Category Archives: Social Studies

Texas democrats pass bill to control AIDS, herpes, teenage pregnancy, and high school dropouts by banning booty-shaking cheer routines

The Texas House approved a bill last week that would ban “sexually suggestive” routines by school cheerleaders.

Democratic Rep. Al Edwards of Houston, who filed the legislation, argued that lascivious exhibitions are a distraction for high school students that result in pregnancies, high school dropouts, contraction of AIDS and herpes and “cutting off their youthful life at an early age.”

Besides solving key health, social, and education problems, the legislation banning bump-and-grind cheerleading also gives the state education commissioner the right to reduce funding to school districts that do not comply, yet another nifty way to reduce funding for public education…brought to you by Democrats!

Mike Davis on the return of the vigilante man

Mike Davis reports that the vigilantes are back. The so-called “Minutemen” project headquartered at the Miracle Valley Bible College, is part of an anti-Latino backlash that has the backing of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is following in the footsteps of former governor Pete Wilson and the anti-immigrant Proposition 187.

The Minutemen are “the latest incarnation of the anti-immigrant patrols that have plagued the borderlands for more than a decade. Vowing to defend national sovereignty against the Brown Peril, a series of shadowy paramilitary groups, ordinarily led by racist ranchers and self-declared “Aryan warriors” — and egged on by rightwing radio jocks — have harassed, illegally detained, beaten, and possibly murdered immigrants crossing through the desert cauldrons of Arizona and California.”

Unfortunately, Woody Guthrie’s song “Vigilante Man” still has relevance today.

How do I hate thee?

The April issue of University Affairs magazine features a story on psychologist Chistopher Burris’ research on hate, which in comparison to its counterpart, love, doesn’t get much attention from researchers.

The general consensus is that hate is an emotion, but Burris argues that hate is a motive. Burris says a motive provides focus directed toward the attainment of a particular goal.

Burris offers up analysis of road rage, movie scenes (e.g., Kathy Bates’ character in the movie adaptation of Stephen King’s Misery), etc. to illustrate various subtypes of hate.

The hate motive does not have to be premeditated nor do emotional experiences inevitably lead to hate. Burris says:

“To the extent that we devalue the other, see them as somehow beneath us or totally unlike us, I believe that becomes the cognitive next step towards the process of hate. And honestly, I feel like once it comes to the point of devaluing the other, hate may be an inevitable consequence.”

All of this got me thinking, not about “big” hate, but about the everyday hate one encounters, particularly in academe. Seems to me two goals that are commonly encountered in the groves of academe are “elevating the self,” and “restoring order.” Denigration and redress, then, are the subtypes of hate all too often exhibited in the “normal” course of university work.

Below is a table from the UA article summarizing Burris’ categories of hate.

Let me count the ways: six subtypes of hate

Subtype Emotional antecedent Goal
Sadism Anticipation, excitement Pleasure
Mutiny Resentment, exasperation Assertion of autonomy
Tethering Loss, fear of abandonment “Securing” the relationship
Denigration Envy, contempt Elevating the self
Redress Anger, disgust Restoring order
Nihilism Loathing, seething rage Destruction of the other

Source: adapted from “Let me count the ways: An integrative theory of love and hate,” by J. K. Rempel, & C. T. Burris, Personal Relationships (in press).

May Day. Workers of the world awaken!

59V0460r.jpg

Workers of the world, awaken!
Rise in all your splendid might
Take the wealth that you are making,
It belongs to you by right.
No one will for bread be crying
We’ll have freedom, love and health,
When the grand red flag is flying
In the Workers’ Commonwealth
(Joe Hill)

On May 1, 1886, hundreds of thousands of North American workers mobilized to strike. In Chicago, on May 3, police shot two workers during a battle between picketers and scabs at the McCormick Harvester Works. At a protest rally in Haymarket Square the next day someone (possibly a police agent) tossed a bomb into the police ranks. Police then opened fire, indiscriminately killing four workers and wounding a hundred others.

Eight anarachist leaders were arrested, subjected to a sham trial, and sentenced to death (with three later pardoned).

International protests followed the Haymarket Massacre and in 1889 the congress of socialist parties known as the Second International called for an annual one-day strike on May 1 to demonstrate labor solidarity and working-class power.

More information on May Day can be found at:
Haymarket Archives
Lucy Parsons Project
Rouge Forum
Haymarket Monument

Housing boom, bubble, or bomb?

Like any new Vancouverite, I responded like a deer in highlights when confronted with the housing market in the Lower Mainland. Is the current housing craze the equivalent of 17th century Tulipmania in Holland?…Some respectable Wall Street economists are starting to wonder if the current housing boom is actually a bubble about to burst.

In “Riotous Real Estate” radical urban theorist Mike Davis argues that the values that mattered in the Bush re-election last year were of the property sort, rather than moral sort. Davis believes that,

At the end of the day, American military hegemony is no longer underwritten by an equivalent global economic supremacy. The housing bubble, like the dot-com boom before it, has temporarily masked a mess of economic contradictions. As a result, the second term of George W. Bush may hold some first-class Shakespearian surprises.

Rehabilitating John Brown

brown_john.jpg

John Brown, the 19th century abolitionist, has never gotten a fair shake from history and, as far as school history textbooks go, he’s been given the brush off or treated as a madman (see James Loewen’s book Lies My Teacher Told Me).

Yesterday’s New York Times Book Review has a stellar review (by Barbara Ehrenreich) of David S. Reynold’s John Brown, Abolitionist. Reynolds presents Brown as a reasonable man of his time–embraced by leading intellectuals such as Thoreau and Emerson–rather than as a crazed anti-slavery terrorist. Accordiing to Ehrenreich, Reynolds backs up his claims with plenty of evidence.

The closing paragraph of Ehrenreich’s review raises some serious issues for social studies educators and people interested in working for the transformation of society (two barely overlapping groups in my opinion).

“How do we judge a man of such different times–and temperament–from our own? If the rule is that there must be some proportion between a violent act and its provocation, surely there could be no more monstrous provocation than slavery. In our own time, some may discern equivalent evils in continuing racial oppression, economic exploitation, environmental predation or widespread torture. To them, ”John Brown, Abolitionist,” for all its wealth of detail and scrupulous attempts at balance, has a shockingly simple message: Far better to have future generations complain about your methods than condemn you for doing nothing.”

Nationalism, patriotism, and textbooks

In recent days, China has seen the biggest public protest since the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989. Thousands of people, in over a dozen cities, have participated in anti-Japan protests. China-Japan relations are now at their lowest point since diplomatic relations were established in 1972.

The protests have been fueled by a number recent actions by Japan including: its campaign to become a member of the UN Security Council; a joint statement with the US calling for a peaceful resolution of Tiawan’s future status; and the decision to drill for oil and gas in disputed waters of the East China Sea. But the main targets of Chinese anger are new Japanese history textbooks.There is a rising tide of patriotic nationalism in Japan that coincides with the rise of the political right in national politics. Japan’s schools, which have traditionally been dominated by left-leaning teachers have become the major battleground in the right’s effort promote jingoistic nationalism.

Since 1999, Japan’s flag and anthem (which was written at time when the Japanese believed the emperor was an immortal diety) have become mandatory elements of school life in Tokyo. The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that over 300 teachers in Tokyo have been punished for refusing to sing or play an musical accompaniment to the anthem in the past two years. Pacifist teachers who have resisted new flag and anthem regulations have been harrassed by parents and even received death threats.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party is planning to reform Japan’s basic education law this year to require schools teach “love of country” to students. Politicians are working revive the status of the emperor, ditch the country’s “peace constitution” (which prohibits an offensive military); and require students memorize a constitutional preamble that would praise Japan’s history and culture and the Japanese race.

Within this context, it’s not surprising that Japanese history textbooks, which are subject to government approval, have been revised so as to help meet these nationalistic goals. And, what has fuel the recent protests in China is the whitewash of Japanese aggression that appears in the latest junior high school history textbooks.

Today, The New York Times published excerpts from various editions of Japanese history texts illustrating how Japanese World War II atrocities of sexual slavery (“comfort women”) and forced labor have vanished from school texts in the past six years.

Obviously the USA doesn’t have a monopoly on the “shut up and march” brand of history education.
________
The New York Times
April 17, 2005

In Japan’s New Texts, Lessons in Rising Nationalism
By NORIMITSU ONISHI

TOKYO — In a region where history remains unresolved, the fight over the past is often a fight over the future. Seldom does it crystallize as perfectly as it did last week, in the biggest anti-Japan protests in China since the two countries re-established relations in 1972. Oddly, to Westerners at least, the focus of Chinese fury was Japan’s approval of junior high school history textbooks that critics say whitewash Japanese aggression in Asia.

This wasn’t the only textbook tempest, and it may not be the last. Not only are Chinese authorities bracing for further protests, but just before this week’s marches, Japan objected that China’s patriotic education breeds anti-Japanese sentiments, and South Korea castigated the Japanese textbooks for allegedly trying to justify a colonialist past.

Although it may yet be decades before the three countries agree on history, they have long shared a common trait that helps explain how revisions can stir such deep emotions. Their students learn history through government-approved textbooks that are, especially with nationalism rising in all three countries, useful tools in shaping national identities. Since the textbooks require the central government’s imprimatur, they are taken as a reflection of the views of the current leaders.

“In all three countries, there is a tendency to propagandize history,” said Jee Soo Gol, a professor of history education at Kongju National University in South Korea.

The extraordinary fury at Japan stems not just from its 20th-century atrocities, but from what its neighbors describe as its increasing attempts to evade past wrongdoing. And they have a point. A look at the new textbooks and those from two previous cycles, 2002 and 1997, shows an unmistakable backpedaling on some of the most contentious points.

The most glaring example surrounds the issue of “comfort women,” the euphemism for the women, mostly Asian, who were forced into sexual servitude by Japanese authorities during World War II. In 1997, all seven textbooks included passages about them, explaining, for instance, that Japan “took away young Korean and other women as comfort women to battlefields.” In 2002, the number fell to three out of eight; this time, only two out of eight acknowledge the comfort women, and none use that term.

During the war, Tokyo dealt with a severe labor shortage by forcing hundreds of thousands of Asians to work in Japan. In 1997, the textbook published by Tokyo Shoseki and now used by 52 percent of all junior high schools stated that “700,000 people were forcibly taken to Japan between 1939 and 1945” as laborers. The 2002 edition omits any number, and says, “In order to make up for a labor shortage, Japan and Germany forcibly brought in foreign people and made them work in mines and factories.” The newest edition cuts out “forcibly” and says only, “There were Koreans and Chinese who were brought to Japan and made to work against their will.”

Nobukatsu Fujioka, the founder of the nationalist Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, said that textbooks focusing on Japan’s alleged wartime wrongs were unhealthy for the country’s students.

“I established this association because I thought it was a serious problem that this masochistic education is making the youth lose their pride and confidence in their own country,” said Mr. Fujioka.

“The words ‘war comfort women’ disappeared from textbooks in the last 10 years,” he added. “It is a fruit of our movement that the false fact was expelled from textbooks.”

The changes are also in keeping with a strong rightward shift in Japan.

“There would be a problem if the textbooks state something that the government does not assert, or if they go beyond the bounds of what the government asserts,” Shinzo Abe, one of Japan’s most popular politicians, said recently. “It’s natural that the textbooks follow the government line.”

Given the scrutiny and Japan’s comparatively long record of democracy, the textbooks here are perhaps more balanced than others in the region. China’s textbooks, for instance, teach that Chinese resistance, not the United States, defeated Japan in the war; they say nothing of the postwar Great Leap Forward, in which some 30 million Chinese died because of Mao Zedong’s misguided agrarian policies.

In South Korea, which democratized in the late 1980’s, textbooks have improved, though certain taboos remain, such as any mention of Koreans who collaborated with Japanese colonizers.

Shin Ju Baek, an education expert at Seoul National University, said that descriptions of the colonial period used to focus only on Japanese exploitation and Korean resistance, ignoring the role of Japanese colonialism in Korea’s modernization.

“There is still an emphasis on exploitation,” Mr. Sin said. “But textbooks now include other issues, such as the consumer culture that developed during Japanese occupation. Our textbooks are getting better. But Japan is a problem – it’s going in the other direction.”

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Shut up and march

Notes for “Shut Up and March: Patriotism and the Threat to Democracy in American Schools” (Symposium at AERA, Montreal, April 2005).

This panel, according to our organizer Joel Westheimer, “will clearly be one of the more earth shattering sessions at the conference, that we will together, remarkably, bring down the Bush presidency, that schools will never be the same after a bunch of researchers discuss patriotism with us.” I do not doubt him.

My assignment is to: present on patriotism in the social studies curriculum, historically and today; detail several ongoing debates about patriotism and its place in civic education and school curricula.I’ve only got 5-8 minutes. Here’s a bulleted list of points I’ll try to make, but will obviously run of out time doing:

* In the social studies curriculum, patriotism is pursued via “citizenship education,” through a framework of “traditions” initially described by Barr, Barth and Shermis (1977) but reworked by many folks over the years. The fundamental idea is that no matter the curricular/instructional approach (e.g., “cultural transmission,” teaching “social science knowledge,” or encouraging “reflective thinking”) the singular outcome of social studies education is the production of democratic citizens. These citizens might potentially be conforming patriots or dissenting patriots.

* Citizenship education represents the historically dominant justification of social studies and includes knolwedge or information, skills, values, and social-political-economic participation. However, there is no consensus on what “citizenhip/patriotism” means nor the implications of “citizenship” for curriculum and instruction. As Marker and Mehlinger said in their review of research on the social studies curriculum “the apparent consensus on behalf of citizenship education is almost meaningless. Behind that totem to which nearly all social studies researchers pay homage lies continuous and rancorous debate about the purposes of social studies.”

* Using I. M. Young’s framework of “five faces of oppression,” Vinson (2001) presents an analysis of “civic education” curricula such as CIVITAS and the National Standards for Civics and Government that illustrates the potential for both the oppressive and anti-oppressive potential of citizenship education.

* Ron Evan’s recent history of the social studies uses a “war” metaphor to (accurately) describe a field that is divided into camps with competing interests and goals for the social studies as a school subject.

* Key social studies educators (self-described “Contrarians”) have now hooked up with “movement conservatism” (e.g., well-funded right wing think tanks and foundations such as AEI, Heritage and Fordham Foundations) attacking pluralism and dissent. An effort that secondarily undermines the “tolerant pluralism” that has marked the acceptance of divergent curricular goals of the field of social studies education.

* The Contrarian’s primary document was published in 2003 by the Fordham Foundation, Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?

* WDSSGW asserts that: social studies education is in deep trouble primarily because the belief systems of education professors are based upon three premises: (1) American society is morally bankrupt; (2) an elite band of university professors, infused with a passion for social justice, knows best how to reform our flawed society; and, (3) classrooms in our nation’s public schools are an essential battleground for this societal transformation.

* For more a more detailed critique of WDSSGW see: Ross & Marker (2005) Download file

* All is not lost in social studies education. We must be doing something right as evidenced by one “point of light” I recently discovered. An essay on government, written by a fifth grader, which reads, in part: “Governments are afraid of a democratic world. Governments like to have control over the world so they are not throne [sic] by mongers [sic] wanting mere justice in the world. People should have free rights to express their feelings to governments with out being hassled by the man!! Is that to [sic] much to ask?”

* What we currently have is a social studies curriculum that (for the most part) aims to create “patriotic” consumers and spectators (in a framework of “neoliberalism”). In a spectator democracy a specialized class of experts identify what our common interests are and think and plan accordingly. The function of the rest of us is to be “spectators” rather than participants in action (for example, casting votes in elections or implementing educational reforms that are concevied by people who know little or nothing about our desires or interests).

* Social studies ought to be contributing to the development of a society in which there is a free flow of information and people control and manage their own affairs.

* The best way to achieve democracy is to initiate children into a form a social life characteristic of democracy: a community of full participation, in which empowers people; includes all; engages it members in active learning in meaningful real-world activities and that accomodates learners with diverse needs, interests and abilities; intentionally builds learning support strategies; and fosters partnering while building real collaboration withing the school and with families and the community.

Revised Notes