Food Cart Statistics

Loewen, Chapter One

Coming from a more conservative background I was cautious when I first began reading Lies. Having heard some conservative criticism of the book, I was prepared to read some radical revisionist propaganda! After reading chapter one, I realize that the points that Loewen brings up are research based facts that are for one reason or another have not been emphasized in traditional American history.

            Chapter One deals with the stories of Christopher Columbus, Thanksgiving and Woodrow Wilson. Traditionally, American’s think of Columbus as a great navigator who discovered the new world. This viewpoint is not wholly inaccurate but is certainly incomplete. Columbus, along with the soldiers under his command, was undeniably responsible for the annihilation of thousands of native Caribbean tribes. Choosing to view him only as a sailor is a way of marginalizing the perspective of Native American’s. Loewen goes on to show that Thanksgiving is presented in a similar manner, with the perspectives of natives either left out altogether or watered down to show a symbiotic relationship with Europeans.

            Although Loewen presented them in a unique way, the arguments over Columbus and Thanksgiving are fairly mainstream. The argument over President Wilson’s racist legacy was something new to me. I was surprised to hear that Wilson, who I understood had fought for the right of self-determination for all nations, actually only intended that right to be for Europeans. Segregating the Postal Service was perhaps the most overt, and least discussed, action that Wilson took to further a racist agenda.

I appreciated how thoroughly researched Loewen’s arguments were, backing his theories with facts from primary and secondary sources. I especially enjoyed his analysis of contemporary historians, like Morrison, who readily admitted that he was overlooking Columbus’ crimes against the natives.  I enjoyed the first chapter and once I have an opportunity to read more I intend to, but at the moment I have to finish the Grapes of Wrath!  

Entertaining OR Effective?

Throughout my teaching program, I have been given countless examples of teachers who have created incredible lesson plans that end with their students producing incredible projects at the end of the class. While I am often impressed by the projects and I understand that students enjoy them, I wonder if these projects result in the same amount of understanding and content coverage as mainstream classes. When schools (and teachers) are largely judged on the performance on tests, are those projects (like the WWII documentary project in Michigan) actually giving students the skills to succeed on those tests? If not, then are teachers actually setting themselves up for failures if they attempt some of these complicated projects? It is a very complicated issue but it doesn't seem like teachers are given incentives to be innovative. Teachers are given a strict set of skills students need to acquire and they need to spend time developing those skills with students. I don't have any statistics to back up my thoughts but the amount of time that students spend on aspects of their assignment that lie outside of the common core the lower they would be likely to score.

I do understand there are reasons those projects are given so much attention, the most obvious being that they are memorable. When adult can remember a project from a middle school social studies class that is certainly an accomplishment. It also gets students who may not have been interested in the course at all, and therefore likely not retaining any information, involved.

I am torn! I would love to write an exciting curriculum with a lot of activities but my first two issues are that 1) I am not all that creative and 2) I don't know how to work the SBAC into my curriculum. Maybe I shall come across some different ways to do that over this next year but in the meantime I would be fascinated to hear some suggestions!