In watching the film this week on the occupation of Wounded Knee I am so glad I was able to learn about the events that occurred during this important event in history, but am also upset with the outcome of the immediate situation after the occupation and how such a vital historical moment is not taught in schools today. One thing that made me particularly upset were the tactics used by the government towards the Indians occupying Wounded Knee; such as ordering the reporters to leave Pine Ridge. In this situation the media held a large amount of power as they were the Indians only connection to the rest of the nation but also served as a form of safety since the government was not going to open fire on national television. How convenient for the government to order the reporters to leave town…Again the media holds a great amount of power as the government knew exactly what they were doing.
Again, it is unfortunate that students do not usually learn about these issues until college since their high schools do not teach it. But then again, who writes the history books that are taught in high schools? I can specifically remember a time in high school during my US history course that I was browsing my textbook. As my father worked in the fields when he first came to this country I am particularly interested in the topic of farm workers and therefore during my US history class in high school I looked up Cesar Chavez in the index. Not to my surprise, there was a two sentence description on the United Farm Workers. It is not fair that someone else gets to pick and choose what they deem to be important in American History as in this process they leave out my history and many other individual’s histories. Issues such as the Americanization of the Indian and immigrant youth should be in today’s textbooks.
This brings me to a topic that was brought up in class this week about how we are lucky to live in California because it is a much more liberal and accepting place. After learning about California history one soon finds out that in many cases the West was just as discriminatory as the South. I am not educated enough on the history of Native Americans in California, to speak on their experience in California but when it comes to the topic of Chicano studies I know that Mexicans were discriminated in the Southwest just like African Americans were in the South. For example Jim Crow laws were not just used in the South, but also in the Southwest as like in the South, Mexicans were not allowed to eat in certain restaurants or drink from the same drinking fountains as whites. Many may think that California is much better off today, but in reality the state was founded on racist principles that are still institutionally embedded in many ways. For example the University of California, Davis and the city of Davis has a deep racist past. For the purpose of keeping my blog somewhat short I will not go into detail about this topic but will leave a link in which you can find a document discussing California’s racial history and higher institutions. If any of you choose to read this study I hope you link some of what you see in Davis today with its history and maybe see Davis in another light. Through reading this study and because of my personal experiences here, I do not think that Davis is a liberal town, but rather quite conservative.
I totally agree with you post. Like you said, who really writes the history books? It is a sad thing to realize, but in the end, history is composed of lies written by the person that was victorious. It really is sad that matters such as this one are never tought in high schools, and only by going to a higher education school will one be able to immerse him/herself with all this information.
I've also noticed that the public school system tends to push certain events of American history under the carpet. Like you said, with Ceasar Chavez, I was fortunate enough to have a Chicano teacher in the third grade; this teacher, ode to Mr. Rodriguez, made the effort to teach our class about the Chicano movement. But after then, i rarely heard of the Chicanos. I heard even less about the Native Americans. So I am so glad we are to atleast learn about the the First Peoples. They deserve way more cuz of all the b.s. they put up with, but there are still some people who think about the savage in wild woods.
I agree as well with the parts concerning the writing of the textbook however I have some doubts about the Davis part. First, I believe that a place (as people do) has the ability to change. It seems to me that the cause of the lack of minority groups, as well as the extinction of local barrios, is a product of what they said in the paper you posted... e.g. a rise in housing costs due to the introduction of a university as well as Davis' relative distance from an urban center. The evidence that suggests foul play seems both insubstantial and subjective. The article states, "...Davis may have undertaken," and "according to suggestive evidence," illustrating that the paper is not a factually based work. And then, of course, I see the other side as well. How could there be a large record of this happening if it were true? Clearly no one would want it recorded in history books so no one would record it when it happened and there would be no evidence. ah... well since I have contradicted myself so much and this comment is now the size of a short paper, I will end with this- I think it is easy, if you have a cause you believe in, to grasp on to as much evidence as you can without necessarily dissecting it for truth and objectivity (and I'm not saying this is what you did, just making a general statement that, I think, is relevant) and doing this can result in bad evidence which, in turn, hurts your cause.
I think this blog brings up a good point (I haven't yet read the link) when it point to the fact that we sometimes think the region or place we live in is absolved from a troubled history. Instead of owning a history or admitting it, we like to think of places outside our own locale as having "the problem." This allows things to happen right under our noses, and in some ways this is what leads to people 20,30, 50 years form now asking why nobody did anything to stop it. It's not that we should seek out conflict and discord but that we should not let it exist around us as invisible while we congratulate ourselves for being "enlightened."
I totally agree with you post. Like you said, who really writes the history books? It is a sad thing to realize, but in the end, history is composed of lies written by the person that was victorious. It really is sad that matters such as this one are never tought in high schools, and only by going to a higher education school will one be able to immerse him/herself with all this information.
ReplyDeleteI've also noticed that the public school system tends to push certain events of American history under the carpet. Like you said, with Ceasar Chavez, I was fortunate enough to have a Chicano teacher in the third grade; this teacher, ode to Mr. Rodriguez, made the effort to teach our class about the Chicano movement. But after then, i rarely heard of the Chicanos. I heard even less about the Native Americans. So I am so glad we are to atleast learn about the the First Peoples. They deserve way more cuz of all the b.s. they put up with, but there are still some people who think about the savage in wild woods.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well with the parts concerning the writing of the textbook however I have some doubts about the Davis part. First, I believe that a place (as people do) has the ability to change. It seems to me that the cause of the lack of minority groups, as well as the extinction of local barrios, is a product of what they said in the paper you posted... e.g. a rise in housing costs due to the introduction of a university as well as Davis' relative distance from an urban center. The evidence that suggests foul play seems both insubstantial and subjective. The article states, "...Davis may have undertaken," and "according to suggestive evidence," illustrating that the paper is not a factually based work. And then, of course, I see the other side as well. How could there be a large record of this happening if it were true? Clearly no one would want it recorded in history books so no one would record it when it happened and there would be no evidence. ah... well since I have contradicted myself so much and this comment is now the size of a short paper, I will end with this- I think it is easy, if you have a cause you believe in, to grasp on to as much evidence as you can without necessarily dissecting it for truth and objectivity (and I'm not saying this is what you did, just making a general statement that, I think, is relevant) and doing this can result in bad evidence which, in turn, hurts your cause.
ReplyDeleteI think this blog brings up a good point (I haven't yet read the link) when it point to the fact that we sometimes think the region or place we live in is absolved from a troubled history. Instead of owning a history or admitting it, we like to think of places outside our own locale as having "the problem." This allows things to happen right under our noses, and in some ways this is what leads to people 20,30, 50 years form now asking why nobody did anything to stop it. It's not that we should seek out conflict and discord but that we should not let it exist around us as invisible while we congratulate ourselves for being "enlightened."
ReplyDelete