A Thought Experiment
Close your eyes and imagine an alternative
world where we learn history though novels like Slaughterhouse-Five written
from the perspective of people who experienced the events instead of our
traditional textbooks. Imagine a world that doesn’t consider a 5 on AP World
History to be mastery of history, because it really isn’t, it’s just endless
memorization of facts and events. Imagine learning about not only each country’s
rhetoric during war, but also the life lasting effects of war on the civilians
and soldiers whose worldviews are never the same again.
If we learned history though its aftereffects, I believe we would
learn so much more and our world could be a different place. There is something
just so raw, unfiltered, and moving about people talking about their
experiences. I’ve never been moved to tears reading the statistics about
migrant camps but listening to just one of their stories had a profound impact
on me just like this novel. If we had learned about Dresden in a textbook it would
probably have mentioned the death toll in the first few sentences and then launched
into an exploration about whether the firebombing of Dresden was required for
American success. We are taught the history
that reflects the views of top, the major decision makers in the world, such as
the presidents and the generals that must consume a series of statistics and
strategic plans and then espouse ideology that furthers their country’s
agendas. We are taught patriotism, nationalism, and the belief of a higher
moral ground.
If we were to teach history with less emphasis on the “Great Men”
of history that seem to define eras such as Napoleon, Churchill, and Alexander
the Great and instead emphasize the fact that those that fight and die in these
wars are disproportionately the poor or the ordinary joe draftee, war would be so
much less glamorous. Citizens would be much more reluctant about joining the government’s
war cry when they realize that on the front line moral rhetoric wears off
pretty quick when ordinary men are just trying to kill each other.
I know this is kind of impossible, but I guess what I am trying to
say here is imagine a world where there is no patriotism, borders, nationalities,
but just people living in a world. It’s hard for me to imagine this world
because I am proud to be an American, but at the same time I wonder what that
means. America has done some pretty horrible things and at the same time done
good things. However, I attribute most of my patriotism to how history was
taught to me because it was America-centric. I also know that my patriotism is
just another artificial dividing line between me and the other citizens of the
world.
I absolutely agree, but I do think its worth giving credit that a lot of how history is taught has changed to give less of an emphasis on the Great Men and more on the ordinary people and how war has impacted them. I think its also worth giving part of that credit to books like Slaughterhouse Five and other influential novels to have emerged from the post-modernism movement. These books relentlessly criticize American patriotism and the "need" for war and, as they grew more popular, likely helped shift the focus in the teaching of history as well as perspectives of individuals.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is how Leff try to teach history. Even though there was still a lot of memorization, he tries to put you in the perspective of the people at the time and think about why thing happens. I feel like the problem with textbooks are the fact that they list death tolls of bombing to make it seems like a trophy almost. Listing death tolls like that almost dehumanizes bombing it feels like.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there is definitely an emphasis on "Great Men" when teaching history and focusing on the heroes. As they say "History is told by the winners" and it reflects their perspective of what is right and wrong. It would be so nice if there was a completely neutral perspective of history free of bias, while not dehumanizing it and ignoring the ordinary people. There is definitely a major difference between the way a history book describes an event like Dresden and how someone who lived through it describes it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that an impactful way to understand history is through unbiased primary sources. Removing glorification and the discussion of "great men" is a more raw and veritable way to acquire an understanding. I think slaughterhouse is definitely a war book which attempts to take this approach, and is relatively successful at it. I would like to see other novels employ this same strategy.
ReplyDeleteI think we were very privileged to have the history curriculum that we did. Most other schools do just go by the textbooks, learning about the 'great men' and memorizing facts so they can get a 5 on their AP. I personally really like the way Mr. Leff taught us about US history, where we were able to focus on many different groups of people and how different events affected them all.
ReplyDelete