Kontan Jou

This amuses me everytime I get it…

I ran across this post while blog hopping today and found it both interesting and entertaining. Before you stop by think about George Washington. What comes to mind? What do you KNOW about our first president? Now, go take a look at what Elementaryhistoryteacher has to say about George Washington.

History Is Elementary: George, We Hardly Knew Ye!

“…if we teach social studies we should take the time to de “myth”isize history.

One of the first things I do is I ask the students to tell me things about George Washington. Our jot list includes: he’s on the dollar bill, he’s on the quarter, he never told a lie, he cut down a cherry tree, he had wooden teeth, he could throw a silver dollar across a river, he wore a wig, and he was our first president. I tell the kids that unfortunately history is full of myths that get handed down from generation to generation and people believe them for so long it is as if they are fact. I take a marker and draw a line through all of the myths leaving only the money facts and the first president fact on our list. They are shocked. “But my mom said….”, “But my teacher said…”

Anytime we de “myth”isize history in my classroom I make sure students realize the reasons behind the myths. We talk about revisionists (like Disney), we discuss how new information is discovered, and we discuss the motives behind changing history to leave out groups of people. I make sure students realize no one is trying to pull the wool over their eyes, especially their parents and former teachers. I certainly don’t want to break a bond of trust within the family.”

I ran across this post while blog hopping today and found it both interesting and entertaining. Before you stop by think about George Washington. What comes to mind? What do you KNOW about our first president? Now, go take a look at what Elementaryhistoryteacher has to say about George Washington.

History Is Elementary: George, We Hardly Knew Ye!

This is SO GREAT, and it puts the RIDICULOUSNESS of the “No Child Left Behind” nonsense into perspective. Whether you’re a teacher or the friend of one, I hope you’ll appreciate the analogy. Be sure to read to the end…

“NDLB”

No Dentist Left Behind

My dentist is great! He sends me reminders so I don’t forget checkups. He uses the latest techniques based on research. He never hurts me, and I’ve got all my teeth. When I ran into him the other day, I was eager to see if he’d heard about the new state program. I knew he’d think it was great.
“Did you hear about the new state program to measure effectiveness of dentists with their young patients?” I said.
” No,” he said. He didn’t seem too thrilled. “How will they do that?”
“It’s quite simple,” I said. “They will just count the number of cavities each patient has at age 10, 14, and 18 and average that to determine a dentist’s rating. Dentists will be rated as excellent, good, average, below average, and unsatisfactory. That way parents will know which are the best dentists. The plan will also encourage the less effective dentists to get better,” I said. “Poor dentists who don’t improve could lose their licenses to practice.”
“That’s terrible,” he said.
“What? That’s not a good attitude,” I said. “Don’t you think we should try to improve children’s dental health in this state?”
“Sure I do,” he said, “but that’s not a fair way to determine who is practicing good dentistry.”
Why not?” I said. “It makes perfect sense to me.”
“Well, it’s so obvious,” he said. “Don’t you see that dentists don’t all work with the same clientele, and that much depends on things we can’t control? For example, I work in a rural area with a high percentage of patients from deprived homes, while some of my colleagues work in upper middle-class neighborhoods. Many of the parents I work with don’t bring their children to see me until there is some kind of problem, and I don’t get to do much preventive work. Also many of the parents I serve let their kids eat way too much candy
from an early age, unlike more educated parents who understand the relationship between sugar and decay.
To top it all off, so many of my clients have well water, which is untreated and has no fluoride in it. Do you have any idea how much difference early use of fluoride can make?”
“It sounds like you’re making excuses,” I said. “I can’t believe that you, my dentist, would be so defensive. After all, you do a great job, and you needn’t fear a little accountability.”
“I am not being defensive!” he said. “My best patients are as good as anyone’s, my work is as good as anyone’s, but my average cavity count is going to be higher than a lot of other dentists because I chose to work where I am needed most.”
“Don’t’ get touchy,” I said.
“Touchy?” he said. His face had turned red, and from the way he was clenching and unclenching his jaws, I was afraid he was going to damage his teeth. “Try furious! In a system like this, I will end up being rated average, below average, or worse. The few educated patients I have who see these ratings may believe this so-called rating is an actual measure of my ability and proficiency as a dentist. They may leave me, and I’ll be left with only the most needy patients. And my cavity average score will get even worse. On top of that, how will I attract good dental hygienists and other excellent dentists to my practice if it is labeled below average?”
“I think you are overreacting,” I said. “‘Complaining, excuse-making and stonewalling won’t improve dental health’…I am quoting from a leading member of the DOC,” I noted.
“What’s the DOC?” he asked.
“It’s the Dental Oversight Committee,” I said, “a group made up of mostly lay persons to make sure dentistry in this state gets improved.”
“Spare me,” he said, “I can’t believe this. Reasonable people won’t buy it,” he said hopefully.
The program sounded reasonable to me, so I asked, “How else would you measure good dentistry?”
“Come watch me work,” he said. “Observe my processes.”
“That’s too complicated, expensive and time-consuming,” I said.
“Cavities are the bottom line, and you can’t argue with the bottom line. It’s an absolute measure.”
“That’s what I’m afraid my parents and prospective patients will think.
This can’t be happening,” he said despairingly.
“Now, now,” I said, “don’t despair. The state will help you some.”
“How?” he asked.
“If you receive a poor rating, they’ll send a dentist who is rated excellent to help straighten you out,” I said brightly.
“You mean,” he said, “they’ll send a dentist with a wealthy clientele to show me how to work on severe juvenile dental problems with which I have probably had much more experience? BIG HELP!”
“There you go again,” I said. “You aren’t acting professionally at all.”
“You don’t get it,” he said. “Doing this would be like grading schools and teachers on an average score made on a test of children’s progress with no regard to influences outside the school, the home, the community
served and stuff like that. Why would they do something so unfair to
dentists? No one would ever think of doing that to schools.”
I just shook my head sadly, but he had brightened. “I’m going to write my representatives and senators,” he said. “I’ll use the school analogy. Surely they will see the point.”
He walked off with that look of hope mixed with fear and suppressed
anger that I, a teacher, see in the mirror so often lately.

You, the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason. I’ve spent the better part of today working on domain hosting and reconfiguration of the blog…so forth, and such. I ran across a recommendation for godaddy.com. Eheh. Ease of use…Rate 4. Customer service…Rate 8. Features….Rate 2. Why bother? I wanted to move away from blogspot, and have my compchaos blog available to me when at school because the filter nazi blocks all blogspots. This was an adventure…and wasted hours of my life that I will never see again. I have learned that the shade of green on my side of the web is just fine for now.

sad…but almost funny.

All day my students have been asking…”Ms. Ummmm, when’s our zam nn her?” I don’t know, get back to work. “Ms. Ummmmm, when we gettin a study guide?” The Monday before exams start get back to work. ALL day! It was getting annoying. Geeeeesh! Glad they actually care but why are they worrying about it? We have a whole other week! Ummm. errrrr. oops. 7th period I was informed that their class exam was next Thursday. WHAT! uh-oh. oops.

OK, I goofed. I thought we had a WHOLE week before exams started AND that they started on Wednesday like usual. Guess what! Next week, and they start Tuesday. So my kids need a guide tomorrow! I could pull an old exam, but I hate doing that. We’ve covered things differently this semester and we aren’t in the exact same spot soooo I really should make a new one. Um, I really should be making a new one…not blogging. It’s in the works…off to finish. Sorry, no TT today. wait!!!!

yes Thursday 13:

As part of my historiography class during graduate study I was required to interview a historian and present a paper detailing his writings and life. I figure if I am going to have to do this, I might as well go straight to the top. I selected James McPherson. Speaking with such a respected historian is a highlight of my educational and professional career.

“Beyond Academia: The Writing of James M. McPherson”

Recently retired, James McPherson taught at Princeton University for forty years. He became a full professor in 1972, an Edwards Professor of American History in 1982, and in 1986, he was the George Henry Davis Professor of history. In January 2000, McPherson was named the 2000 Jefferson Lecturer in the Humanities. He is an active member of various organizations, including: American Historical Association (President, 2003), Organization of American Historians, Southern Historical Association, American Philosophical Association, and Society of American Historians. McPherson is also actively involved in the preservation of historical sites. It is McPherson?s belief that it is important to connect with the past and get a sense of the people who lived it. McPherson explains one of the best ways to learn is to visit the connections to our past, the sites, and feel their importance while there; losing them, means losing a connection to our past.

The oldest of seven children, James McPherson chose to attend a small liberal arts college close to home, Gustavus Adolphus College. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, in 1958. From there, he attended Johns Hopkins for graduate study, receiving his Ph.D. in 1963. McPherson chose Johns Hopkins because of influential 20^th Century historian, C. Vann Woodward, who was there at the time. He does not describe Woodward as a charismatic person, but feels he was guided by Woodward?s example and achievements. McPherson chose history as a preferred field of study after being mentally challenged in an introductory Western Civilizations class at Gustavus Adolphus College. He narrowed his concentration and research area of study in American history, while at Johns Hopkins, to the period 1830 to 1877. According to McPherson, Woodward had the ability to write for both a general and scholarly audience. McPherson has this same appeal and credits this to Woodward?s influence.

Initially, McPherson?s only goal was to write works acceptable to other historians. Eventually, he developed the desire to write about subjects with a broad interest to lay readers. At first, McPherson selected topics by interest, which included the politics of Reconstruction, at both the National level and the South. He concentrated much research in the area of Alabama abolitionists and the antislavery movement. McPherson?s interest in the Reconstruction era developed at a period of civil strife in American history, the Civil Rights Movement during the years 1958-1962. McPherson feels this period influenced his studies of abolitionists, which he regards as early activists for types of civil rights. He began researching the abolitionist role in Reconstruction and brought together antebellum and post bellum actions of abolitionists, with the Civil War bridging the two. It was this connection influencing his Civil War interest. His doctoral dissertation on the abolitionist?s role became his first book. After his dissertation, his interests shifted into the abolitionist role at the turn of the century and into the next generation. As he developed as an accepted historian, colleagues and publishers came to him. This led to an editor suggesting a book about abolitionism since there was not much information available at the time. Eventually, Woodward approached him to write a work that would become McPherson?s most famous work, Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom.

Battle Cry of Freedom and other McPherson works have a wide appeal among lay readers. According to McPherson, there is a fear of popularization of history among professional historians. This fear stems from the desire to remain academically innovative and specialized. In the specialization process, McPherson declares academic historians write works that are either ?unintelligible or uninteresting to a broad lay audience?.[i] McPherson attempts to write in such a way that his work comes across clearly and interestingly to the laymen and professional historians. He is concerned about the narrative appeal of his work, but also wants that work to disclose something important. It may be difficult to do both, but McPherson feels it is important to include narrative and interpretation in a manner appealing to all readers. Where colleagues are interested in his interpretation and analysis the lay reader is interested in a good story, but may gain insight from the analysis as well.

In Battle Cry of Freedom, McPherson broadened his appeal beyond academia and attracted a popular audience without losing professional credibility. The work that would become McPherson?s most acclaimed came about by the ideas of C. Van Woodward and Richard Hofstetter to create an Oxford History of the United States, modeled after the Oxford History of England. It would be a series of volumes, each written by a different historian. The project began in the mid-1970s with McPherson asked to cover the post Civil War Era. When the writer for the Antebellum and Civil War period fell ill McPherson switched periods. As a result, Battle Cry of Freedom came out in 1988. Michael Johnson describes the work as a bottom up account, unsurpassed as a wartime narrative evaluating political and military aspects. He continues in complimenting McPherson?s style as finely crafted and plainly written.[ii] Although most reviews are positive, not all are glowing.

Brian Wills states, McPherson tends to allow sympathy to cloud analysis and determines the title selection is partial evidence for bias. Wills further cites occasions of lost battles where the Union failed to fire on advancing Confederates and describes bias regarding McPherson?s greater attention to Southern prisons than to those of the North. Regarding them, Wills states McPherson offers little substantiating evidence that neither the North nor South should take pride regarding treatment of prisoners during the Civil War.[iii] Wills? negative analysis is with little foundation. To begin with, McPherson?s title is based upon ?Battle Cry of Freedom,? a popular song in both Confederate and Union camps. The words sung were different, but the tune was the same. Both sides saw themselves fighting for freedom, but both had different ideas when defining freedom. Stating that McPherson offers little substantiating evidence regarding unacceptable prisoner treatment by both sides is absurd. Civil War prisons were notorious for unsanitary and despicable conditions. This is clearly addressed by McPherson by his inclusion of other northern prisons such as Elmira. In addition, including more attention to the southern prison, Andersonville, is not showing bias as much as it is highlighting the obvious enormity of the most notorious prison of the Civil War. The death statistics of all prisons is enough substantiating evidence that neither the Confederacy not the Union had room to take pride in prisoner treatment. Wills eventually backtracks and declares Battle Cry of Freedom a skillful, rich, and colorful account of the Civil War period.

In contrast to reviewers who criticize McPherson for obvious bias, James Mohr describes the author as being on ?all sides of several historiographical disputes? due to the inclusion of several monographic works spanning fifteen years in Ordeal by Fire. Some such works are contradictory with interpretive inconsistencies. Mohr praises McPherson?s ability to manage the works into a coexisting and coherent narrative.[iv] Charles Royster describes the work as an excellent, well researched, and unified synthesis of the Civil War, which offers judicious conclusions and scholarship.[v] Excellence, thorough, and appealing are various words used to describe other McPherson works.

In What They Fought For, McPherson determines ideology as the motivating factor for Civil War soldiers. Most often Confederate reasons were patriotism, liberty, self-government, constitutional rights, and resistance to tyranny. Michael Barton declares McPherson as well researched, but lacking in the display of methodology regarding thesis development. Barton feels the lecture series is lacking in comparative analysis with such studies as soldier?s values by Earl Hess and others, as well as comparisons with systematic studies by Joseph Allen Frank, Peter Maslovki, and himself.[vi] The review would present more merit worthy had he not included himself in necessary comparisons.

In an online review of For Cause and Comrades, McPherson feels the Confederate/Union representation of his work may portray as unbalanced. McPherson believes the Confederates, which he states makes up only twenty-nine percent of the three million men who fought, is proportionally over represented. He used letters and diaries from 429 Confederate soldiers and 647 Union. McPherson argues his work is representative of the average soldiers with respect to other factors such as age, marital status, geographical distribution, and service branch. However, he does accept disproportionality with regard to African Americans and white-collar workers in the Union sample. In the Confederate sample, non-slaveholders are underrepresented, whereas officers of both armies are over represented.[vii]

McPherson also questions whether or not some issues are left unresolved and if additional insight and depth could be gained by using memoirs as well as letters and diaries.[viii] McPherson?s purpose in For Cause and Comrades was to determine the motivations of the men who fought for both sides. To determine this type of motivation it is highly relevant to rely heavily upon the immediate feelings and responses conveyed in 2500 letters and 249 diaries instead of memoirs laced with hindsight. Regardless of representation of specific types of soldiers, McPherson argues political ideals mattered most. Both sides, Union and Confederate, viewed their cause as virtuous. McPherson?s For Cause and Comrades is characterized by conciseness and balance, and a masterful synthesis adding to an under researched aspect of American history.

John Benson uses the same description, concise and clear, to describe Crossroads of Freedom. In this work, McPherson attempts to examine the affect of Antietam in the context of the overall war and looks at contemporary military, political, and moral issues. Jonathan Yardley reviews the work as a vivid and seamless narrative. Referring to the contrasting depth of Battle Cry of Freedom and Crossroads of Freedom, he declares McPherson a ?master of the miniature as well as the panorama.? Where the previous work is extensive and delves deep on the causes and aspects of the Civil War, the latter work is an economic and concise look at Antietam.[ix] Terry Harle declares the book as ?faithful to historical scholarship, and readable by lay men.? It is a work characteristic of McPherson as he attends to detail without overwhelming the public with jargon. [x]

In McPherson?s opinion, the Civil War contains prominent figures that are larger than life. Generals such as Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant are familiar names and stand out to the lay reader as the generals who made the Civil War with their expert command. This is part of the continued fascination of the war as well as the crucial importance of the Civil War and it?s shaping of society. The continuing relevance is what continues fascination. The nation was preserved as one despite risk that the Confederacy could succeed and set a precedent for separation. Despite the Confederate loss, a precedent was set. McPherson states, ?Even though the war resolved the issues of Union and slavery, it didn?t entirely resolve the issues that underlay those two questions.?[xi] American society today still deals with regionalism and the issue of government power and its role. The Civil War resulted in the abolition of slavery and determined the future of a developing industrialized, multicultural society, of which in lays the attraction of the era. Others are merely interested because it makes a good story. Those interested in a good story need to realize the meaning. To engage people and encourage the realization of meaning it is important to have a good narrative.

Due to his appeal amidst the scholarly and public realm and ability to write a good narrative and analysis, McPherson is considered the preeminent living expert on the Civil War era. He humbly declares there are many in the field of history that writes good history, but it is satisfying to be complimented in such a way. He believes teaching and research are complimentary to each other and contribute to his writing appeal. His classroom experiences of conveying information and ideas to students and his experience in a variety of teaching settings have developed his ability to write for a broad audience. By writing in a style of public appeal, he builds awareness to the importance of historic preservation.

McPherson hopes to use his appeal and influence to increase historical awareness and professional respect for popular history as well as encourage colleagues to write more for a broad readership excluding traditional jargon. McPherson?s broad appeal is obvious when examining the varied works of McPherson. His repertoire includes works from Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom, consultant on films such as Gettysburg, accompanying writings to paintings by Mort Kunstler in Images of the Civil War, many articles and essays, and children?s nonfiction books created for an audience of twelve to fifteen year olds. It is important for scholars to make available accurate works, understandable and appealing, to lay readers. McPherson?s ability is necessary due to hunger for history among the popular audiences. He determines they will get information they desire from whatever sources are available therefore it is imperative to offer valid sources.

footnotes available upon request.