How should parents supplement the watered-down history children learn at school?
by Anti-Racist Parent Columnist Michelle Myers
As a parent with a school-aged child, I struggle with how much I should interfere with what she learns at school. For example, I dread when Thanksgiving comes around because I’m always certain that I’m going to be offended by some misrepresentation of the Pilgrims’/Puritans’ relationship with and treatment of American Indians. I get damned irked by the depiction of a happy, smiling dinner party as if the idealistic American “melting pot” started on that day.
The one year I had had it was when my daughter said that she liked the way the Pilgrims dressed — I guess it was something about how “cute” or “pretty” their dresses were — and I went into this big, long lecture about how, actually, the Puritans wore those clothes because they were trying not to make a fashion statement because they thought such attention to appearance was vain and sinful, etc., etc. Then I told her that I wanted her to know what the Puritans and colonists really did to the American Indians, so I made her read excerpts from William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation John Smith’s Narrative, and some books about The Trail of Tears.
I think she didn’t like these as much as the romanticism offered in the standard American versions/myths told in school. Looking back, she also may have been too young to understand what I was trying to tell her.
My husband has done his fair share of corrective teaching as well. During Black History Month a couple of years ago, he was angry about how the school was tring to teach the kids about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In a description about Dr. King’s life and activist work, the kids were told that he wasn’t trying to promote the rights of just one race but all races. My husband felt that that completely discredited Dr. King’s Civil Rights work and how he tried to expose the racism and inequalities directed toward black people in America. So he made my daughter listen to Dr. King’s speeches and watch some documentaries. This was about 2 years ago when she was 8-years-old. My daughter became really interested in the Civil Rights Movement, reading more about Dr. King and Rosa Parks.
So some of my questions are: what responsibility do we bear in this kind of corrective teaching when we feel our schools have revised history? Should we tell our kids that George Washington didn’t chop down the cherry tree? Should we tell them that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves while he was writing the Declaration of Independence–that he eventually had children by one of his slaves?
Should we pressure our schools to be more responsible in what they teach? What age is too young to tell our children the somber truth about how racism is inextricably tied up in American history, politics, and values? How much of this “truth” can at kids handle and at what age? If our kids are dressing up like “Pilgrims” and “Indians” at Thanksgiving and having fun playing dinner party, should we let them have their fun? My questions are all over the place, but I think you can get the jist of what I’m saying.
Michelle Myers holds a Ph.D. in English from Temple University, specializing in Asian American Literature. She is a founding member of the spoken word poetry group Yellow Rage, which was featured on HBO’s RUSSELL SIMMONS PRESENTS DEF POETRY
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
dharmamama wrote:
The question of when we should start telling our kids about racism is one I think about frequently. I have two Ethiopian kids and a bio child. My two younger ones are 5 (bio) and 4 (Ethio). I dread the thought of telling them that there are people out there who won’t like my son because of his skin color. I dread introducing the idea of racial inequality to my bio daughter, who at this age doesn’t seem to realize it exists. I don’t want to burst their innocent bubble with distressing news. I don’t really want to introduce the idea that there is a lot of hate in the world. On the other hand, both my Caucasian bio daughter and my Ethiopian kids need to know about racism so that they can protect themselves, so they know how to respond, and so they are not blindsided by it somewhere away from home. I have gently begun to broach the subject of historical racism, and I have fairly plainly explained that the Thanksgiving story is just that, a story, and I have given them some of the factual details about it. I guess it will continue to be a struggle to balance their need for factual information against their need for a stress-free childhood … if such a thing can be balanced.
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 7:41 am ¶
Veronica wrote:
As a Latina raising a lil Latina, I often think of this and yes, Thanksgiving is the grand daddy of them all. Next is Columbus Day.
I think we just need to figure out how much our kids can understand and take. My 3.5yo can’t handle the whole Jefferson had slaves too thing, but the anti-fashion of Pilgims is in her range, I think.
I doubt we’ll be able to change classroom history. What I try to view it as is a starting point for discussion. Of course, my daughter’s not in US HIstory yet, so I’m sure I’ll blow my top when she gets there.
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 10:12 am ¶
ephelba wrote:
If we don’t teach them the truth, who will? And who is better suited to deciding how much they’re ready for?
Can we do it? Yes we can!
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 11:42 am ¶
K wrote:
I don’t think the question is whether to tell them, but how to tell them? These historical mythologies begin well before the child has reached middle childhood; I would love to hear how people contradict this propaganda to their preschoolers.
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 2:15 pm ¶
carosgram wrote:
First visit to your blog. Mrs. Figby suggested you were a good one to read. Interesting topic today. As a parent, grandparent, and elementary principal I have looked at the issue from several directions. Is it part of cutural literacy to know the myths as well as the truths? Isn’t history always slanted toward the prejudices, perceptions of the teller? When are children at the developmental stage they can deal successfully with ambiguity? What are the important lessons to be learned from our myths. Bill Moyer had a wonderful series on PBS about the importance of myths. Now that doesn’t mean we should continue to tell stories which have no basis in truth or that convey messages which are contrary to our values. I live in a rural farming community and had parents who objected to a song about chopping off the turkey’s head at Thanksgiving time. - too violent. And yet that is what we do when we slaughter turkeys. And developmentally the kindergarten children who were learning the song are not at all upset about it. Now in a couple of years (8-9 years old), death and the giving of human emotions to animals are very important concerns. At one time I thought that children in Kindergarten were not really aware of race and race issues. Yet a couple of years ago I had an Asian girl in one of my kindergarten classes. One of my teachers brought her Asian daughter to school and the girls saw each other. They ran to each other and held hands almost all day. At one time one of the girls said that at last there was a girl who looked like her. We need to deal with race and racism for all our children from the earliest ages but in ways that help them feel good. There is plenty of time for all the nuances.
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 6:37 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
K - I think debunking some myths and false histories can be done in a broad way with the preschool set.
In my mom’s classroom, there is an ongoing, year-round conversation about what is real vs. make-believe. My mother and her assistant will routinely ask a child who is obviously making up a fib whether this is make-believe or not. This extends to when they cover dinosaurs - of course the kids have imbibed The Flintstones and everything else, but the teachers make it clear that that is make-believe, and that really there were no people living at the same time as dinosaurs.
I think you can extend that to historical “make-believe” like Pocohontas, the first Thanksgiving, and heck, how about Song of the South and Gone With The Wind?
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 7:50 pm ¶
slackermom wrote:
As a parent, an early childhood educator for years, and now college professor, I agree it’s mandatory for us to offer alternative histories (and herstories). The mainstream histories presented are so often incorrect, and the textbook publishing industry is wrought with politics and special interest group mentalities. In the college classroom, my students are absolutely shocked to find out the sweet dinner party between “pilgrims and indians” hides the truth of what happened in this country (and that it is but one example in a long, long, list). They ask every time, “Well then why were we taught it this way?”. It is so difficult for them to rethink and challenge assumptions and “truths” held since they were children. I let them know (as future teachers) that it is up to them to stop the myths and mistruths, to educate themseleves and their students, and to begin EARLY. Waiting until middle school or high school, or even later, means undoing long held beliefs.
As a parent, I thankfully get to send my oldest son to a school where fairness and social critique are part of the curriculum. But personally, I began teaching him about prejudice and racism early on… first in small ways (children’s books, stories, musems, etc), and as he gets older (he is 8 now), more directly. As a biracial child, I want him to be prepared, but not scared… it is a tough, but I think important, balance.
Posted 30 Apr 2007 at 9:48 pm ¶
Tanya wrote:
*clap, clap, clap* Well said, Michelle!!!
Posted 01 May 2007 at 12:30 pm ¶
Ruth wrote:
Well said! I worked as a history teacher to high school students in Australia for a number of years.
There were times when I came into conflict with parents because the history that I was teaching didn’t suit their sanitised version of the world, so the shoe can be on the other foot so to speak.
I don’t think that placing pressure on teachers will work too well, the most parents can do is to facilitate discussion with their children and show alternatives. It’s important to teach our children that much of history has been written by the ‘victors’ and that it is only recently that minority voices - such as women’s history and post-colonial history is being acknowledged and explored.
Unfortunately many teachers did their training before advances in alternative voices were made and have failed to keep up with changes in their field. Also, I think it’s difficult for elementary school teachers who tend not to be specialists in history, so then teach from the curriculum provided.
Perhaps it would be better to place pressure on government and curriculum developers.
Posted 02 May 2007 at 6:30 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>Perhaps it would be better to place pressure on government and curriculum developers.
Yes, yes, yes… as I think I said before regarding Black History Month, it’s unfair to place the burden on teachers who are dealing with No(yeah right) Child Left Behind testing, strapped school budgets, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate curriculums. When you are forced to teach “to a test,” there is not room for the other voices of history that are equally valid, but are not INCLUDED on that test. Not to mention the time and cost in finding those alternative sources, and hoping that your students have the study skills to incorporate them into the basic program…
Posted 02 May 2007 at 8:45 am ¶
Blair wrote:
The first Thanksgiving went off pretty much as advertised, although the Pilgrims didn’t view it as a religious observation. It was merely a huge feast that the Pilgrims use to cement their alliances with neighboring tribes. Hundreds of Native American attended, and they outnumbered the Pilgrims about six to one. Everyone was happy and smiling. During their first year in American, the Pilgrims had established friendly and reciprocal relations with tribes located near Plymouth Harbor, and that’s what they celebrated during the first Thanksgiving. Although the Pilgrims didn’t realize it, they had formed allegiances with weaker tribes that were under pressure from stronger, more aggressive tribes. These allegiances drew them into inter-tribal conflicts as they tried to defend themselves and their Native American allies from attack.
Pre-Colombian American was not a paradise in which Native American tribes lived in peace and harmony with one another. They wage incessant, genocidal warfare against one another before and after the arrive of the Europeans.
Massacres such as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek receive so much publicity that they obscure what really happened in the conflict between Europeans and Native Americans. The public perception is that Europeans kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Native Americans. However, casualties were low on both sides. Native Americans killed more Europeans than Europeans killed Native Americans. About 7,193 Native Americans died in conflicts with European and their allied Native American forces. Native Americans killed about 9,156 whites. These figures cover nearly 400 years and include all the famous massacres such as Sand Creek and Wounded Knee. The combined death toll is about the same as the three days of fighting between Union and Confederate forces at the Battle of the Wilderness in 1864, where more than 16,000 Americans died. Assuming that the Native American population north of Mexico was about 5 million—a mid-range estimate—the number of Native Americans killed in combat against Europeans in what is today the United States would have amounted to less than one half of one percent of the Native American population.
The Colombian Exchange of diseases between the Old World and the New World, which killed 60 to 90 percent of Native Americans, robbed Native Americans of any chance they may have had of mounting an effective defense. These were not “European diseases” but global contagions that killed untold millions around the world before reaching the Americas. The worst killer was smallpox, which originated in Africa. The most devastating smallpox pandemic started around 1750 in the Valley of Mexico and spread north along trade routes to Pueblo Indian villages along the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Plains Indians trading with the Pueblos took the virus home with them. From the plains, the virus spread west over the Rockies and East across the Mississippi.
Smallpox also devastated the European settlements, but some European immigrants to the Americas had already had the disease and were immune. The Europeans also quarantined smallpox victims, something the Native Americans never did; they did not realize infected people were contagious and treated them as if they had been wounded. Still, smallpox killed up to 40 percent in European villages until they begin practicing inoculation, which involved purposely infecting patients with the live smallpox virus in hopes they would develop a light case of the disease. A much smaller percentage of those who were inoculated died than those who became infected through normal transmission. In the late 1700s, the British discovered that vaccinating people with cowpox, a much milder disease, gave them immunity to smallpox. Once the vaccine became available, the United States funded a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans in 1801, but by then, most of the damage had been done.
Posted 03 May 2007 at 9:53 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Blair:
1) What source are you using? I’m not nitpicking on the Pilgrims, as that jives withwhat I’ve learned, but I wonder about only using official army/calvalry battles to figure death counts. I suspect there were a lot of deaths caused by militias and vigilantes that I’m sure aren’t in your tally. I also wonder if those stats include women and children…
2) speaking of non-battle deaths, what about the US gov’t deliberately transmitting disease (tainted blankets)? Or tribes being forced from hunting grounds and living space to near-barren areas? How about the near-extinction of American bison? How about homesteaders given land that deliberately violated existing treaties? What about substandard food rations (rotten meat and meal) once the reservation system was established? What about “schools” that tried to eradicate tribal culture and train children to be servants? Reaching further back, how about William Penn’s land grab? (the agreement being that he would have land rights to the area a man could travel in a day… so 4 men were sent speedwalking in 4 directions).
Sometimes neglect, prejudice, manipulation, lies, and money do all the work of a gun (and more!) with none of the direct blame or guilt.
3)how could any of this info (if correct) be transmitted in logical way to grade schoolers?
Posted 03 May 2007 at 10:55 am ¶