You know what really grinds my gears? It grinds my gears that most Social Studies textbooks are not designed to teach students to think like a historian. Instead, students are taught through these required texts that history is merely a collection of facts, dates, and names to be memorized. For example: "What day was the Declaration of Independence signed? Who were signers? How many signers were there?" I say to these questions that there are more important aspects of history. In relation to this example, one of these aspects could be: "What did the political rhetoric found in the Declaration of Independence say about the outside influences of the writers and signers?" While this is only one example, this shallow method of instruction is heavily resultant of the textbooks. Many students have lost the idea that history is pertinent to their lives in the process because textbooks validate the "important" facts to be memorized. One author, Chuck Palahniuk, says it the best in his book Survivor,
“There are only patterns, patterns on top of patterns, patterns that affect other patterns. Patterns hidden by patterns. Patterns within patterns. If you watch close, history does nothing but repeat itself. What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. What we can't read we call gibberish. There is no free will. There are no variables.”
What's more is that in America these very same textbooks are typically written from a perspective of American exceptionalism in which minority histories are often times underexaggerated to showcase the "American" history which turns into a comprehensive white history. The rich histories present amongst groups such as Native Americans, women, and immigrants are either discarded entirely or molded to fit within this exceptionalist point of view. A great example of this can be seen in Native American history. American Indians are often times portrayed as both barbaric and violent people who scalped folks for fun. When in all actuality, most of them were only violent when they were forced to that point. How would you like it if ships of people came to your homeland, started building settlements and declaring land ownership, and gave you smallpox blankets that killed many of your people off? Of course, this is in addition to the battles that were constantly fought. I coincide with the belief that the Native Americans and pilgrims initially had a peaceful relationship, or else they would have killed the newcomers and America may never have been formed. So, who are the barbarians? This goes back to the idea of American exceptionalism where the history Americans are ashamed of are stretched and skewed to fit into a mold. In addition, textbook bias also arises due to textbooks being written and geared towards the largest purchasers which in this case would be Texas because California has now switched to e-textbooks. This means that many textbook publishers will write content that placates the standards Texas sets which everyone knows is highly conservative.
My final gripe with Social Studies textbooks is the lack of relevancy. It is impossible for a history textbook to stay up-to-date because days, weeks, or months can pass, and there would be substantial information to update within the text. This is why I see the extreme importance of technology within the content area of Social Studies. Primary sources are now easily accessible and free to the general public which greatly supplements curriculum and instruction. Often times, textbooks will not include hardly any primary sources at all. This has always confused me because there are so many biases that take place during individual and group research. Why not read primary sources to get an account of someone who was there as opposed to someone who is making assumptions many years later?
And that's what grinds my gears.
