, building on student strengths, and assembling a strong team of educators in the school. Among…offerings…literacy intervention, gifted and fine arts, and First Nations culture and language programs” (Delisio, 2006). Mr. Coleman has seen incredible success rates and enthusiastic students because he structured the school’s curriculum to meet the needs of the students.
American students can and will succeed, as long as there are teachers and educational philosophers in America who construct their methods to meet students’ diverse needs. I aim to be one of the great educators who can synthesize several approaches, in order to help all students achieve their highest goals.
References
Banks, J. A., & McGee Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook on Research of Multicultural Education, Second Edition. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from http://depts.washington.edu/centerme/2ndhand.htm.
(2006, June). Charles Beard. Retrieved July 2, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Beard.
Delisio, E. R. (2006). Principal Unites School Around Student Strengths. Educational World. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/chat/chat180.shtml.
Parkay, F.W., & Hardcastle Stanford, B. (2001). The Art and Science of Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rindlaub, J. (2004). K-12 Public Education: Ignoring Good Management Practices and Risking America's Future. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Education/PNPublicEducationHerbold04-15.html.
Wilson, K. (n.d.). Multicultural Education. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/keith.html.
|