Over the years, I have been writing about misconceptions regarding the schooling process. The purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with various comments that I have heard people make about schooling. These are meant as personal thoughts rather than conclusive proof, and I will admit that I'm not always the best at explaining my thoughts. Regardless, I have decided that I should be willing to share these posts when I encounter someone online who makes an argument that I have already discussed.
Honesty is not just about avoiding outright lies. If you are providing an intentionally skewed narrative in hopes of leading people to a false viewpoint, you are being dishonest. If you exaggerate or intentionally omit information to manipulate individuals, you are certainly not being honest.
This was an enormous problem with history during my school years. You could tell that the schools started with what they wanted us to think. History was then framed around how to lead students to the right conclusions. In some cases, teachers lied to us. In other cases, they would intentionally amplify or omit information to lead us to inaccurate thoughts.
In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, so we bombed Japan, sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, and went after Hitler. There was obviously something missing. During the Civil War, we were told about the reasons the South went to war. Justification for the North was never discussed.
You don't always need to know the truth to know that people aren't being honest with you. I clearly could not trust what my teachers were telling me. History, as presented by the schools, was full of obvious plot holes. Unfortunately, teachers have successfully trained most students to mindlessly absorb and regurgitate whatever they are told. This keeps most students from seeing the obvious.
Have things changed since then? From what I can tell, the tactics have remained. The one thing that has changed is what specifically they want students to think.
Have you heard the new narrative behind the Civil War? It's now wrong to even consider any factors in causing the Civil War, but the North did not go to war over slavery. You don't have to be a historian to know there's a serious problem with the new narrative.
A big part of the problem is the nature of agenda-driven history. If you have an agenda, you are not going to gloss over something that fits the agenda, even if it’s minor. Items that either don't fit or completely contradict the agenda are not going to be focal points regardless of how substantial they are. The significance of any events that counter what schools want people to think will be diminished. In some cases, schools will even resort to outright lies.
Agenda-driven history, by its nature, can't be honest history. Instead of maximizing accuracy, we provide an intentionally skewed perspective. This was an enormous problem when I attended. Thanks to sources such as the Southern Poverty Law Center/Learning for Justice and the 1619 Project, which are openly promoting an agenda, it appears this might be an even bigger problem today.
No comments:
Post a Comment