Social Historians
Posted Tuesday November 3, 2009
at 9:30am in Education, History
I despise social historians. They just don’t get it. They have their use, but when it comes to the items which define humanity they are clueless. As a minor historian I can not say that I identify with there ideology. In fact, I don’t really identify with any particular field in full, but I come close to the military historian ideology. The reason which I am writing this is primarily based off of a course which I am undertaking. Last night, November 2, 2009, I came to realize the severity in which their philosophies present. The class is an American history course which focuses on the time period of 1920 – 1960. Currently, we are focusing on the 1940s and more specifically World War II. This is one of my favorite periods of history, and I know quite a bit about it. I sometimes like to question my professors on topics which I have extensively researched before, to see what their knowledge on the issue is. Now to be fair, my professor is not a specialist in WWII but rather Jazz and social history around the 1920s. However I asked him about General Mark W. Clark and his haste to take Rome, this was a topic of a research paper that I wrote last semester. To be short, since my paper was a twenty page paper, Clark got a lot of Americans killed for a symbolic reason at best. Mr. Professor said that the symbolic reason was on par with taking of North Africa, and the fighting in the streets of Berlin by the Russians. I mean that has no basis, especially since by the time Clark and the American troops got to Rome, the Germans had already left. He was clearly wrong, but he is pretty full of himself. Later on, Mr. Professor even said that the dropping of the A-Bombs on Japan was wrong. Now that is debatable, but he said that the class wasn’t allowed to contest him, and he wouldn’t have any discussion. I thought social historians were supposed to be the most open minded? I fully understand scholastic law, where the student loses their rights to things like free-speech while on campus, but this is plainly wrong. Mr. Professor also stated that invading mainland Japan wouldn’t have cost even one single American life. I think most of the military would disagree with that, if they were still around to have their voice heard. Now this is just what the professor stated.
After the lecture period, we had a discussion on Studs Terkel’s work The Good War where students were able to discuss the book. What did I learn from my fellow scholars? That it was wrong for the United States to fight a war on the European front to try and stop the oppression of Nazi Germany on minorities. However America was wrong to institute camps for Japanese and Italian Americans. The icing on the cake had ot be calling my dead grandmother racist because she simply lived in the 1940s. I didn’t even mention her in discussion but one airhead of a student decided to label my family member as a racist because “everyone” was racist in the 40s. Does one not see the irony here? First war is bad because its messy and atrocities happen. Furthermore America is in the boat as Nazi Germany when it comes to camps but American isn’t allowed to get away with it when Germany executed six-million Jews alone, and countless other minorities. It just doesn’t make sense!
I really do think if WWII had to be fought today, and these people were in power, the Nazi regime would win. I could go further and say that if the U.S. had an A-Bomb dropped on them by say Nazi Germany and their fabled “New York Bomber” that they would simply say “thank you, but war is a brutal business that isn’t just in any occasion. Please take a third of the eastern seaboard for your own!” I am glad I am not cut from the same cloth. I just feat that these people are going to be teaching MY family if I choose to ever have one.
This semester I will be spending a lot of time with historical works on both sides of the spectrum regarding religion and science. I am taking a Senior Research Seminar on the crusades as well as taking a course on History of Science. Recently, I got some time to thumb through a book that I did not get to finish over the summer in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. As I was thumbing through the work, a block of text seemed to jump out at me. The quote was from the great Thomas Jefferson. He was quoted as saying “A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.”1 My topic today is related to this very quote. Should theology be taught in public schools?
On one hand, you have those who say that people should ban theological studies. Children would not be required to say “under God” during the Pledge of Allegiance. Furthermore they wouldn’t be required to have a class on Christianity, or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or even Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh for that matter. I do not think it is the right of a Government body to tell a student, you must learn this, and not that. However, I don’t think it is right for a public institution to force a child to learn their laws and rules if that child believes in science.
You also have to flip the coin on this question. What about a pious child learning evolution? How about a pious child learning about the Big Bang Theory? These are also interesting questions, because if a child is a believer of some religion, then should they be force fed facts about human evolution? Indeed it should. Unfortunately for them, I think the answer to this question is not laid in society’s ideals of what is right or wrong, rather than the U.S. Constitution.
This debate comes down to the question of the separation of church and state. Schools, at least public ones, are run by the local government. For example, high schools in the city of Los Angeles are run by the LAUSD, or the Los Angeles Unified School District. This nation is one that recognizes the separation of church and state. No where in the United States Constitution does it say that the citizens of the U.S. should subscribe to any particular religion. In fact, the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” By teaching the laws or rules of any particular religion would violate the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, it could be good to learn some of the rules and laws of any religion. There are good things to be had within those respective documents. However it is also wrong to make a “non-believer” to learn of it too. At least modern science has many of its discoveries rooted in facts.
If a child wants to go and learn about Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any other religion then can take a particular course at a specific institution. Many people do this in colleges today. There should be no class at the public level of education (high school or middle school) that would allow for these to be taught. There are certain historical times where a basic portion of religion must be taught to have a proper understanding of the times. The crusades and the Salem Witch Trials would be one time where it would be acceptable to squeak in some religion. However, it would be for an understanding, not a chance to preach the lives and teaching of some prophet.
Ultimately Jefferson was correct, as it would infringe on the rights of man.
Notes
1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: First Mariner Press, 2008), 100.
This is a short, obviously biased post, but it is something that I have seen WAY too often. It doesn’t matter if it is staff, advisors, teachers, or couneslors generally they motto is IN with the BAD and OUT with the GOOD. Sometimes I wonder why I want to go into this profession.
Socratic Style of Learning
Posted Wednesday September 17, 2008
at 12:29am in Education
Many say that our education system is quite a mess right now. I don’t know how to fix it but one way I think may help would be to switch to the socratic style of learning. Generally in schools, until one gets into the upper division courses of college, you are basically told to shut up, sit down, and listen to what the teacher or professor says. Now it may be a way to learn, but I also believe that it adds unnecessary problems to children. It doesn’t encourage social skills that one probably doesn’t pick up to the proper degree once lost. If the Socratic style was used one would be in a smaller class (which also would create more jobs) and be able to communicate better. Generally at a max, the teacher student ratio would 20:1. The teacher is not this evil figure that has to come down on the class, instead he/she is more on the students level involved in discussion of the topics. It also makes the students be more responisble because they have to know the material and able to discuss it during class time. The only problem is those, like me, who do learn a lot from the traditional lecture style may not learn as much, but I do believe they would develop more skills that would prepare them for the world after school.
Why Teachers Fail (I)
Posted Thursday March 27, 2008
at 6:11pm in Education
There are many reasons why our school systems are not up to par in recent years. I am just going to touch on one of them today. This is a sad and quite annoying fact, and it is that most teachers don’t really want to become teachers. But they can’t get their job that they want and then they have no choice but to go into teaching. With this happening there are teachers who don’t care as much and are thus not all that good teachers.
I have many point and cases but allow me to focus on one teacher who will remain anonymous for the sake of my grade as well as his reputation. We shall call the teacher S. Actually no, because that shares the same initial as me, so we shall call him X. He is a bad teacher and not enthusiastic about his subject. Because of this his students do bad on their tests. This is easily remedied through enthusiasm in most cases. Allow me to explain.
I tutor middle school kids in a plethora of different subjects, but one seems to remain constant that they always need hep in which is math. Math also happens to be one of my more troubled subjects. I can help them most of the time however, I still tend to lead them down the wrong path. I am enthusiastic and encourage them to stump me or to prove me wrong. They get really excited over the fact. True it is a little embarrassing when an 8th grader can prove me wrong, but I remind myself that it is a tool of learning. They try harder to prove me wrong and 3 of my 7 students have improved their math grades. The others don’t care as much and thus dropped or stayed the same. A former teacher taught me this trick and I know have it in my arsenal when I become a teacher. My enthusiasm about being a tutor transfers into their minds and I can see in their work and studies that it has improved.
This blog is more sorta scattered which is unprofessional and I apologize for that. It was doing this in a rush. This may become something I shall write on more often, ways for teachers to improve.
