The ups and downs of Change

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

Ya rly

It becomes increasingly clear as I'm forced to delve into the adult world that people from the previous generation (or their parents) are not only somewhat isolated from mine, but downright uncomfortable with certain taken-for-granted aspects. This shouldn't be a huge surprise considering generation gaps have always caused some wariness on both sides, but it's strange when one is right in the middle of it.

For example, I was talking to one of my father's coworkers, a very nice conversational woman, about Twilight and some of my issues. We actually didn't get to talk long which was probably to her benefit because I was just about to go into my long tirade but she did make one comment that stuck with me, not only because I believe it to be wrong but also because it offense my sense of identity as a member of NetGen.

"I don't blame these books for kids not being able to spell or read. I blame that thing *points to my phone* and text messaging."

I was not able to tell her why I thought she was incorrect, so you get to hear instead.

As most of you know, I am a texting fiend. We have to have an unlimited plan because otherwise we'd spend about five hundred dollars, just for texting.
I can, however, form a coherent sentence, complete with more-or-less (depending on how much I care at the moment) correct grammar structure and few spelling errors.
This attitude isn't new. They (adults, and so on) said the same thing about instant messaging. That it was going to destroy language as we know it. And truthfully, the internet has changed the way we talk, write and even think.
Bob Salvatore said that writers now have to be more clear about who is talking in a dialogue because the readers are used to reading an instant message conversation where the speaker's name/username is displayed above their message. This needn't be seen as better or worse, it is just a changing perspective.

These arguments, to me, demonstrate a discomfort with the staples of the Internet Generation. They are similar to the arguments against web-journalism, blogging and forums. Those who are not involved frequently discredit them as invalid, sometimes with much justification, but almost always out of a sense of alienation.

But I digress.

MSN and Blackberries are not to blame for kids' inability to spell anymore than video games and Marylin Manson is to blame for them being violent. It's a cop out for parents and the school system.

I can continue texting and still be able to spell when the occasion calls for it because I had a good education, with a heavy emphasis on clear communication which encouraged proper grammar and spelling. I read a LOT of books, most of them above my age level, which exposed me to various styles of writing and a lot of "big" words. You know, those with more than two syllables.
The United States has the worst education system of any developed nation. This was a problem even before the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which just threw gasoline on the blaze. So part one of the responsibility lies there.
Part two is on the parents who consider it wholly a teacher's job to educate their children. These are the parents who don't help their kids with homework, who don't encourage them, and then get uppity when the teacher points out their child is falling behind. Where do you think children learn that sense of entitlement?
And yes, to some extent, I do blame Harry Potter and Twilight, but only a microscopic amount. I appreciate that they 'got kids to read', though I disagree that they (especially HP) 'saved literacy'. What they did was get kids to read at a perpetually fourth grade level. There are a lot of better books out there that would challenge young readers more, get them more interested and would encourage them to raise their reading level. I admit, I wouldn't be so critical if I didn't see a lot of kids who started reading Harry Potter books and then found everything else "too hard" or boring because they couldn't understand it. That isn't the series' fault at all, it just diminishes my appreciation for its contribution to the writing world.

Technology is always going to be an easy scapegoat because there's a correlation. Young people use more technology. Young people have X problems. Well, OBVIOUSLY the technology must be causing X problems. This is a logical fallacy.
I don't doubt that everything mentioned is a contributing factor. Writing online all the time CAN (and probably does) make kids lazy. I actually think that the way text messaging and things like Twitter have altered language simply shows its versatility and adaptability. It shows people thinking outside the box. Now, once they are back IN the box, yes, they have to talk like the other Boxites.

My point is that even if the internet and all its byproducts HAVE degraded grammar and spelling, it would not have been able to do so if children's grasp of those subjects wasn't already weak. If they knew better BEFORE they got online, it wouldn't matter as much. We need to improve our schools first (and possibly issue parenting licenses :P) and if there are still problems after, we can deal with them, too. In the end, the buck stops with those in authority, the parents and the teachers. Funny how they are the first to condemn then, isn't it?

For those of you just tuning in...

I love to write. And I don't suck at it, in that "can-form-coherent-sentences-utilizing-more-or-less-proper-grammar' sort of way. But I have never blogged before, for a variety of reasons, the foremost being that blogs are by necessity pretentious, as all blogging is done with the assumption that anyone gives a flying frak what you think. As I don't think that 99% of the time, I never saw the point. This is salted with the fact that I don't care what most other people think, and the entire blogging community is based on a system of reciprocal attention, ie, "I'll read your stuff if you read mine." Considering that I think almost all (again with the 99%) of blogs fall into two categories: Self-absorbed rants against things the individual obviously doesn't care enough about to change and...randomness.

But recently, a few of my favorite people have taken up the web-pen, and I feel the urge to add my voice to their symphony of musings. I will not apologize for posting too much, posting too little or for being incredibly hypocritical and posting the exact sort of thing that I detest in the stereotype that is blogging.

Moving on...

Why I consider myself a historiographer-
Historiography refers to the Philosophy of History, that is, how we do it, how we think about it. Meta-history, if you will. It is seeing history not just as a series of occurences or recording of events but asking the bigger question, 'Why?'. Why did they report it this way, what were the circumstances, why is this considered important, how has that changed, etc. I always thought everyone thought this way, but apparently it is a not a common trait. I love the concept because Philosophy and History are two of my greatest loves (up there with jewelry, leather, motorcycles, books and Final Fantasy). Essentially, it means that I consider myself a philosopher with an emphasis on thinking about the past, bolstered by a strong interest in Epistomology (the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of Knowledge and Truth; What do we know and how do we know it and how do we KNOW we know it?).
Again, this is extremely pretentious this is my little corner of the Inter-Webs, so I suppose I'm allowed.

Now on to the topics at hand.

As many of you reading this know, my dream is to become a teacher. I've been progressing towards this goal since about second grade. My preferred specialty is Special Education, though recently, History has vied for top position. At the moment, the plan is to be certified as a Secondary (that's Middle to High School for the uninitiated) History teacher with a Special Education Endorsement.
This will probably take a few years, which kind of sucks considering my lack of funds and our shaky economy. But that isn't actually the most discouraging thing I faced the first year of my University Experience.

THAT came in the form of the 2001 Reauthorization of Public Law 107-110...also known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The intent was good: Get more children literate and passing high school, get rid of bad teaching practices, encourage schools to set higher standards. No one would argue with these ideals, especially in a rapidly changing world where having the brightest young people really decides your future. It would have been a good investment if it hadn't failed so very very miserably.

Here are the problems:
It was poorly funded. The government only gave half the money it promised, leaving the burden of cost on the already underfunded education system. This meant that they were expecting schools to make Grade A lesson plans with Grade D equipment. It may be hard to realize, but not having a computer in your school is a huge disadvantage.
This is especially a problem here in Washington where our education funds come from income taxes. This means that cities like Bellevue have fantastic, modern schools complete with technology and sports equipment, while West Seattle High School is falling apart...literally. It is a self-perpetuating class distinction...poor kids have to go to poor schools where they will not be as well educated and therefore continue to be poor. This is the sort of misdistribution of resources that make young revolutionaries embrace socialism...or at least reject capitalism.

NCLB (also called Nickelbee) puts the responsibility onto the teachers and the students, while offering little help to either.

Every (or at least most) educational psychologist will tell you that High Stakes Testing (like the kind we have with the WASL) is a BAD IDEA. It creates undue stress on the student, frequently making them perform lower than they would normally, and it does not properly reflect their growth as a student or individual. Standardized tests are also...well, standardized. This means that if you have a learning, mental or physical disability, there are few options to accomodate your needs...leaving you Behind. Go figure.

A POSITIVE effect of NCLB is that teachers were no longer able to 'teach however they felt like it'...folk-practices and 'traditional methods' were not just allowed (like locking students in closets...disgusting but also common in some places). All routines, less plans, and practices had to be backed up by researched and approved methods, making sure that students were getting the best education. Teachers also had to be constantly updating their curriculum so that the latest information could help them serve the students better. It put the emphasis back on the student and serving his/her needs, as opposed to having the emphasis on the teacher.
Some red tape to push through for someone like me is the need for Specialization. This is a good idea that unfortunately has some practical problems. Specialization refers to the need for teachers to be Highly Qualified in whatever area they are teaching. On paper, that's awesome, it means that we have specialists teaching areas they are the most the knoweldgeable in. But if you're a poor school in Ohio with only a handful of teachers, you can't afford to have one for each subject, your English Teacher is also your PE teacher, your Math Teacher is your Chem teacher, and so on. But the government says you are required to hire more, yet doesn't provide the funds to pay them.

Another problem is the responsibility and punishment scheme, which is another self-defeating cycle. If a school district fails to meet the requirments, they get one or two years to pull up their grade. If this fails, they have to redo their entire curriculum, often firing their entire staff and getting new people. If this fails, they have to offer to pay to send the students to specialists (such as the Sylvan Learning Center) or to a school with a higher grade. If this fails, the government comes in, throws everyone out and essentially 'occupies' the school.

Now, again, the problem comes from poor funding. The school doesn't make the grade because they don't have money for decent text books or computers or chalk. So the government tells them they have to spend MORE money to get new curriculum. They already can't afford that, so now they are even farther behind, which means the students do even worse. Then they have to pay to send students to other places (and sometimes there are no better schools, leaving the parents with no options). 'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny' is not a bad allegory here. There's really no way for the school to pull up so they try to find ways around it. One school expelled half their students the day before they took the state test. Teachers have rigged the tests, altered scores, 'lost' a few students. Schools are now actually encouraged to LOWER standards instead of raise them. Why? Because the schools can't afford to not pass. This is perhaps the greatest failing on the part of NCLB to take care of the students.

Teachers have to spend hours doing paperwork, documenting everything they ever do ever, adding to their already stress-filled, busy lives. This can adversely affect their class, though to their credit, most teachers make the best of it and do an incredible job. Still, it gives them less time to spend with the students, to write better lesson plans, to think of innovative ways to reach students.

NCLB also represents an unprecedented amount of federal involvement in what should be a private, state-run responsibility. The federal government isn't suppose to meddle with education, it says so in the Constitution. NCLB is just another form of control, meant for the best most likely, but a dangerously slippery slope.

Now, next year, we will have a new administration. And as always, education was one of the issues the candidates debated on. As most of you know, I didn't vote for a variety of reasons, number one being I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils (Vote Cthulu), however in the realm of education, I firmly believe that Obama IS the lesser of evil here. McCain wanted to keep NCLB and just 'take it back to basics', rework it. I'm fairly certain that by this point, it's clear that there is no 'reworking', it simply DOESN'T WORK. A totally new system of accountability has to be put into place, one that either doesn't have federal involvement (or at least limits it) or one that puts MORE responsibility on the government to pay for it. I, for one, hope that it is worked out before I get my certification because otherwise I may have to relearn everything.

Here's hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

So there's my intro and first set of musings. Feel free to let me know what you think.