Greetings
To date, I have prepared three Mexican nationals for the history-politics component of the U.S. Citizenship Examination Process. (#4 is “in the works.”)
I recall the evening I conducted one such tutorial at El Restaurante Ixtapa, a restaurant I co-founded in the town where I live.
In addition to providing instruction in Spanish, it was also necessary to teach in English.
About an hour into this particular session, several diners got up from their table and approached the cash register to pay up.
One of them came over to our table and said: “I think it’s great that you’re doing this and want you to know that, although I am an intelligent, well-educated person, much of the material you’re teaching goes over my head.”
I realize there are at least two sides to every story.
And so, I propose two years of American history - taught dialectically - as a prerequisite for high school graduation.
This focus on thinking itself, and not just curricular content, is an essential component of this proposed pedagogy.
During this two year sequence, even-handed attention will be paid to political and historical views from across the entire spectrum.
Furthermore, to pass these courses, students must argue dialectically, presenting the advantages and disadvantages of “both sides” in every written assignment.
Similarly, examinations (including the final examination) will require this dialectical method.
If "dialectical" is one of those words you don't come across often enough to feel confident about its meaning, here is how a dialectical discussion would take place.
Let's take as a sample American history topic the expropriation of the North American continent (indeed the expropriation of the hemisphere) from Native Americans and the relationship of this expropriation to Manifest Destiny, The Trail of Tears, The Indian Wars and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; all of these issues to be studied in the context of theft, genocide, xenophobia, white supremacy (or just white nationalism) and "the creation of The Greatest Country In The World."
Here is an introductory reading list.
"Indian Affairs"
The Origin Of White Supremacy: "An Indigenous People's History Of The United States"
General George Washington Orders "Complete Destruction" Of Iroquois Settlements
And here, to provide a quick summary of "the other side of the debate," is the patriotic theme song from a Disney television series I idolized as a kid growing up in the 1950's:
The Ballad Of Davy Crockett
Similarly, some, if not all Bill O'Reilly's published histories, might be part of a full spectrum high school history curriculum.
As I write, I envision the inter-related possibility of PBS and C-Span sponsoring ongoing “debate broadcasts” in which Democratic, Republican and non-partisan notables would debate specific issues and events in American History.
Imagine, for example, Obama and Trump debating The Civil War, Immigration, or The Wall.
Or Louis Gohmert squaring off with AOC.
Or Nebraska’s Republican senator Ben Sasse (a smart guy) debating Elizabeth Warren.
Or Noam Chomsky debating Pat Buchanan.
Or Jon Stewart debating Bill O'Reilly.
Or Rush Limbaugh debating Stephen Colbert.
Of course, reality will play out as it plays out.
But here's the rub.
I predict conservative Americans will fight — tooth and nail — to prevent enactment of this American History proposal, even in its most stripped down form, which is to say as a two year course sequence required for high school graduation.
I also predict an overwhelming majority of American conservatives will inveigh against a regularly scheduled debate program which, by the way, could become a “course component” for the new American History curriculum.
American “conservatives” will resist these initiatives - and resist them ferociously -because they are vividly aware that alternative facts, conspiracy theories, denialism and stonewalling are contemporary “conservatism’s” only hope for ideological survival.
H.G. Wells noted, and this cannot be over-stressed, that “increasingly, the future of humankind is a race between education and catastrophe.”
Please note that there is not a smidgen of hyperbole in Wells’ observation.
Anyone looking to resolve our national quandary needs to work toward a transformation of our educational methods generally - and specifically for full-spectrum, fully-contextualized History instruction.
Iconic conservative thinker Charles Krauthammer made this parallel observation:
Compendium Of Best "Pax-Barbaria" Posts On Education (With A Failsafe Proposal For National Restoration)
December 1, 2020
Would You Pass? |
|
 | By Max Strasser International Editor, Opinion |
|
Quick! What founding document mentions “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? What does the judicial branch do? What is the purpose of the 10th Amendment in the United States Constitution? |
If you could answer all three questions — without multiple choice! — then you’d be on track to pass the civics test that’s required by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to become a naturalized citizen. If you couldn’t, then you’d probably put a smile on Stephen Miller’s face. |
In her latest Op-Ed, Maeve Higgins, a comedian, podcaster and contributing Opinion writer who often writes on immigration, looks at the test, which is about to become much more difficult. That’s not a coincidence. “The Trump administration has left almost no part of the immigration system untouched,” Maeve writes. “However innocuous some changes may seem, they illuminate the end goal: curbing legal immigration.” |
The thing I love about Maeve — or rather one of the things I love about Maeve — is that she’s able to deliver this important point not just with sensitivity, but also with humor. She’s hoping to take the test herself someday, so she’s started looking at the questions now. What will she say if she’s asked to name one example of American innovation? “Voodoo-flavored Zapp’s chips spring to mind, as does unearned confidence,” she writes. “However, neither is included in the list of acceptable answers. Instead: light bulbs, skyscrapers and landing on the moon.” |
But really, Maeve makes you think, why shouldn’t potato chips count? She gets to the heart of the issue: the arbitrariness (nearing on absurdity) of a civics test for people who have already fulfilled residency requirements and completed reams of paperwork in the hopes of attaining citizenship. Meanwhile, so many people — lucky by birth — don’t have to work for it at all. |
I couldn’t remember the 10th Amendment, either. |
|
"Federalists And Anti-Federalists Explained" (History As It Should Be Taught: A Mother Lode Of Superb, Dialectical Discussion At FactMyth.com)(The above post - which illustrates how to teach history dialectically better than any other source I know - concludes with a compendium of all the links listed below... and more.) Teaching Civics And American History: Humankind's Race Between Education And Catastrophe
Education Or Catastrophe (With Special Focus On The Teaching Of History) Instruction And Education Aim At Antipodes |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment