VH_50

Old Grey Eagle wrote: "Can anyone tell me if in Japan when they teach history if the question whether or not the Attack on Pearl Harbor should have been carried out is asked?" Based on my (limited) knowledge of contemporary Japan, probably not. Japanese schools aren't noted for their emphasis on individual student initiative or questioning established ideas. Nor, apparently, are Japanese history textbooks any more inclined to question the status quo than US ones. Japanese textbooks' soft-pedalling of Japanese atrocities in WWII was the center of a national scandal not too long ago, as I recall. For what it's worth, I have asked my US students to put themselves in the position of the Japanese high command and consider whether attacking Pearl Harbor (vs. just attacking Guam, Wake, and the Philippines) was the best way to pursue their goal of an East Asia/West Pacific empire. Is a year to consolidate your conquests worth "rousing a sleeping giant" (as Adm. Yamamoto put it)? It makes for an interesting discussion, usually with solid arguments on both sides.

For those of you who are keen to teach "just the facts" of history and leave interpretation out of it, try the following description of the events of August 1945 (just the facts, with all interpretive statements edited out). "On August 6, 1945, a single B-29 released an atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima. Eighty thousand Japanese men, women, and children died as a direct result--burned to death or crushed in demolished buildings. The center of the city, a 1-2 mile radius around Ground Zero, ceased to exist. Three days later, a second atomic bomb did similar damage to the city of Nagasaki. An additional 40,000 Japanese died. Japan surrendered on August 15, and the instrument of surrender was signed on September 2, aboard the battleship Missouri." Just the facts means just the facts . . . ideas that have been part of the "standard" explanation of the atomic bombings since 1945 (that they forced a surrender that was not otherwise imminent; that they forestalled an invasion of Japan; that they saved millions of lives; that they were legitimate payback for Pearl Harbor, or Bataan, or whatever) are all interpretative statements and are thus out of bounds in a just-the-facts approach. So, too, for that matter are other statements central to many people's vision of US history: "Lincoln saved the Union . . . " "Reagan ended (or prolonged) the Cold War . . . " "Ford's assembly line transformed business . . ." "The Civil War was about [fill in the blank] . . ." "The nuclear family was key to 1950s life . . ." Virtually any statement about a person, institution, or event . . . beyond the most basic recitation of "this happened, then this happened" involves interpretation. Even "America is a great place to live" is not a fact, but an interpretation of a body of facts. Interpretation, if done intelligently, involves formulating ideas about the facts, testing those ideas against the facts, and choosing among competing interpretations--in short, "critical thinking." I tell my students at the beginning of every term (and several times thereafter): "I don't care if you agree or disagree with me about how to interpret this or that event. . . I do care whether you can state your position concisely, develop it coherently, and (most of all) support it with evidence.

Bleah. Sorry about the runaway italics in my last post . . . I'm still discovering the idiosyncracies of the "edit" function. :-0

First, as somebody who teaches history (college, not K-12), I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot of lousy history teaching being inflicted on American students. The problem is, IMHO, more often an excess of dry, disconnected facts than an overdose of fluff . . . but I'll save that soapbox for another day. :-) Second, and more to the point of the thread, what is it we want young Americans to get out of their history (or social studies) education? A body of factual knowledge? An understanding of how the past shapes the present? An ability to think critically about historical problems? A collection of stories about America's past that "everybody" knows and that forms part of our shared culture? All these are valid and worthy answers, but they require different approaches and there's seldom time to do all of them well. Given my choice (which, teaching undergrads, I pretty much am), I go for 2 & 3 . . . but I drive crazy those students who come wanting 1 or 4 (too many Questions, not enough Answers). They think my class is terrible . . . those who hated 1 & 4 all through high school often love it. My point, here, is that what you (or me or anyone) sees as "good" and "bad" history teaching often has a lot to do with what you (or me or anyone) wan out of history classes. Third and finally, how in blazes do you "teach" patriotism--in school or otherwise? If patriotism is "the love of one's country" I'd think it's no more teachable than the love of clam chowder, baseball, or the girl next door. You can introduce someone to the depths and subtleties of something that you think they ought to love, but you can't make love happen (or, to the dismay of generations of parents, prevent it from happening).

"Just treat me like you would like to be treated." A worthy sentiment, though as a wise man once said to me: "Perhaps, in the interests of clarity, we should amend it to: 'Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.' People do seem to miss the point sometimes."

Ed, with all due respect, "God" (capital G) traditionally refers (talking about typography, not theology, here) to the single deity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam . . . "god" (small g) is more generic, as in "Hindu gods." BSA may write "God" but the substance of their nonsectarian policy suggests that they mean "god."

Another historical one, which I've gotten good feedback on: Rep. Jeanette Rankin was one of the first women elected to Congress (from Montana in 1916). A committed pacifist, she believed that violence should never be answered with more violence. She was one of a twenty or so Congressbeings to vote against US entry into WWI (1917) and lost her seat in the next election because of it. Re-elected in 1940, she was the lone "No" vote on the resolution to declare war against Japan the day after Pearl Harbor. She was (as she must have known she would be) voted out of office again in 1942. Moral: Even if you don't agree with the principle that Jeanette Rankin stood up for, you should reflect on the courage she displayed in standing up--all alone--to defend it.

It's one of my favorites, too, but I believe the wording is: "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead