The shocking conspiracies of Woodrow Wilson and Hellen Keller really made me realize that James Loewen wasn't saying some hoax. He truly believed that the American education system was feeding students with fake information. Both of the arguments on Wilson's concealed manifests and the adulthood of Hellen are strong evidence towards James' belief. However, I feel that the points given out is inconclusive in supporting a biased belief.
James has a powerful educational background. He has taught in the University of Vermont for twenty years and has a profound view in the aspect of education. However, James does not have enough experience to support his views on the field of sociology and mass media. He states in chapter one that "Few people know, because our schooling and mass media has left it (Hellen's adulthood) out" and claims that the entire social media covers up the conspiracies such as the ones of Wilson and Hellen. James does not have the authority to say that. The examples he gives of the archetypes of Betsy Ross is inconclusive. James should have consulted other professionals in the field of sociology prior to writing this down.
Another point which caught my attention was James' criticizing of the textbooks making historical figures too goody-goody. He states that many students pick either foreign of African American figures comparing to white American individuals as their historical heroes, and then uses this example to reinforce his belief. How does he conclude that less students picking white American heroes means that they are the only ones being whitewashed? He has not given us any reasons to believe that African American and foreign figures haven't been whitewashed as well. We all know Mahatama Ghandi as a peace-loving, heartfelt person, yet forget that the caste system he approved of drops a dark shadow upon equality in India. James' reasons for white people being the only goody-goodies is too far-fetched and inconclusive.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿