|
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
08:02 a.m.
US teachers' union: 'doctor' 9/11 for schools
It's one thing to admit (rightly) that there's no such thing as 'true' or 'unbiased' history.
Quite another to mount a deliberate campaign of disinformation.
Now, it's absolutely right to put events of 9/11 into context, and abjure the sort of kneejerk patriotic fervour that understandably characterised the weeks following 9/11 in the US.
But context and fairness are not what the NEA's lesson plans are about, it seems.
On the one hand, they advise
'teachers [to] "address the issue of blame factually".'
But then they say
'Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault.'
Excuse me? It's because 'someones' are 'at fault' that the question of blame arises in the first place!
'In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise.'
So, Pol Pot, Joe Stalin, A Hitler - all 'innocent'?!
It's hard to believe that these sentences were intended to be read in all seriousness by people with a college education. Let alone those educated to teach history.
Apparently, the notion of Americans being the victims of the attacks is so abhorrent to the writers of the NEA lesson plans that it must be diluted by having classes
'discuss historical instances of American intolerance'.
That's not 'context', that's weaselly relativising. By referring to the Japanese-American internments, the teacher is saying, "Wrong was done to us. But we've done wrong, too."
Or, in Joe E Brown's immortal line, "Nobody's perfect."
The NEA's concern that
'the American public avoids "repeating terrible mistakes"'
seems like a smokescreen to me: anti-Moslem feeling in the US will have been at its height in the weeks and months following 9/11. That was the time for appeals for tolerance (which were made, and, so far as I'm aware, for the most part heeded).
Bringing in irrelevant events like the internments can only serve to obfuscate an already complex and troubling subject.
The ideology behind the lesson plans is clear:
'Americans see their schools as the place that will help their children make sense of these horrific events and move forward as better people.'
Move forward as better people?! Why 'better', if not because they have something to be sorry for, and the 9/11 lessons will teach them the error of their ways?
The NEA plans clearly have little to do with a fair presentation of the events of 9/11, and surrounding facts and background. The aim seems to be to leave children confused about why 9/11 happened, but with an inchoate but powerful apprehension that their country - and, by extension, they themselves - is partly responsible for them.
As if to make it clear its intention is not educational, it maintains that Islam is a "peaceful religion." An abject lie. Politically necessary for Bush, Blair and the rest, quite possibly. But a lie none the less.
One that certainly saves on classroom time - not having to cover centuries of Islamic conquest by Arabs, Turks, Indians, et al. Nor, say, the essential violence of the Wahabi sect, to which belongs the ruling house of Saudi Arabia.
But one that also avoids the question - bound to arise in discussions of Moslem violence - of the violent record of other religions - Hinduism, Christianity, etc - down the ages.
Much better to sweep all such things under the carpet by pretending that all religions have been peaceful all of the time!
And what is the relevance, pray, of
'the "Gettysburg Address," the Declaration of Independence, Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech and Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech'?
A feelgood celebration of 'the land of the free' to lift the mood of students bewildered by the NEA's presentation of 9/11?
By coincidence, we have today just the sort of context that students ought to be getting to grips with, in the shape of the McKinsey reports on the performance of the FDNY and NYPD. The idea that a country needs more than just heroism in time of disaster is, alone, a far more valuable lesson for the citizens of tomorrow than the brainwashing proposed by the NEA.
|
