James W. Loewen has a bestseller, “Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.” Loewen’s takes on all of the ‘isms’ that History teachers often end up teaching to their students. The premise of the book is sound, and it IS helpful and we should read it, however, the presentation is not infallible. In his chapter about Columbus, where he is rightfully very critical of not just Columbus , he devotes an extraordinary amount of time to theories of pre Columbian contact including the Irish,Phoenicians,Asians and Africans. Loewen laments that these alternative theories, which he himself even admits often have tenuous evidence backing them up, are not covered in American textbooks. These theories are all alternative to the “Columbus First” narrative that Loewen argues against.
My problem with this is that none of these theories,at least to my knowledge, are accepted by mainstream Historians,Archaeologists or Anthropologists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Loewen does not provide any extraordinary evidence. To his credit he provides a table on pages 40-41 that describe the likelihood of each of these alternative scenarios that he outlines, and most of them by his own admission are not very likely. Why, then should we include them? For Loewen the answer seems to be because of the importance to keep an open mind and not to alienate students. Loewen goes on to say that theories, like the Afro Phoenician theory, should be included for the benefit of African American students, and that we should include these sorts of theories because we need to teach the controversy and train students not to simply accept what it taught to them. I would contend that American History has enough controversy without having to add fantastical and pseudo historical elements. Loewen heavily cites the work of Ivan Van Sertima who wrote the book “They Came Before Columbus” which describes the theory that the Olmec civilization of south American was heavily influenced by, and perhaps even founded by explorers from Africa. Loewen seems to ignore the fact that most historians reject Van Sertima’s claims and instead places a lot of emphasis on the theory.
In his own book Loewen goes on to describe a scenario where he says “Standard History textbooks and courses discriminate against students who have been educated by rap songs or by Van Sertima...What happens when an African American Girl shoots up her hand to challenge the statement ‘not until 1497-1499 did the Portuguese explorer Vasco De Gama sail around Africa’? From Rap songs the girl learned that Phoenicians beat de Gama by 2000 years.”(Loewen 45) Loewen goes on to describe this scenario where the student’s opinion is belittled or marginalized, but I find this troubling. There are ways to let students know that they are mistaken, but it is important to teach students the appropriate and inappropriate ways of learning history. It is appropriate to learn history from a teacher, or a historian, learning history from pop culture, while sometimes accurate, is often misleading.
What about Mormon traditions of pre columbian America? Does Loewen include them? Of course not, because there is no archaeological or historical evidence to back them and they are ludicrous. So by omission Loewen shows that he is capable of rejecting absurd premises, but in the instance of Africans to Olmec, Phoenicians, and others he seems perfectly content to entertain them, what about Atlantis? Surely the myths of Plato would be worthwhile additions, why aren’t they included? Why not ancient aliens, what about the student who was educated not by a rap song, but by the history channel? Shouldn’t we also entertain those theories as equally valid? Of course not. I was that student in undergrad. My professor told me,in not so many words, that stuff was fucking stupid, and I am a better man for it.
I wonder if Loewen would say that because a student learned flat Earth from a YouTuber or a Holocaust did not happen conspiracy theory from some documentary online that they also deserve a place in textbooks for controversy’s sake. Of course not. This demand to be open minded and open to alternative theories is increasingly problematic, I feel like people demand and demand that we be open minded to the point that our brains fall out of our skulls. History classes should teach history that is vetted and accepted by the majority of mainstream scholars, if my professors in grad and undergrad weren’t willing to entertain fringe theories of pre columbian America, then public school teachers should not either.
This notion that we must be willing to entertain any and all theory, no matter how tenuous or fraught with problems is troubling to me. We must be willing to accept the opinions of professionals and accept their judgment, if you want to play the game and participate academically, that’s fine,but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you best be bringing the evidence to the table. Academia is not one big underdog story where the downtrodden academic is able to prove his fantastical theories in spite of wha the establishment tells them a’la Milo Thatch in Disney’s very steampunky “Atlantis.” We live in a world that routinely tells the public to questions historians, scientists and other professionals, deride them as “fake news” and spread brands of “Alternative Facts.” Like I have said before, it is OK to dismiss ludicrous claims, especially when they do not bring sufficient evidence to the table.
I digress, Loewen’s book is a valuable read for any teacher, or anyone interested in history, but the inclusion of pseudo archaeological or historical theories is distressing and I am afraid that it encourages a broader anti establishment, or anti educator rhetoric which the idea that “well I read it once” or “I heard something that confirms my biases” and so “ I must know better, and therefore my theory must be entertained with equal validity as the accepted literature” type problems. Loewen is an Ivy League educated PhD Sociologist, he knows his stuff, and makes compelling arguments, but at the core, I am left wondering why such an educated and skilled man feels the need to include and present problematic theories as equals to established scholarship. I am practically nobody, just a humble man trying to make my way in the universe, and when I criticize someone like Loewen I understand I am punching WAAAAAY above my weight (figuratively speaking), but in all my conversations with people about Loewen and his scholarship I have never heard anyone criticize these particular points, and I am left wondering why. When does being open minded end and having your brain fall out of your skull begin?
I am afraid this also speaks to a larger problem among Social Studies educators in k-12 schools. Very few are actual historians, most are education majors with a focus, or an interest in history, or they just passed the certification test and have no actual training as a Historian. This is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but chief among them is that some k-12 Social Studies educators fall victim very easily to pseudo historical arguments and theories and teach them as gospel. One example that comes to mind was when I was in High School, my friends who were AP students were reading Gavin Menzies book “1421, The Year China Discovered America” for their AP class. Now, I cant remember why I was not in AP classes, at least for history (I definitely know the answer for math and science!) But I decided to read the book as well, and I was enamored with it. It was amazing! Who knew all this stuff had happened? Why hadn’t we been taught it before? I fell into the trap of believing that the establishment didn’t want us to know these things. Then I went to college, and I learned that Menzies is not a historian and that a submariner and investigative reporter does not a historian make. Why did the teacher teach Menzies’ book? I cant tell you because I wasn’t in the class, but I do know that there is a whole group of AP kids who bought Menzies arguments hook, line and sinker, because their teacher gave it to them. That is a problem.
This whole experience has got me thinking about pseudo history that is taught in public schools, and that is a string I plan to continue tugging on in the future. For now, Ill just be discontent with Loewen’s assertions.
Comments
Post a Comment