In last week’s socratic circle I learned a lot from other people’s perspectives, as well as my own, from discussing the article.
The importance of history was highlighted in 1984, and our class was awakened with a new outlook on control and its tie to the past. As we discussed the article, however, I was surprised by the legislation being past in Texas
It was hard to imagine a history textbook with bias, but after discussing it in class, it is now hard to imagine a purely objective history textbook. When our education, especially of something as malleable as the past, is written by a select few it makes our reality and interpretation of history much more questionable.
It was brought up in class that the problem of bias material in history books can be avoided if the textbooks stuck with solely facts. However, history is much more than just facts. It is an interpretation of facts and events, and the importance they play in our country. To just lists events would do nothing but explain “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” something happened, and would probably fill the pages of a small pamphlet for that matter. But it lacks the vital and ever-expanding details of “why” something happened. …which is where the bias becomes an issue.
It was also brought up in class that history books should consist of “both sides.” But, in my opinion, there is no “both sides;” there are many, many, many sides! It would be impossible to list EVERYONE’S side, which is the foundation of an objective text.
Luckily we continued on to another solution in which I felt was the most sufficient. Discussion in class, I feel, is the most important aspect of an objective learning environment. I think it is necessary for history teachers to allow time for class discussion.
Although bias in history books can never be cured, it can certainly be treated.
I like that you brought up how this connects to 1984. In the Socratic circle the main focus was on the article, but observing that this has to do with 1984 was smart.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was really weird how in the discussion it was brought up that the past can be so easily altered, and that the things we are learning very well could be fictional.
I agree with the fact that it is impossible to have a "two-sided" non-biased history book. It is impossible to present two sides of history and assume that this makes the book unbiased. There must be several sides of the argument. I think it is true that history books can never be "cured" of said bias, history can be presented in a more unbiased way. The way history is taught now teachers can just put their own spin on history, and present facts in a completely biased way.
Overall I agree with everything Andrew said :)