James Loewen Chapter 1
[Message #1]
James Reclus:
hello
[Message #2]
Nancy Duran:
Hello everyone!
[Message #3]
Alex Daugherty:
hey
[Message #4]
James Reclus:
We got the easier chapter because it was what we went over Wednesday in our class discussion
[Message #5]
Nancy Duran:
Isn't that cool
[Message #6]
Alex Daugherty:
so... do you think that figures in history become impotent because of heroification?
[Message #7]
michael mark:
maybe?
[Message #8]
michael mark:
so I think that the chapter was pretty much about how some history books are very sanitized or cut and dry about certain facts/.
[Message #9]
James Reclus:
Heroification:
1. Presents people in history as being more than human.
- They are infaliable, meaning they can do no wrong
- History is editted in such a way that major parts of people's lives are missing and we only see/read the good parts.
- They seem to be Gods, things that are not a part of society, but rather things to be worshipped
2. Takes away conflict.
- Everything is presented in a nice, neat manner
- Conflict is introduced and then immediately resolved
3. Sanitizes history.
- All of the horror and gorey(sp) aspects are taken out of history.
- Nothing is as it seems because everything has been sensored so as to show only the good parts of history
Question:
Do you feel that if you do not know what happened in the past that you are doomed to repeat it?
[Message #10]
Alex Daugherty:
the are not really cut and dry... they imbellish facts to fit whatever theme they want to project.
[Message #11]
michael mark:
okay.
[Message #12]
michael mark:
so is it like "wag the dog" type of scenario?
[Message #13]
Alex Daugherty:
i dont know what you mean by that.
[Message #14]
James Reclus:
They portray people in history as gods, people we should all strive to become. As for events in history, they a knife and cut out all of the material that makes themselves look bad in any way.
[Message #15]
James Reclus:
sorry: it should be "they [take] a knife..."
[Message #16]
Alex Daugherty:
i agree
[Message #17]
michael mark:
It's like that dienro movie a few years back where the government asks a movie director to direct it's next war to the public, sorry for the confusion.
[Message #18]
Alex Daugherty:
history is not only written from the perspective of the victor, it is written from the perspective of white people in (in america, i mean)
[Message #19]
James Reclus:
What this really means is that we are not really learning about history, but rather about historical fictional because none of the information is 100% accurate; the information is accurate to a point, but with all of the imbelishes history text book authors are allowed to do, they have turned what should be our history into fairy tales with impossible goals and god like people being the main topics.
[Message #20]
michael mark:
I do believe if we do not learn from the past we will repeat them, just think about ww2 and the japanese internment vs. 9/11 and people of arabic back ground. some one actually proposed the same thing to them. really scary stuff.
[Message #21]
James Reclus:
Yes, it is sad to say that history is written by the victors. Also that in America the white man does have the first and last say in what our history text books may and may not discuss.
[Message #22]
michael mark:
it is like i never got to read about the vietnam war in h.s. so u.s. lost so they do not want to talk about it? kind of wierd
[Message #23]
Alex Daugherty:
i think that a portion of the reason figures in history are made to be god-esque is that students will not remember very much about a persons life... and if the person was basically "good"... the authors of text books feel that students might as well remember them as saintly.
[Message #24]
Nancy Duran:
"They introduces conflicts and then present it as easily solved, as automatic resolution". In history book they do not tell you the whole history about people because they want to make them seem heroic and if they were to say the bad things about them they wouln't see them as heroic.
[Message #25]
michael mark:
getting back tothe intrnment camps not alot of h.s. histroy books talk about how hard life was in and after the camps, youonly see them in like ethnic studies courses.
[Message #26]
Amy Lawlor:
michael, can you say more about the wag the dog thing?
[Message #27]
James Reclus:
What I do not understand is why they want to do this; times have changed and in our generation race, color, sex, etc does not really matter. Rather I should state that times have changed, but not enough of a change has occurred.
Sorry, what I am trying to say is that all of the victors of war take only the parts in history that make themselves look good in the eyes of their country. We even do this when we talk to our friends or classmates; we take only the parts of an event that make us look good and then imbelish it to make us look even better and it goes without saying that we omit the stuff that makes us look bad no matter how minute it might be.
[Message #28]
Nancy Duran:
This is why students who take history don't like the subject because everyone that is mention is protray as innocent people, which is boring because we all know humans make mistakes.
[Message #29]
Amy Lawlor:
good point
[Message #30]
michael mark:
well if I remember correctly I think they wanted to portray a war to bosst something I think it was someones re election or something, any way basiccaly it just a set up so the director can make money and the politician look good to the public.
[Message #31]
Nancy Duran:
Like for example Helen Keller we are taught that she over came he handicap of being blind, mute and deaf and so of her other hardships, but we are no taught what was important in her life or her political views.
[Message #32]
michael mark:
it's like I only remember Andrew Jackson because he was on a twenty dollar bill , people strated being more interested in him after there was a claim of him having a black Mistress, I think it was on Oprah. that's where is decendants were denying it , but a blck family had some sort ofdna evidence.scandal is what people remember unfortunately.
[Message #33]
Nancy Duran:
Yes, that is truth.
[Message #34]
michael mark:
nancy is right a very clean perspective of helen kellar, never knew about her other interests or life before reading this chapter
[Message #35]
michael mark:
it's just like not knowing wilson was a white supremist.
[Message #36]
James Reclus:
"For when textbook authors leave out the warts, the problems, the unfortunate character traits, and the msitaken ideas, they reduce heroes from dramatic men and women to melodramtic stick figures. Their inner struggles disappear and they become goody-goody, not merely good."(36)
That is what I am saying, people use events in history or events happening today to their advantage. They make claims or omit/add facts to make themselves appear better in the eyes of their country. Bush did this when he stated that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, but what he failed to mention was that the information this was based on was from 1995, I think. It also works the other, people find out about bad things in other people's past and use it to make themselves look better. Basically they air out other people's dirty laundry to make themselves look more godly.
[Message #37]
James Reclus:
That was a little eye opener; finding out that one of the U.S. most celebrated presidents was a white supremicist(sp)
[Message #38]
michael mark:
I agree with james ,well said.
[Message #39]
michael mark:
actually for me a BIG eye opener.
[Message #40]
James Reclus:
I still do not see why they did this; they did the same thing to Helen Keller's life except instead of changing around a few details they simply omitted the last 64 years of her life.
[Message #41]
Nancy Duran:
I think history would be easier,, more interesting to remember who people like Andrew Jackson and others were if they told us their imperfection and not just what they did that was heroic because this is how people remember them.
[Message #42]
michael mark:
i guess to some it does not make good reading. makes you look at how books are not all trust worthy.
[Message #43]
michael mark:
unless it is a repair manual.
[Message #44]
James Reclus:
That is what the "Lies..." book is getting at, I think. The fact that history is the least favorite subject for people in high school is simple because they cannot relate to the people they are learning about. They are lead to beleive that the people they are reading about are god-like and no one can compare to that. By teaching students about the imperfections in people in history they will be able to understand those people better, which would allow them to relate more to them as well.
[Message #45]
James Reclus:
That would have been the 4. point in the first line I posted.
[Message #46]
michael mark:
enjoy the weekend!
[Message #47]
Amy Lawlor:
end 2/20
[Message #48]
Amy Lawlor:
end 2/20