Angelica Chavez did not care for American history when she was in high school as, “You knew America was going to win,” she said. “We could do no wrong, ever,” she was quoted as saying in this article. Chavez, 29, is today a history teacher and was one of 20 instructors to receive free copies of Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” (For more on Zinn see, here, here, and here) from the Teaching for Change, Rethinking Schools, and the Zinn Education Project. Chavez, apparently “like many critics of traditional history books, that U.S. history is told solely from the perspective of the controlling class” (quote from the article). Therefore we need publications such as Zinn’s book(s) to balance the bias of history textbooks. I’m not sure what books Chavez is speaking of, but the vast (and I mean vast) majority of AP and regular History books I get sample copies of are very liberal in their representation (and presentation) of every minority group and of all the ill American’s have wreaked on the world (Slavery, Internment Camps, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ect.) So how there is still a need for some “context” of the kind Chavez means is beyond me. The context should be in every area, frankly. Chavez will be using a set of Zinn’s books this Fall to get kids, as she sees it, interested in American history by providing “context” that simply is a fallacy. I hope she counter-balances Zinn’s book with other materials? But don’t worry, Chavez stated that, “I would say I do a really good job of that because I don’t preach at my students.” Sorry, but Zinn’s book is all about bias, preaching and activism and not about good, honest history.
I have no doubt that Chavez has a passion for American history and feels she is doing what is best for her students. However, I use parts of Zinn’s book as a supplement and a discussion starter, not as the primary reading day in and day out. My concern is that her classroom will not be balanced no matter how good at not “preaching” she feels she is. I cannot help but wonder, where does the success of America fit in: the Founding of the Country and the spread of Republicanism, her contributions to ending World Wars and to defending the free world, ect.? Is it ok that America wins once in a while and can be viewed as a great place with great history and traditions? I seriously question whether or not any of this makes it into a lot of classrooms along with Howard Zinn’s biased presentation of American history.
In another article I found, title “Local history teacher brings the Zinn Education Project to the classroom,” History teacher Jeff Matlock is all about getting Zinn in the classroom. Matlock seems to use Zinn’s book far more effectively as he counters it with other materials, so kudos to him. He also has similar concerns about textbooks that I do when he said, ““The approved list of textbooks consists of books that are so wiped clean by the Left and the Right so as not to offend anybody, that it’s just a lot of pictures, a lot of color, a lot of bold face, and hardly any meat.” Not sure how much the Right is involved (though recently in Texas we have seen a swing), but whatever he makes a valid point.
