For next week:
Readings/Viewings:
- “History,” p. 95-108, TT
- Seger, Linda. “Creating the Myth,” p. 317-326, SOL
- Thomas, E. & Romano, A. (2006) “History: How American Myths are Made” Newsweek, August 7.
Answer any one set of questions below:
- In what ways are historical narratives often deeply ideological? And if facts alone do not inherently carry meaning, then how do we begin to understand the significance or meaning of a particular historical event? Explain and give an historical example.
- Consider these excerpts from William Byrd’s diary. Is this an historical document? Why or why not? What kinds of questions would we need to ask of this document in order to begin understanding its historical significance? What’s missing? What ideologies seem to underlie this particular narrative?
- When I was in secondary school, my history teachers and textbooks consistently suggested that the Soviet Union (now Russia) was the world’s most evil power, and that democracy and freedom were daily at threat because of the Soviet Union. As a result, my fellow students and I grew up in fear that the next World War and the earth’s destruction was just a button push away, and that the Soviet Union would be the likely culprit. What historical lessons did you learn in school that you can now look back on and question? What, if any, historical narrative did you read or hear in secondary school that now seems problematic?
- In what ways do myths sometimes inform historical narratives? What fairly recent (within the past two decades) example can you provide that exemplifies how myth and history sometimes intersects? How would we
begin to unravel the myth from ideology and facts? - Take another look at Little Red Riding Hood, what universal story or stories can you identify? What archetypal characters? What ideologies are most dominant within this narrative?
- In what ways does the media sometimes perpetuate and even create historical myths? Provide an example, discuss it, and explain its relevance to the myth-making process.
October 10, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Historical narratives are often ideological because of their construction: there is a sequence of events, protagonists, antagonists – as pointed out in TT. It is a narrative, not a random list of facts. To understand the meaning or significance of an historical event is much more difficult. All we can do is analyze or breakdown the series of events, and question it. Why did it happen? When? Who started it? Could it have been handled differently? What would the world be like if these things didn’t happen? Would it have happened anyway (by someone else at a later time)? Most importantly, to really understand anything in history it would be important to get information from many sources, not just one.
Take for example, the US constitution. It was created in history by a very specific group of men. No one in our day can know for sure exactly what they were thinking when they created the Bill of Rights. We can only interpret. Why did they give all men the right to bare arms? Is it because they needed more protection in those days? Would they still stand by these rights in today’s society? We can not go up to the authors/creators of the US constitution and ask them what they meant. We can only interpret. For help in understanding or interpreting the law, lawyers/judges would look at other sources of information such as past cases to see how it was interpreted in the past.
October 10, 2007 at 6:14 pm
6) I think that the media definetly has a way of warping the facts and subject that then can create a myth. The media constantly can be at risk on getting the story wrong, unintentional or not. These types of myths can sometimes wrongly accept one idea as right while dismissing the actual accurate answer. For example, one obvious myth that I can think of was the whole “Red Scare” during the 50’s. America was made out to be the “light in the dark” and the Communists or people sympathezing with them, were painted out to be monsters. It created a whole idea that we were constantly under attack be the “dirty commies”. The Media played a big part in adding to the hype that we would fall under prey to Communism, which would result in our downfall. It just caused fear into Americans and suspicion into who could be trusted. And the media continues to distort perceptions on people and ideas today. The covering of the Iraq War led us to suspicion on every Arab-looking guy at the airport.
October 10, 2007 at 10:41 pm
the media has a way of twisting words of what people say. they don’t care what it is. historical myth would be slavery when poeple hear the word slavery most think about black people being sold and bondadge, today thats not the case we have all different types of slvery and people in them. at one point in time we had indentured servants that were inenfland trying to pay off debts. the media dosen’t talk about everything thats going on in the world it’s very biased putting out what they think will sell more papers or more viewers. in the book their was a statement the said,”those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” our history is already repeating itself the war in iraq, slavery, genocide.how can we learn from our mistakes if we aren’t taking the time to examine the situation? this nation is full of mistakes that weren’t neccesary
October 11, 2007 at 12:16 am
I chose #3 to respond to. I can’t necessarily say that I learned something in school that I can now question, as much as I question what I didn’t learn from school. We all question our fore-fathers and Manifest Destiny. We all raise and eye-brow at the idea of colonist and Indians sharing land and having a feast afterwards that we now call thanks giving, but what I question is any act during the civil rights movement. If secrets where hidden about the construction of this country, I’d love to see what secrets where kept during a period of rebellion towards our “perfect America”. In high school, one of my history books describe the Black Panthers as a street gang that rebelled against the police and pretty much folded and vanished. Those who would question the real truth would come to find that the Panthers where a group of activist who formed free breakfast programs at youth ymca centers for children and a 10 point plan to help better and govern black communities where help was absent. (kind of like New Orleans during Katrina, and even now) It just so happens, they stood up to police and carried guns for protection, but thats not how it would be told to one who knows nothing about the Panthers, from the media or books. So I’d like to find out more about the truth, from that specific time.
I can’t remember a specific historical narrative that I now find problematic, but I feel as though any historical narrative is questionable or problematic…simple because we have no direct proof to any thing from that past that’s not taped with audio or visual. So I feel we should be skeptical with anything we hear.
October 11, 2007 at 10:55 am
the media is not the problem ,it`s our thirst for limited factual data in a timely manner FOR THE M.D OR S.D.
Ithought the pulse of the media would be good journalism,this is what we learn from our institutions, not on the street like certain sport activities.our media has the power to control public opinion,and manipulate our views,thoughts.As stated in T.T. about our sequence of events through protagonist and antagonist. THE views of my time ,the historical findings are somewhat embarassing!(o.j., presidents,the wars( all three of them)olympics,)
THEresponse #6: I agree with sean , my uncle(rest in peace) was ablack panther and our fear was the police beating us up for PLEASURE,THE B.P.gave us books to read about our rights to be citizens in america,there was an after school program that gave us tutors for our classes because we were afraid to go home and get pickedup by the police!The MEDIA never told what the panthers did to help in the community.it was on an hbo documentary,or a ken burns special. The positive actions of theb.p. are not told truley or correctly in the media or our history books.hey i`ve got an idea:let`s make a 4part movie THAT CHANGES PUBLIC OPINION about the b.p. like other movies(god father,donniebrasco,good fellas , sopranos etc..) THROUGH THE MEDIA, for years the opinion of the mob ofcourse is what we know it is, yet these movies give us a different view .
Today the media is so competetive and greedy,telling the truth is like rolling dice.
October 11, 2007 at 11:59 am
I will be answering question 1.
History is taught to us and we often assume that what is being taught to us is true, but because history ‘is available to us only through representations- words, images, symbols’ then we must try and interpret history ourselves since we are being taught history with secondary resources. nevertheless ‘to say that history is open to interpetation is not, however, to say that historical events mean anything at all; it is rather to say that history itself needs to be historicized- or that historical events need to be sujected to the same scrutiny as other ideological thruth claims’. i feel this quote from the TT dead on point.
it is difficult to truly understand the meaning of particular historical events because we did not experience it ourselves. we heard about it or learnt about it but this still makes our facts secondary resources. also there is a chance that we are being told of a historical event and it is bias. it is important to question history and do thorough reseach and create a understanding of the meaning yourself.
for example when hitler came into power the germans did not understand the true reasons for the war. they believed it was because of revenge and they believed it was the jews fault for germanys depression. hitler brianwashed them and hardly anyone question his theories. today it isnt much different. how many people spoke up and questioned bush? the TT states that ‘history at its best does teach us about larger patterns of events- the why in addition to the what- so that we my avoid certain pitfalls of our predecessors’. have we learnt for our past? did we look back at history and did we question things? they were right when they said history repeats itself.
October 11, 2007 at 12:58 pm
History-
I was reminded of a song in the musical Wicked, “where I come from we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true…we call it history, a man is called a traitor or liberator a rich man’s a thief or filatrapist is one a crusader or ruthless invader it’s all in which label is able to persist.” as the readings made clear this week it is always up for interpretation and what REALLY happened is going to never be completely known without a bias. Is history being written by a liberal or conservative author, or is it being written to inform, persuade or entertain? Which side if any is the writer on is it first hand or second hand knowledge? All of these questions and many more can be taken into consideration when reading anything from a textbook or newspaper or even watching the news or a movie based on historical events. To me it is interesting what we consider to be myth and fact like for instance WWII and the victorious patriotism we as Americans associate with that period in time but for other nations mostly in Germany we think about how WWII was taboo to talk about in schools and denied by many to this day. I think that I point of view is huge in any form of media and/ or history because the writer and his or her ideals will come thru as the will the reader’s ideals come thru as well.
October 11, 2007 at 1:25 pm
3. I chose to answer the third question because it brought back a lot of things I was taught in high school. I went to Catholic school for 12 years of my life. Because i was taught consertivally we were always told to question things. Espically the war in Iraq. In the Catholic religion there are the moral guidelines to a war. I remember in religon class one day we went through all of the guidelines and to me not one made any sense at all. The war we are fighiting is unjust. I had an extemely consertaive techer who told me that my opionin meant nothing. He told us that the war was being fought to protect our nation and that we had to take out a man who was on a mission to destroy us. Well, turns out that every reason the government gave us for our occupation in that country was false. I really have a hard time beliving that Saddam Hussein was going to destroy our country. I don’t really know how well that answers the question but, that is what I always think about when the subject comes up. It really makes me question the whole education i recieved in high school. To me much of it was based on lies and false statements.
October 11, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I admit that I have not been keeping up with these blogs like I ought to. I do understand that they’re mandatory and not, umm, suggested, but every week I keep coming here and I’m a bit uninspired. But question #3 this week? I can answer that.
Firstly, I grew up in Texas, and I would argue that state has more myth behind it than the rest of the United States combined. While states like California, Alaska, and Hawaii all have larger-than-state myths, Texas is self-aggrandizing.
(For humor’s sake, please take a moment to read The Onion’s ‘Misremember the Alamo!“)
When I was in high school, I discovered a band that I’m sure most of you know: Rage Against The Machine. I have always been a huge nerd, so rather than spending my lunch break doing something normal like socializing, I spent it in the library, trying to decipher their lyrics. During my research, I came across a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me, which made me think back critically upon my history classes. The end result was that I felt used and dirty and ashamed for having fallen for so much racist conservative propoganda.
That’s right, I said it! It was racist and dumbed down! I remember being assigned a paper in 9th grade history, in which we were to pick whose ideology we agreed with more, MLK or Malcolm X’s, and why. I, like the others in my class, picked MLK because he was a peace loving man and Malcolm X was evil! Now, where did I get that idea? I went back and looked at the history book, and Malcolm X received a total of 4 short paragraphs. MLK, on the other hand, had been celebrated throughout my entire school life. I am not saying that he should not have been, but when I went on to read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, I learned that he had a change of heart after his visit to Mecca, and realized that white skin does not equal evil, but that American culture somehow led white people to racism in a way that other cultures had not. A vital point to make, and my history book had failed to make it.
But, fine, I will give them Malcolm X. What really hurt, and hurts still now, is the version of Texas and U.S. history that was taught in junior high. As a 7th and 8th grader growing up along the Tex-Mex border, the history lessons just made me feel inferior, in a way that I could not describe then, because I did not have the words. Most of my peers, I’m sure, weren’t paying enough attention to truly be affected, but some of us were listening and thinking, and depending on what side of the sword you were on, you could come out thinking that you were superior or inferior.
I remember having asking my (white) best friend why she thought Texas history focused on all these men from the South. What did Bowie and Crockett and Travis (whom my little brother was named after in a fit of Texan pride) have to do with the Texas around me? Well, she said, they can’t fit it all in. The books can’t tell everyone’s story. But, who decides what stories are worthy, whose stories get put in? I kept asking. Why not my people? Why just white people? She shrugged, and replied, They’re the people who founded this country.
And, there you have it. Never mind that in one shady takeover of Texas, a bunch of Mexicans found themselves living in the Republic of Texas, and then in the United States. Or, the entire Southwest in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. You know, just forget about us! We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock.
My personal favorite myth, the one that started ALL of this, is that of Christopher Columbus. He DISCOVERED America. All those savage Native Americans had NO IDEA they were here, until Columbus came along. Who believes this? A bunch of elementary school kids, and those among us who learned it back then and never bothered to think or question it since.
I could go on, but it will probably devolve into a nonsensical rant that will get Homeland Security bugging our classroom.
October 11, 2007 at 3:52 pm
1) Historical novels usually have ideology becuase they only show one point of view. The reader would only be able to interpret this point of view for that reason the event would not be completed in the interperters mind. In order for the reader to understand that whole event he would have to see both side of the narrative. The book uses a good example about WWII. The dropping of the atomic bomb was known is the u.s. as victorios. While in japan it was considered a tragic event.
In high school i did a project for the chicago history fair. My instructor introduced the whole class to primary sources. This resource became really useful to me because it helped me understand both sides of my event. I choose the depression in chicago. I had primary source of what the city was doing to help the poeple, and also had primary sources of actual people during this time. I believe that the best way to interpret history is with primary sources.
October 11, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I find historical narratives extremley ideological, and think that this is an awsome question to ask when examaning historical content and narratives. In text books we as a society learn to not believe everything we see on tv but if its in print or in a textbook its true. I find this a huge flaw in the cultural system that we have today to believe everything we read just because someone with a phd that thinks he knows everything about everything tells us what is true. We have to start learning that even though its necessary to find the facts and try to work out what really did happen or what didnt we have to come to terms with the fact that noone will ever get all the facts some people might throw in some facts left out or suggest some things that arnt factual but we will never know anything 100% and i think its foolish to even try. Im not saying its foolish not to seek out and find the most facts and factual evidence possible but to say “i want to know it 100% that its true” thats something that you just have to accept will never happen. in the reading a comment was stated “We all have personal myths running through our heads, and some chapters would withstand fact checking while others would fail miserably.” If we do not know the facts that we encounter first hand to be completley true we will never even get close to the things we heard about or are trying to dig up evidence for that happened millions if not hundreds of years ago. As the time goes by in my opinion the less likley it becomes that we will be mostly factual about it. I know first hand that some things that happen to me and a friend when talking about them later always varries and thats in a case where 2 people were in the same place but remember and recall different aspects of a story and i think thats the case with everyone. Were all different and to believe one persons version of something is not the smartest thing to do. Historical narratives are ideological based on who recalls them and who is providing their information and the story and what we believe will be based as follows.
October 11, 2007 at 4:21 pm
In the SOL reading we were given a view of how mythical hereos could be created. It was an easy numbered guide to follow and I think it is the best way to answer question number 6.
The news and media find a way to make antaganist and protagonist through each story. They set up each story with an hero ideology.
To me this is a fresh piece of history that we could learn from or take from. There was a natural disaster in which the media made it clear who they thought were the victims, who they wanted to be the heros and who they wanted to blame for the whole thing (even though it was a natural disaster and they happen).
The media didn’t have to twist things around but instead munipulated their stories by interviewing certain people or showing certain pictures.
I feel that in this case they created fear in the American people. The fear that they cast then made the U.S blame, and cheer on certain people.
Another example to me would be the gay movement. When AIDS first came up the media couldn’t wait to show off their perspective.
It was like they wanted to create a myth, out of something that people barely new and therefore the myth that gay people started aids, or aids was an epidemic only homosexuals got. The media portrayed the onset of aids to be this way. It wasn’t the research that provided this myth.
Those two examples are why I chose not to get my news through the media. It is very hard to do, but I try to get my information other ways.
One last thing. I believe that Byrd’s diary is a piece of history. We are able to take something from it. Now we would need something to contrast with it so we could get the both sides. But I found the diary interesting “I danced my dance”
im out
cya in class
October 11, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I’m looking at question #3 and remembering OJ Simpson. I don’t remember how old I was when his trial was happening—I do remember that I was too young to really understand what was going on. But what stands out in my memory the most was the way that my white teacher stressed the fact that he was a black man who had killed a white woman and didn’t we all—the class—agree that that was terrible? I attended a predominantly black school but she still had all of us—because we were young—agreeing with her that yes, OJ Simpson was guilty, although we actually knew next to nothing about the case.
As I got older and actually learned what happened with OJ Simpson I formed my own opinion of his guilt based on factors other than his race. But I still can’t believe that she used her position of authority to influence small children’s opinions on a case they are too young to even be thinking about. I remember going home and asking my mama about OJ and telling her what my teacher said, and my mama just shook her head and said, “Not everything your teacher tells you is true.” I have remembered her advice all of my life, because people—the media, the president, our teachers, even our friends—put their own opinions into the pot with the facts and it all comes out completely skewed.
One more thing…I read Sean’s post and he gets two thumbs up because that is SO TRUE. Before I got to high school I knew all about the Black Panthers because my dad was interested in what they were doing back in the day and told me all about it. But I get to junior year of history in high school and our teacher Ms. Killian starts talking about how violent they were/are and how they accomplished very little; I believe she even used the phrase “at-home terrorists.” If anything, I believe many members of the police force—in Louisville, anyway—could be called “at-home terrorists” because most of the terror we felt at home was caused by their abuses. Ok, I’m done rambling.
October 11, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Historical narratives are ideological because, more often than not, we like history to be something we can live with. For the vast majority of time, a nation’s history has been recorded by that nation. Outside countries had their own documents, but usually little was known. Therefore, it was easy to edit out things that made your country or civilisation look bad. Medieval Scotland, for instace, had maintained that their lineage of kings was unbroken, going back to anvient Egypt and the Pharoes. They also claimed that the historical Macbeth (yes he was real) stole the throne, when in fact he had a very legitmate claim. It’s only been recently (within the last 60 years or so) that the world has been forced to fess up to the actions they’ve taken, since most of the world has been involved in those major events. Even still, we can only draw for our experinces from the world as it is now, not as it was in the past. That’s why it is so hard to accurately portray the past.
October 11, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I choose to respond to question # 1 –
I found the quote by Fredric Jameson “always historicize!” pg. 96 very interesting. I know personally growing up and taking various history classes in school I always thought what the teacher was telling us was the truth. I’m not saying that they were lying, but I simply never took the time to truly analyze what they were teaching me. I always felt.. well if the teacher is telling me this it must be the exact facts! But history is something that must be analyzed and criticized from your own point of view. Obviously for 90% of history taught we were not present to experience it. So, in our minds we have to paint our own picture to understand the event, so everyones interpretation can be slightly different. We get the overall concept from reading facts in a book or listening to a teacher, but to truly learn and understand what took place I feel you have to paint your own picture of the event in your mind. So to answer the question of how are historical narratives often deeply ideological, it is because the person who wrote about this particular event did not experience first hand what happened. They gathered their facts, and then pieced together the rest from the story they created in their mind. They used their own imagery and theorization to create their interpretation of a historical event.
I think its very hard to truly understand the meaning of a particular historical event unless you were there to experience it. You can read about it in narratives where scholars give their different opinions but this is all just their theory on the subject, which is not necessarily how it was meant to be portrayed. For example, during the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus (the rights to seek relief from an unlawful detention). Lincoln arrested men in the Maryland state legislature who were going to vote to secede from the Union. These men were not charged with any crime, yet Lincoln still through them in jail. Historians will tell you how illegal this action was and how Lincoln should have been punished for this. But these men were not present during Lincolns decision.. he had to make this hard choice because he was going to lose a state that boarders the nations capital to the north, to the confederates. The point is, we can read the facts about this and say how illegal this was for him to do, but we don’t truly understand the significance of the situation because we were not there. I hope that makes sense to you guys…
thanks for reading
October 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Since everyone is talking about history, and they covered it well, I’m going to go the other route and address Little Red Riding Hood. Little Red Riding Hood employs a hero myth. The young girl, affectionately called Little Red Riding Hood, “is introduced in ordinary surroundings, in a mundane world, doing mundane things” just like Signs of Life suggests the hero should be doing in the beginning. She’s a naïve, innocent, little girl following the direction of her mother to visit her ill grandmother.
The mother remains unnamed, because she only serves the purpose of giving Little Red Riding Hood a task to complete, an “adventure”, and some advice for the well-being of the girl and her grandmother. Her motherly advice paints her as “the good mother” referred to in SOL, who “is known for her nurturing qualities, and for her intuition.” Her advice tells Little Red Riding Hood exactly what not to do, so that we have a bit of foreshadowing of the trouble Little Red Riding Hood could face.
When Little Red Riding Hood sets out on her one and a half mile journey (“half a league”), she meets a wolf on the path. Innocent Little Red Riding Hood did not expect the wolf to be evil, yet he is, and he represents the negative, violent and ravaging animal archetype in SOL. I’m not sure just how young Little Red Riding Hood is, but her innocence shows, because she in no way distrusts the wolf and proceeds to tell the wolf in great detail where her grandmother lives and the fact that grandmother is not well. Little Red Riding Hood is not the brightest young lady, but at least she’s not cynical. Anyway, the wolf suggests Little Red Riding Hood enjoy herself and the nice day. She immediately forgets the task at hand, though not entirely since she considers flowers for grandmother. Little Red Riding Hood doesn’t even walk from the path nicely and quietly, she runs, completely abandoning her mother’s sensible directions.
The wolf devours the old lady, creating an “obstacle” which leaves Little Red Riding Hood feeling a little uneasy when she arrives. After a quick chat the wolf gobbles her up. This could be the rock bottom or death experience described in SOL.
The huntsman becomes another helper as he saves the girl and her grandmother, cutting them out of the belly of the wolf.
Little Red Riding Hood must have wised up some time in between being swallowed and being cut out of the wolf’s belly, because she finds stones to fill the hole in the wolf, so that when he wakes he instantly dies. Yuck.
She then recalls the events of the day, learns from her mistakes, and remembers her mother’s advice. The next time, Little Red Riding Hood ignored a wolf on the path, and with the help of her grandmother, she killed him.
So Little Red Riding Hood tells us that we should heed advice from helpers in our lives, like the good mother, because when we are young, we cannot always foresee events that could harm us. Yet, Little Red Riding Hood became smarter by learning from the obstacles she faced, and the good people in the story survived, so all is well in her world.
October 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Its really interesting that in reality, history is written however the author wants it to be. it has always been that way and will always be that way. In the theory toolbox and signs of life they talk about the hero and the stages the hero goes through. one is about the hero myth and the other is about history and different perspectives making that a myth as well. I think that writers of history kind of work the saem way as writers of movies or television shows. the hero myth is always played out in movies such as saving private ryan… just like a story of a wounded soldier in in a history book from a war. the story is exaggerated by the writer of the history book to make the soldier look more heroic.
October 11, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“Myths evolve as circumstances and needs change”
When the readings say that history is ‘idealogical’, they dont mean the specific events carry idealogy but rather that every event carries its recorder’s personal reaction to it. This can mean two things. One being that every person is going to react to different events in different ways and will report on them according to what details they deem important.The other implication of idealogical history is that, at times, putting a personal opinion may not always be subconscious. This is why many history books are labeled bias and short-sighted when the historians have their own agenda to fit a certain belief.
This problem arises constantly in world politics and social issues. Likewise to the Soviet Union, as you mentioned before,there have been many enemies of the United States that have been negatively propagated against both with and without just cause in popular media: The Black Panther Party, Hitler, Mussolini, the Taliban, even John Lennon. And as long as our government has it’s own idealogy it will find problems with others and result in opinionated reporting and idealogical history.
As said in the Newsweek article “Myths evolve as circumstances and needs change”. This means as time goes on we will always view certain individuals and events from history differently because we will be always be changing as well.
As said in the Newsweek article
October 11, 2007 at 6:11 pm
scratch that last line and the quote on the top
October 16, 2007 at 12:59 am
The media is very exaggerated. I remember the media crated the historical myth of Y2K. Most people lived in fear that we were going to be left in the dark. We all freaked out at the thought of no electricity! But when the day came nothing ever happened. We all felt that great suspense though!
History is interpreted by opinion. What might not be so important to a historian might not be important at all to another. As the TT said “Events are chosen according to certain criteria.” A great example that comes into my head were the Japanese concentration camps during World War 2. Why is it that when Hitler put up all the concentration camps America made a big deal about it? I think it’s because America wants to boast about it as if saying “Look we helped them out, we did our part!” On the contrary the Japanese concentration camps are not so greatly mentioned in history books because that is what America did. We not only locked up the Japanese but anyone who have “Chinese eyes.” At the time it was the right thing to do, now if we look back at it we look at the great horror. It is something that is achieving publicity but it is to this day many people don’t know of those concentration camps here in the US.
As someone mentioned in class Christopher Columbus was portrayed to me as someone I should admire. Later on I found out he was not the pretty portrait that was painted to me by my elementary school teachers. I found out he was the man whom had stolen the land from the Native Americans, raped women, spread disease and almost completely wipe out the Native American community. Something I always mention is the way Hitler is portrayed as well. We are all taught to hate him but the man was a genius. He had the power to control thousands, maybe even millions. Another thing, I was taught in my Latin American history class in high school that the Spaniards benefited Latin America. Sure their influences still live in those countries to this day but in the past they greatly remind me of Christopher Columbus. The Spaniards enslaved Africans and took them to Latin America to work for them, took over the lands of the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs. They benefited from the natural resources of these countries. Something that also bothers me greatly is how at a young age we are adored to love the Pledge of Allegiance. As I got older I noticed it became less important to say in the morning before class begun. It was almost as if when we were children that was hammered into us. We are all forced to say “God” while reciting the pledge of allegiance. Is that really fair to all religions and individuals? When I got older I realized this huge mistake of mixing religion and politics.
October 18, 2007 at 8:09 am
I decided to answer the third question also an, a big issue for us in middle school was 9/11, and I think it was because( if I remember correctly), a week before it happen my priciple had a meeting with us and explained that there are many wars going on that we dont know about. And said that we should be grateful (to whom ever we are greatful to) that we ae not threatend by any country. And because my priciple was a fan favorite what he said was always took seriously and we believe every word. Then 9/11 happen and everybody thought that if out principle (who new everything in our eyes) didnt know it was coming, then our country didnt know and that means that we are unprepared which made us feel as if the world was over!!