So, if you are hoping for something hot, this isn't really it. I am going to talk about what it means to be turning 70, to have lived through the women's movement (indeed, been part of it), and how so many younger men and women (let's say 50 and younger, but it really can apply to anyone, male or female), don't really "get" what the "women's movement" was all about.
This was illustrated well this week by the ruckus over one Hilary Rosen's comment about Ann Romney, saying something like, "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life". The women's movement was NEVER about belittling the job that traditional, stay-at-home wives and mothers did. The women's movement WAS about giving women the choice to do something different than the traditional roles for wives and mothers.
In my classes on Women's History at Pasadena City College, I asked students in groups to make lists of all the things they could think of that defined "women's work". It is pretty amazing: women are cleaners, cooks, nurses, sexual partners, nurturers, teachers, chauffeurs, gardeners, laundresses, bill payers, budgeters, readers - and most also work outside of the home. I'm sure I left some things out, but women play many roles as part of what we call "women's work".
I have a lot of friends who are in their child-raising years. Some of them work outside the home and some of them don't. Study after study has shown that it is the quality of time that mothers spend with their children that counts the most - not the quantity of time alone. Since about 80% of all women of child-raising age do work outside the home, one can say that most women are faced with lots of work around the house as well as at whatever job they are doing away from the home. Is it a luxury not to work outside the home? I think the answer would be "maybe", since for many women, their work away from home defines them as much as does their work inside the home.
I graduated from college in 1964, and began teaching the next year. Then I had two children and finished a Ph.D. degree. I always worked, both in the home and outside the home, but some of it was part-time. Teaching is not only a traditional career for women, but it also allows mothers to be home with their children at certain points in their upbringing. That worked for me. At the same time, I spent much time training to be an endurance athlete. I also found time to serve on various non-profit boards, matching my particular interests. For me, having a professional life really mattered, and I hope it made me a better parent, but who judges that? What I know is that I was so lucky to be able to follow my own path: have my children; have a career that I loved and was both fun and rewarding; be a contributing member of my broader community and a role model for younger women; and pursue my love of sport through triathlons and masters swimming.
For those of you who may not realize it, the women's movement made my life, as I have experienced it, possible. My mother did not have the same choices. Think of your grandmother: did she have the choice to "do it all"? If someone has that choice and chooses to stay home, that is her choice. That is what the women's movement was all about - it did not prescribe how a girl or woman should behave, it gave them the same choices that others have. The women's movement did not make women into men, how could it? One may admire Michelle Obama and Ann Romney but still make their own choices about what to do with their lives. The USA is one of the best places in the world for a woman - or a man - to live, in large part because we are free to make choices about how we live our lives.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7th, 1941
Pearl Harbor has been part of my consciousness for as long as I can remember. I was born almost exactly 9 months later - on September 9th, 1942. Whenever it was that I understood about sex and procreation, I linked up Pearl Harbor and my parents "procreating" after news of that event. It is just part of my genetic make-up, I guess - not that I have ever said something like that to my students over many years of teaching about Pearl Harbor! So, I feel personal about Pearl Harbor.
I have visited the memorial there as well. It is a remarkable and emotionally moving display, and is really worth a visit. But, as a historian, I have so many questions: why weren't we better prepared? Did FDR want the Japanese to attack, since the American public was still against entering the war? I suppose that's the most important question: did the US do something to provoke the attack? Or, was an attack inevitable with Japan (and Germany) wanting a foothold in the Pacific? There is no question that the attack on Pearl Harbor and its death toll brought nearly 100% of the American public on board for war against Japan, and therefore, against Germany, its ally - there were Gallup polls then, and we really do have that evidence.
So, back in those pre-historic days when there were no computers, and I was in college, I wanted to find out as much as I could about why the Japanese were able to carry out such a surprise attack on the US fleet, nestled quietly in Honolulu Bay. Over the years, I have read many books written about Pearl Harbor, from the Japanese point of view (there was dissension in Japan over this attack and how Americans would react) to various attacks on FDR, accusing him of being a warmonger. I have read the telegrams and letters that the Japanese and American diplomats exchanged in the year leading up to Pearl Harbor. I came up with two major conclusions, and, by the way, I got high A's on every paper I wrote on this topic.
The first conclusion I reached is that while President Roosevelt definitely believed that we should get into this war, there is no evidence that he wanted an attack on the US to be the precipitating event. He was a skilled politician, and the evidence supports that he was trying in every way possible to persuade everyone that the US would have to get involved, sooner or later, in the conflict. As early as 1937, he began to prepare for possible involvement, arguing for "war preparedness" as a theme, but continuing to support "Neutrality" in yet another Act of Congress. In 1938, he asked for and got emergency powers from the Congress. In 1939, he made his famous "Arsenal of Democracy" speech, and spoke about "non-belligerency" instead of "neutrality". He persuaded industry leaders to join the effort and organized the government, creating "committees" that would lead agriculture, manufacturing, and labor initiatives to gear up for war - still in the late 30's. In 1940, he ran for re-election for a third term arguing that while he kept the country out of war for the time being, he was preparing the US for possible involvement because "we can't get back into bed and pull the covers up over our heads". He negotiated the famous "lend-lease" plans to loan allies our older ships on a "lease" basis. In fact, one can say that President Roosevelt was completely aware of the threat posed by Germany and Japan and responded in a way that put our national security first. World War II basically killed him: he aged visibly in the years from Pearl Harbor to when he died of a heart attack in April of 1945. The photographs tell the story.
The second fact that I discovered went contrary to everything I had learned about Pearl Harbor: the fleet that was attacked was aging, not new. This is used as an argument against Roosevelt, that he wanted these old ships to be destroyed so that new ones could be built. The fleet that was destroyed at Pearl Harbor was not modern by Japanese or German standards. It would have been far worse had our newest ships and planes been destroyed - but they were not. Still, if one looks at the unemployment statistics, it is amazing how much industrial build-up had taken place before Pearl Harbor. At the time of the 1932 presidential election, the figure was 29% unemployed. In 1936, that had moved to 19%, and by 1940, it was down to 2%. This happened because of war preparedness and building the "arsenal of democracy" to supply friendly countries. By 1942, after Pearl Harbor, unemployment was at zero, and firms were forced to hire, in order: women, disabled, and last, minorities. But the destruction of our fleet at Pearl Harbor did not set us back, the way many histories imply - in fact, it was what got us into the war - not the holocaust, not the rape of Nanking, not the fear of Germany and Japan taking over the world.
Most people agree that this was a "good war", even though that is such an oxymoron - how can something so awful ever be called good? But it is a national myth that we went into this war for some "moral" reasons. We went into this war because Pearl Harbor forced us to, convinced the American public that it was the right thing to do, and FDR capitalized on this. The President did not want Pearl Harbor, but definitely did want to go into this war because he understood that a Japanese and German victory would be a huge threat to American democracy. The President wanted to help our allies because it was in our national interest to do so. The Japanese calculated that by destroying our fleet at Pearl Harbor, they could defeat the US by the end of 1942 - and Hitler seconded that. But largely because of FDR's leadership, we actually were more ready to fight this war than the Japanese and Germans expected - and more ready than most Americans knew.
The rest is history - and it is hard for me to believe that Pearl Harbor was 70 years ago. Wow. It also means that I am almost 70, too. Perhaps the US way of life is as threatened, in different ways, today, as it was then. I don't think any of us can predict what will happen in the next 70 years, but I do think that the strength to pull together in the face of a perceived threat to our way of life, may be why World War II is remembered as a "good" war.
I have visited the memorial there as well. It is a remarkable and emotionally moving display, and is really worth a visit. But, as a historian, I have so many questions: why weren't we better prepared? Did FDR want the Japanese to attack, since the American public was still against entering the war? I suppose that's the most important question: did the US do something to provoke the attack? Or, was an attack inevitable with Japan (and Germany) wanting a foothold in the Pacific? There is no question that the attack on Pearl Harbor and its death toll brought nearly 100% of the American public on board for war against Japan, and therefore, against Germany, its ally - there were Gallup polls then, and we really do have that evidence.
So, back in those pre-historic days when there were no computers, and I was in college, I wanted to find out as much as I could about why the Japanese were able to carry out such a surprise attack on the US fleet, nestled quietly in Honolulu Bay. Over the years, I have read many books written about Pearl Harbor, from the Japanese point of view (there was dissension in Japan over this attack and how Americans would react) to various attacks on FDR, accusing him of being a warmonger. I have read the telegrams and letters that the Japanese and American diplomats exchanged in the year leading up to Pearl Harbor. I came up with two major conclusions, and, by the way, I got high A's on every paper I wrote on this topic.
The first conclusion I reached is that while President Roosevelt definitely believed that we should get into this war, there is no evidence that he wanted an attack on the US to be the precipitating event. He was a skilled politician, and the evidence supports that he was trying in every way possible to persuade everyone that the US would have to get involved, sooner or later, in the conflict. As early as 1937, he began to prepare for possible involvement, arguing for "war preparedness" as a theme, but continuing to support "Neutrality" in yet another Act of Congress. In 1938, he asked for and got emergency powers from the Congress. In 1939, he made his famous "Arsenal of Democracy" speech, and spoke about "non-belligerency" instead of "neutrality". He persuaded industry leaders to join the effort and organized the government, creating "committees" that would lead agriculture, manufacturing, and labor initiatives to gear up for war - still in the late 30's. In 1940, he ran for re-election for a third term arguing that while he kept the country out of war for the time being, he was preparing the US for possible involvement because "we can't get back into bed and pull the covers up over our heads". He negotiated the famous "lend-lease" plans to loan allies our older ships on a "lease" basis. In fact, one can say that President Roosevelt was completely aware of the threat posed by Germany and Japan and responded in a way that put our national security first. World War II basically killed him: he aged visibly in the years from Pearl Harbor to when he died of a heart attack in April of 1945. The photographs tell the story.
The second fact that I discovered went contrary to everything I had learned about Pearl Harbor: the fleet that was attacked was aging, not new. This is used as an argument against Roosevelt, that he wanted these old ships to be destroyed so that new ones could be built. The fleet that was destroyed at Pearl Harbor was not modern by Japanese or German standards. It would have been far worse had our newest ships and planes been destroyed - but they were not. Still, if one looks at the unemployment statistics, it is amazing how much industrial build-up had taken place before Pearl Harbor. At the time of the 1932 presidential election, the figure was 29% unemployed. In 1936, that had moved to 19%, and by 1940, it was down to 2%. This happened because of war preparedness and building the "arsenal of democracy" to supply friendly countries. By 1942, after Pearl Harbor, unemployment was at zero, and firms were forced to hire, in order: women, disabled, and last, minorities. But the destruction of our fleet at Pearl Harbor did not set us back, the way many histories imply - in fact, it was what got us into the war - not the holocaust, not the rape of Nanking, not the fear of Germany and Japan taking over the world.
Most people agree that this was a "good war", even though that is such an oxymoron - how can something so awful ever be called good? But it is a national myth that we went into this war for some "moral" reasons. We went into this war because Pearl Harbor forced us to, convinced the American public that it was the right thing to do, and FDR capitalized on this. The President did not want Pearl Harbor, but definitely did want to go into this war because he understood that a Japanese and German victory would be a huge threat to American democracy. The President wanted to help our allies because it was in our national interest to do so. The Japanese calculated that by destroying our fleet at Pearl Harbor, they could defeat the US by the end of 1942 - and Hitler seconded that. But largely because of FDR's leadership, we actually were more ready to fight this war than the Japanese and Germans expected - and more ready than most Americans knew.
The rest is history - and it is hard for me to believe that Pearl Harbor was 70 years ago. Wow. It also means that I am almost 70, too. Perhaps the US way of life is as threatened, in different ways, today, as it was then. I don't think any of us can predict what will happen in the next 70 years, but I do think that the strength to pull together in the face of a perceived threat to our way of life, may be why World War II is remembered as a "good" war.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Thinking about Mothers on Mothers Day
My Mother did not live much past 50, and here I am almost 70. She would have approved of most of the things I have been doing, but maybe not all, but that's OK and who knows, anyway.
Women's lives have changed since she raised us in the 40s and 50s, and I think she would be pleased to see it, too. We have a lot more freedom, a lot more choices, and more opportunities to pursue our dreams. But we are still restricted most of all by ourselves, by what we believe to be conventional thinking. For example, since we had a lot of trouble having careers that were valued equally to men's careers, it is appalling to watch young women give up these careers that we couldn't really have in order to stay home and be super Moms. How strange that is. Clearly, if you never think about it, there is no way to appreciate what you have, you just take it for granted.
I don't take anything for granted. I grew up hating pink because it represented how girls could not do so many things. I grew up knowing that my athletic aspirations were limited. I grew up thinking that if I had sex, I was ruined forever. Thank goodness all these things have changed, for the better. I also wanted to be as good a mother as anyone could be, and I enjoyed it - but I was able to work through the time I had children, teaching at a college. I needed the exposure to other adults who had more on their minds than children, cooking, looking good for their man. I worried about schools and how my children were doing, but I also thought that letting my children play at what they wanted, without spending money on it, was the best thing I could do. I controlled the TV - it wasn't on much. I had a really good time with my children, and I still do, now that they are adults.
So, I wonder about my mother, and what she thought about the ways that life has changed for women, in the late 20th and early 21st century. I think she would be envious of the opportunities but so glad they happened. Don't we all hope our mothers would be proud of us? I am proud of my own children, and amazed at what great human beings they are. I hope on this Mothers' Day, 2011, that other mothers feel that way too.
Women's lives have changed since she raised us in the 40s and 50s, and I think she would be pleased to see it, too. We have a lot more freedom, a lot more choices, and more opportunities to pursue our dreams. But we are still restricted most of all by ourselves, by what we believe to be conventional thinking. For example, since we had a lot of trouble having careers that were valued equally to men's careers, it is appalling to watch young women give up these careers that we couldn't really have in order to stay home and be super Moms. How strange that is. Clearly, if you never think about it, there is no way to appreciate what you have, you just take it for granted.
I don't take anything for granted. I grew up hating pink because it represented how girls could not do so many things. I grew up knowing that my athletic aspirations were limited. I grew up thinking that if I had sex, I was ruined forever. Thank goodness all these things have changed, for the better. I also wanted to be as good a mother as anyone could be, and I enjoyed it - but I was able to work through the time I had children, teaching at a college. I needed the exposure to other adults who had more on their minds than children, cooking, looking good for their man. I worried about schools and how my children were doing, but I also thought that letting my children play at what they wanted, without spending money on it, was the best thing I could do. I controlled the TV - it wasn't on much. I had a really good time with my children, and I still do, now that they are adults.
So, I wonder about my mother, and what she thought about the ways that life has changed for women, in the late 20th and early 21st century. I think she would be envious of the opportunities but so glad they happened. Don't we all hope our mothers would be proud of us? I am proud of my own children, and amazed at what great human beings they are. I hope on this Mothers' Day, 2011, that other mothers feel that way too.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Why there is nothing in the world like teaching...
Teachers are taking a lot of hard knocks these days. Fighting back does not work. Perhaps this time of teacher-bashing will pass, perhaps not. Perhaps the discussion needs to be re-framed: what is right with teachers right now.
Teachers spend more time with their students than most adults, and most teachers are caring and thoughtful. Most teachers spend some of their earnings on materials for their classroom. Most teachers spend huge amounts of time away from the classroom preparing and worrying about how to do some kind of lesson. Most teachers believe that they have a "vocation", in the true sense of the word: a calling.
Teachers have good lessons and not-so-good lessons. They have confrontations with students frequently, and learn how to cope, how to be constructive in dealing with situations that arise. As the students are older, teachers act as counselors and sometimes confidants, even when they would prefer not to do so. Many students have no other adults to talk to about things going on in their lives.
Sometimes, a teacher gets a letter from a parent - this even happens in high school and in college - explaining how you - the teacher - had had such a positive influence on their kid. You might not really know that - after all, often we as teachers don't see the longer-term results of "doing our job".
Now that there is facebook, I have had the incredible experience of hearing from long-ago students about how I had changed their lives, how they think of me all the time, often of some story I had told, of the examples I had set, of other things that happened in their classes. Often, I don't remember precisely what they are referring to, but it doesn't matter.
Teaching's rewards are intrinsic - you know it when you have done something effective, you just know it. There is no test, no quantitative way to show this, but you, the teacher, just know that you have made a difference. It is what keeps us going.
Today, it is very sad that students don't want to go into teaching. They don't understand what they are missing. It is very hard to be any good at it, but it is so totally worth the effort, in more ways than you can count.
I like to say to all those great souls out there, searching for meaning in their lives: try teaching. We desperately need new teachers, as more than half of the teaching force will be retired within 10 years. Help society, help a few kids, help make a real difference. You will love it.
Teachers spend more time with their students than most adults, and most teachers are caring and thoughtful. Most teachers spend some of their earnings on materials for their classroom. Most teachers spend huge amounts of time away from the classroom preparing and worrying about how to do some kind of lesson. Most teachers believe that they have a "vocation", in the true sense of the word: a calling.
Teachers have good lessons and not-so-good lessons. They have confrontations with students frequently, and learn how to cope, how to be constructive in dealing with situations that arise. As the students are older, teachers act as counselors and sometimes confidants, even when they would prefer not to do so. Many students have no other adults to talk to about things going on in their lives.
Sometimes, a teacher gets a letter from a parent - this even happens in high school and in college - explaining how you - the teacher - had had such a positive influence on their kid. You might not really know that - after all, often we as teachers don't see the longer-term results of "doing our job".
Now that there is facebook, I have had the incredible experience of hearing from long-ago students about how I had changed their lives, how they think of me all the time, often of some story I had told, of the examples I had set, of other things that happened in their classes. Often, I don't remember precisely what they are referring to, but it doesn't matter.
Teaching's rewards are intrinsic - you know it when you have done something effective, you just know it. There is no test, no quantitative way to show this, but you, the teacher, just know that you have made a difference. It is what keeps us going.
Today, it is very sad that students don't want to go into teaching. They don't understand what they are missing. It is very hard to be any good at it, but it is so totally worth the effort, in more ways than you can count.
I like to say to all those great souls out there, searching for meaning in their lives: try teaching. We desperately need new teachers, as more than half of the teaching force will be retired within 10 years. Help society, help a few kids, help make a real difference. You will love it.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Earthquakes on my mind
The earthquake in New Zealand reminds me of how, not a day goes by when I don't think about earthquakes. I grew up on the East coast, and never really knew anything about them, until I came to college in California and settled here. Even then, it was a few years before I would experience one.
It was 1971, and I had a baby and a toddler, when early one morning we were awakened by the shaking, grabbed both children and ran outside. We were in Altadena, and we could see the flashes of light as transformers all over the Valley were exploding, and we stood shakily watching and feeling the earth receding and moving as we stood there. Finally, we took the children inside. Several kitchen cabinets had spilled out their contents. From that day forward, I always close cabinets tightly, even thought that aspect hasn't happened again.
The next earthquake happened at around 7:45 AM as we were about to leave for school, in 1987. This one struck like a hammer - in fact, we thought maybe a truck had hit the house, but then the earth rumbled once again. My son had been upstairs, and he lurched down the stairs as I huddled under the doorjamb in the kitchen. Both of us ran outside, and saw that the field stone chimney on our roof had partially collapsed, and the loud sounds we had heard had been those stones bouncing down the roof and into the yard. It turned out that 100 chimneys in our Pasadena neighborhood, near the Arroyo, had fallen in this quake. Most of these houses had been built in the 1900 to 1920 craftsman building period. Our house had been built in 1908. We were only the third owner. It was the original chimney, and it was repaired and the roof was replaced.
The next earthquake I experienced happened around 7:30 AM, and I had just come in from my swimming workout at Caltech, in June of 1991. There were around ten of us in a large shower room, and we were naked. When the building started to shake, no one knew whether to run outside naked or to grab clothes or whatever. But it was a quick shake, and did not seem to cause any damage, but it did give us all a scare. I think one is more vulnerable when naked.
In 1994, there was another bad earthquake, centered in Northridge. I remember that one for two major reasons. We didn't feel it as much in Pasadena, but a concrete wall fell and killed a student walking by at Cal State Los Angeles. One of my students, at Pasadena City College, was in an apartment building in Northridge that collapsed early that morning and killed several people on the first floor, including her sister. You just never forget experiences like this.
So, maybe it isn't surprising that every day, I think about earthquakes. Some of the ways that the memory of earthquakes affects me are: every time I close a kitchen cabinet door and every time I drive under a freeway overpass; every time I walk from the swimming pool to my car at UC Irvine, along a building with large concrete overhangs. The possibility of an earthquake affects my daily life, but really, I don't let this get in the way of all the things that I do. I just think about it.
It was 1971, and I had a baby and a toddler, when early one morning we were awakened by the shaking, grabbed both children and ran outside. We were in Altadena, and we could see the flashes of light as transformers all over the Valley were exploding, and we stood shakily watching and feeling the earth receding and moving as we stood there. Finally, we took the children inside. Several kitchen cabinets had spilled out their contents. From that day forward, I always close cabinets tightly, even thought that aspect hasn't happened again.
The next earthquake happened at around 7:45 AM as we were about to leave for school, in 1987. This one struck like a hammer - in fact, we thought maybe a truck had hit the house, but then the earth rumbled once again. My son had been upstairs, and he lurched down the stairs as I huddled under the doorjamb in the kitchen. Both of us ran outside, and saw that the field stone chimney on our roof had partially collapsed, and the loud sounds we had heard had been those stones bouncing down the roof and into the yard. It turned out that 100 chimneys in our Pasadena neighborhood, near the Arroyo, had fallen in this quake. Most of these houses had been built in the 1900 to 1920 craftsman building period. Our house had been built in 1908. We were only the third owner. It was the original chimney, and it was repaired and the roof was replaced.
The next earthquake I experienced happened around 7:30 AM, and I had just come in from my swimming workout at Caltech, in June of 1991. There were around ten of us in a large shower room, and we were naked. When the building started to shake, no one knew whether to run outside naked or to grab clothes or whatever. But it was a quick shake, and did not seem to cause any damage, but it did give us all a scare. I think one is more vulnerable when naked.
In 1994, there was another bad earthquake, centered in Northridge. I remember that one for two major reasons. We didn't feel it as much in Pasadena, but a concrete wall fell and killed a student walking by at Cal State Los Angeles. One of my students, at Pasadena City College, was in an apartment building in Northridge that collapsed early that morning and killed several people on the first floor, including her sister. You just never forget experiences like this.
So, maybe it isn't surprising that every day, I think about earthquakes. Some of the ways that the memory of earthquakes affects me are: every time I close a kitchen cabinet door and every time I drive under a freeway overpass; every time I walk from the swimming pool to my car at UC Irvine, along a building with large concrete overhangs. The possibility of an earthquake affects my daily life, but really, I don't let this get in the way of all the things that I do. I just think about it.
Friday, February 11, 2011
YES WE CAN!
I can't help it. When Obama was elected, the world reaction was amazing - all over the world, people celebrated. I said it then to all my students, and I say it again today as I watch what is happening in Egypt: the world of instant media, internet reactions, is changing the world.
Do you remember those videos of world reactions to Obama's victory? Do you remember crowds everywhere, in English, singing out "YES WE CAN"? And so, that is what these crowds celebrating remind me, they remind me that anything is possible.
Some older people lament that the world is changing, things will never be the same for their children and grandchildren, but I don't say that. I say, this is their world, and they will shape it, and they are doing it! It is not that having Obama means a lot of change. Change takes baby steps in democracies, it takes time. But change is happening, that is for certain, and that's what this Egyptian revolution shows. The Egyptian people won't get all the changes they want, but they have learned the power of standing together, peacefully.
Here's two links showing what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMHpib5ZNCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
Enjoy.
Do you remember those videos of world reactions to Obama's victory? Do you remember crowds everywhere, in English, singing out "YES WE CAN"? And so, that is what these crowds celebrating remind me, they remind me that anything is possible.
Some older people lament that the world is changing, things will never be the same for their children and grandchildren, but I don't say that. I say, this is their world, and they will shape it, and they are doing it! It is not that having Obama means a lot of change. Change takes baby steps in democracies, it takes time. But change is happening, that is for certain, and that's what this Egyptian revolution shows. The Egyptian people won't get all the changes they want, but they have learned the power of standing together, peacefully.
Here's two links showing what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMHpib5ZNCc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
Enjoy.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
OTS #3 - Egypt, beyond the Suez Canal
OK, so how much do you know about Egypt? The Pyramids? The Suez Canal? 44 years ago, I started teaching at a 6 year junior high/high school, in Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY. I had to teach a ninth grade social studies course, called "Non-Western World", or at least that's what I remember it was called. I had majored in American Studies for my B.A., with a double major in History and English, and my M.A. was in Chinese History - guess that qualified me to teach this course!
In other words, I knew next to nothing about the Middle East, Egypt, and Africa, sub-Saharan or otherwise. I did know a little bit about India, having taken a year long course about Modern India, and a handful of courses about non-Chinese Asian history, too. How would I teach about Africa? How would I handle Egypt? The books I was provided for in the course were really elementary. This was before the internet - as my students of today always say, "what do you mean, before the internet?" as if no one could possibly be that old! How was I going to supplement the materials and help the students if I didn't have any background?
In hindsight, my solution was pretty cool - for those of you who don't live in NYC - or even for those of you who do. I did live in NYC, and I opened the phone book, and found out where all the Consulates of some of these nations were, and preceded by a call, I went to gather materials. Just think! There was no security in those days. I was in my early 20s, and pretty naive. Of course, I realized these materials might be very biased, but really, you should have seen the maps and posters I was able to get, all for free. I spent afternoons and Saturdays traveling to these consulates for the first month of my teaching, and then planned around the materials.
The greatest "gift" for my teaching came from the Egyptian Consulate. Mostly, they gave me beautiful travel posters. But they also provided a map of the Middle East that did not include Israel at all. What a fantastic teaching opportunity, as I put their map and the classroom map of the Middle East side by side on the wall and had the students figure out how and why the maps were different. I like to think that they learned a lot from that exercise, but who knows.
I don't know what else my students learned about Egypt that year, but they did learn about how who is telling the story makes a huge difference. This experience came back to me this week, watching Egypt experience such unprecedented upheaval. Will we learn more about Egypt, beyond the Pyramids, beyond the Suez Canal, more about what the real "back story" might be? I feel like I am watching the "shifting sands" of a desert as I watch newscasters and others trying to explain what is going on. Maybe if we all knew more about Egypt, we would understand more about what's happening, and who is telling the story - beyond the Suez Canal.
In other words, I knew next to nothing about the Middle East, Egypt, and Africa, sub-Saharan or otherwise. I did know a little bit about India, having taken a year long course about Modern India, and a handful of courses about non-Chinese Asian history, too. How would I teach about Africa? How would I handle Egypt? The books I was provided for in the course were really elementary. This was before the internet - as my students of today always say, "what do you mean, before the internet?" as if no one could possibly be that old! How was I going to supplement the materials and help the students if I didn't have any background?
In hindsight, my solution was pretty cool - for those of you who don't live in NYC - or even for those of you who do. I did live in NYC, and I opened the phone book, and found out where all the Consulates of some of these nations were, and preceded by a call, I went to gather materials. Just think! There was no security in those days. I was in my early 20s, and pretty naive. Of course, I realized these materials might be very biased, but really, you should have seen the maps and posters I was able to get, all for free. I spent afternoons and Saturdays traveling to these consulates for the first month of my teaching, and then planned around the materials.
The greatest "gift" for my teaching came from the Egyptian Consulate. Mostly, they gave me beautiful travel posters. But they also provided a map of the Middle East that did not include Israel at all. What a fantastic teaching opportunity, as I put their map and the classroom map of the Middle East side by side on the wall and had the students figure out how and why the maps were different. I like to think that they learned a lot from that exercise, but who knows.
I don't know what else my students learned about Egypt that year, but they did learn about how who is telling the story makes a huge difference. This experience came back to me this week, watching Egypt experience such unprecedented upheaval. Will we learn more about Egypt, beyond the Pyramids, beyond the Suez Canal, more about what the real "back story" might be? I feel like I am watching the "shifting sands" of a desert as I watch newscasters and others trying to explain what is going on. Maybe if we all knew more about Egypt, we would understand more about what's happening, and who is telling the story - beyond the Suez Canal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)