Written Assignment #1

            As future teachers we hold the responsibility of shaping the minds of our youth.  However, when referring to the instruction of History in our classroom, it seems that the teacher is faced with an interesting issue.  As with any story told in life where we were not able to witness an accurate truth, there are always two sides.  The same is true for the information we teach our students regarding U.S. History.  The two different sides which I will be exploring tell the story of our nation’s history from a “traditional” point of view and from a “revisionist” point of view on the specific topic of the conquest of Mexico .  I believe learning the different perspectives of the conquest of Mexico in particular is especially important and relevant for students living in Southern California because we now occupy the land that our History books are educating our students about.  One of my main concerns when researching the different perspectives on this subject is why the information given is so drastically different.  Is there a reason why “traditional” text books seem to paint an angelic picture of our nation’s founders?  What are the consequences of teaching our students from only a “traditional” point of view?  Are we brainwashing our youth for patriotism while perpetuating racism?  For instance Native Americans are often criticized in text books while glorifying the American settlers.  I was taught in elementary school that the pilgrimage was a friendly experience where we met the Indians and sat and ate together representing a Thanksgiving dinner.  I wasn’t taught about the barbaric acts that the American settlers made on the Indians.  When referring to these distortions, Sanchez (2001) writes, “Furthermore, trade books are not always produced to reflect history, rather they reflect our society, while at the same time reinforcing and perpetuating it’s racism” (p.401).  My point being that critical distortions are made and taught on many issues regarding U.S. History and this only reinforces the idea of American superiority over all other nations, resulting in the perpetuation of racism.  It seems from the beginning of education in our nation, the “traditional” text has been used to “civilize” those that do not live by American standards of thinking.  The History book has been used to teach our youth since our nation’s founding what they should think about our nation’s history, and to teach non-American citizens the American version of the correct story.  Adams (1998) discusses the glorification of the schoolbook when stating, “For the schoolbook contained within it the Americanizing lessons of Christianity, capitalism, and republicanism.  The schoolbook would save the Indian from extinction” (p.23).  This issue of inaccurate accounts of our history being taught in the classroom is still prevalent today.  Ronald Takaki reveals a different perspective of the Mexican conquest than that which is taught in “traditional” U.S. textbooks.  As a future educator it is then my responsibility to provide my students with as much information that I can on this issue to give them the most accurate description of our nation’s history whether or not we are proud of our nation’s past actions.

            In reviewing a currently used Elementary school U.S. History textbook published by Houghton Mifflin, I learned what our youth are being taught about regarding our nation’s history and in particular about the conquest of Mexico.  This “traditional” text explains that the cause of the war as, “President Polk wanted the boundary to be the Rio Grande, a river that lay 150 miles south of the Nueces…The Mexican government would not agree to this border” (Viola, H.J., et al., 2007, p.396).  The text does not go into any more detail about why Mexico didn’t want to give up their land to the U.S.   In fact it is only a small paragraph to explain the cause of the war.  The “traditional” text continues to explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  It states, “After the U.S. Army captured Mexico City , Mexico ’s leaders agreed to discuss a peace treaty” (Viola, H.J., et al., 2007, p.397).  From reading this passage one would think that the Treaty was a peaceful agreement that benefited both countries.  The text also explains about the fate of the Mexicans that were living on the property that now belongs to the U.S.   “Mexicans living on this land were allowed to become citizens of the United States .  Laws protected them from losing their property, but these laws were often ignored” (Viola, H.J., et al., 2007, p.397).  While this text does mention that the Mexicans living on the newly U.S. territory were not treated fairly, it does not go into any further detail than the loss of their land.  This elementary school textbook uses three paragraphs to explain all of the Mexican war and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  One can assume that there are many important details that are being left out.

            In researching the history of the war with Mexico I also examined a “traditional” high school U.S. History textbook.  This text also went into very little detail about the war.  It explains that our settlers wanted to expand the nation by acquiring Texas and they believed that “it was the destiny of the nation to reach from shore to shore” (Nash, G.B., 1999, p.169).  It also explains that the war ended by the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but again it gives no details about what went on during the war, how Americans treated the Mexicans, or how the Mexicans that were living on the newly acquired land were treated as U.S. citizens.  In fact I find it interesting that although neither “traditional” text book clearly explained the war it seems that the elementary text gave more information than the high school text.  I also find it amazing that the only cause for the war with Mexico in the high school text is because it was our nation’s “destiny” for expansion.  As a future educator, I find it disappointing that our students are given such little detail on the accounts of our nation’s history.

            The third text that I researched in analyzing the information about the war with Mexico was a “revisionist” text titled, “A Different Mirror” by Ronald Takaki.  His point of view and insights are much more detailed and descriptive on this subject.  His account includes details mentioned in the “traditional” texts but then goes on to elaborate on the events that occurred between those mentioned in the texts.  For example, Takaki (1993) quotes Ulysses S. Grant in a private letter he wrote about the American soldiers in the war, “Some of the volunteers and about all the Texans seem to think it perfectly right to impose on the people of a conquered city to any extent, and even to murder them where the act can be covered by dark.  And how much they seem to enjoy acts of violence too!” (p.175). Another witness, general Winfield Scott is also quoted by Takaki (1993) as admitting that “American soldiers had committed atrocities to make heaven weep and every American of Christian morals blush for his country” (p. 175).  These descriptions paint a whole different picture of the American soldier.  The “revisionist” perspective doesn’t just tell the story, but adds a personal and sympathetic emotion to the details.  It goes beyond simply stating the facts of historical events such as the signing of a treaty, but rather it reveals what led up to and took place during the actual war.  The glorified soldier is described in the “revisionist” book as a savage.  For instance, “Murder, robbery, and rape of mothers and daughters in the presence of tied up males of the families have been common all along the Rio Grande” (Takaki, R., 1993, p.175).  The “revisionist” book gives a startling discovery of a different perspective of the American soldiers and gives the reader new insights into the events that took place in the development of our nation.

            In comparing the two different styles of books, the “traditional” and the “revisionist”, it is interesting to note the extreme differences that these books portray.  The same event told from two different perspectives sheds a different light on American history.  Both the elementary and high school U.S. History text books discuss briefly the topic of the war with Mexico and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; however it was such an important event in our nation’s expansion.  In fact, the U.S. gained over one million square miles of land.  “Together with Texas , the area amounted to one-half of Mexico ” (Takaki, R., 1993, p.176).  The “traditional” text seems to give the bare facts on the occurrences of events while the “revisionist” book expands on the emotional details that are left behind.  For instance, the “traditional” text as mentioned earlier did mention how the Mexicans living on the newly acquired land were treated unfairly, but the “revisionist” book explains how the Mexicans were treated unfairly.  “What this meant for many Mexicans was political vulnerability and powerlessness.  In California , for example, while Mexicans were granted suffrage, they found that democracy was essentially for Anglos only” (Takaki, R., 1993, p. 178).  It is now obvious form comparing the two types of books that there are significant differences in the portrayal of Americans during our settlement and in particular in the war with Mexico .  However, as a future educator, I am going to be responsible for teaching the most accurate account of our history.  The problem is that I believe there are consequences in teaching either side.  Only teaching out of a “traditional” text will give the students the factual events that occurred but it doesn’t give the details that account for the suffrage during the time.  It seems that by shedding an angelic light on Americans it is promoting patriotism and egocentric superiority over other nations.  I believe that promoting patriotism is important for our unity as a nation, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of a distorted history book.  On the other hand, my only fear of teaching from a “revisionist” perspective is that we will be teaching our students to resent our heritage and it will only result in more separatism of cultures and a lack of unity or pride for our country.  This has led me to the conclusion that providing my students with the most accurate information is a very delicate matter that should be well prepared and discussed in the classroom.  The effects are too critical to be taken lightly as a mere history lesson.

            I plan on teaching in an urban school with a multicultural environment.  For this reason especially, I believe it is even more crucial that I provide my students with an accurate representation of not only our nation but of the different cultures and countries that have effected the development of the United States of America .  I would present the “revisionist” version of history to my students by integrating it into the curriculum set by the “traditional” textbook.  I believe that it is important for students to have access to different perspectives on historical events so that they can form the most accurate version of history for themselves.  I do not believe that we should distort history for our country’s self interest or give our students the half-truth of our past.  However it would be my responsibility to guide my class in a critical thinking discussion that is definitely not intended to form a hatred for our nation, but simply to understand the full story.  I would use the “revisionist” book in the context of showing my class that there are always two sides to a story.  It would be used as a teaching tool for critical thinking and to simply provide exposure to other points of view on the issue being discussed.  An article by VanSledright (2000) makes and excellent point, “Encounters with revisionist history texts can produce reconstructed understandings that augment and texture understanding of American history” (p.441).  I would present “revisionist” information as not the sole teaching of U.S. History, but rather as a tool to challenge the thinking and understanding of our nation’s past.  I believe that class discussions are critical and I would emphasize the points of view and rationale from both perspectives.  My goal would be to have my class come away from the lesson with not only the factual knowledge of the occurrences in history, but a different  perspective and equally important, the American rationale and values during that time in history.  I want my students to know what happened, but also to know why it happened according to both sides of the issue.  For instance, if I was teaching about the war with Mexico I would talk about the “traditional” text information and discuss the class’ thoughts on why America wanted to expand and their thoughts behind our nation’s rationale.  Then I would present the “revisionist” view and discuss their thoughts on the new perspective.  I would then give the class a critical thinking exercise where they would have to provide me an argument for both countries including why they believed their actions are justified.  My point being that I want my class through discussion and writing to be able to think from both perspectives showing not only two views on the event but two rationales as well.  I believe that a carefully guided discussion and exercise is important for the students in order to provide information without perpetuating egocentrism, racism, or a resentment for our nation’s past.

            In conclusion, after carefully analyzing and comparing both “traditional” text books and a “revisionist” book, it is clear that there are significant differences that represent our nation’s past and that these differences can be utilized in the classroom.  As with any event that occurs there will never be an unbiased or absolute truth that can be revealed.  All historical events are stories and sometimes opinions that are told and we will never be able to know exactly what happened in detail but rather only the actual documented events that took place such as the signing of a treaty.  This is why it is especially important for teachers to explain to our students that distortions may exist and to provide them with enough information from multiple sources and an environment to discuss the discrepancies that they find in their exploration through our nation’s history.  “Because textbooks are imperfect educational tools, students using them must also be encouraged to question the impressions and information embedded in them.  This necessitates structuring classroom instruction to guide students in critically examining their perceptions of the world” (Harcoda, V.H., 1994-1996, p.19).  As teachers it is our responsibility to enlighten our students about our nation’s past and how we have developed to where we are today.  It is also then our responsibility to provide the most accurate information possible and guided instruction to promote critical thinking through using multiple sources and a learning environment where students feel free to explore and voice their opinion.

.