Don't open your mouth while you ride your bike you might swallow a bug
I am highly frustrated. As a social relations major I need to take a certain class as a junior called social policy. It was being offered in the spring by my favorite james madison professor anna peggler-gordon. I had signed up to take it with her and we were both excited about it. (i'm also in her asian american history class this fall, that should show you how much I like her)
Somehow, someway, sometime, someone switched the professor to someone else. I will not say this woman's name but she is a horrible professor. She lets her emotions get in the way of her historical analyses. I had her as one of the professors in the immigration class's honors option on high school history textbooks (a topic i am very interested in). I was giving a brief presentation on high school history books where I showcased how authors looked at native americans in each third of the century. The first they looked at them with optimism and as a people worthy of study, second civil rights kicked in, third the pc age of studying the native american culture and white wrongs.
in the first portion I selected a quote from David S. Muzzey's (one of the foremost american historians of his day) 1901 book, "It is my hope that Indians will make the most of the governmental grants and become productive members of society."
After my presentation was over, i was looking down at my papers, and when I looked up I was shocked to notice this professor two inches away from me, saying, "I completely disagree with you..." and she then just continued to glare. "what do you disagree with?" I remarked.
"Calling Muzzey's comments optimistic? It is racist, and I am appalled to hear comments like that and to know they were in textbooks." Rather then continue the argument, I did need to move on to discuss something with Anna and leave my dad was waiting for me it was Easter.
But, this woman made the two great historical analysis mistakes. 1. not being objective, 2. criticizing authors of the past for what we know today.
Remember Muzzey wrote in 1901, this was a good 35 years before FDR changed the American governmental system by offering grants and welfare etc. Before this, governmental grants were extremely rare and the native americans represented one of the only cases of such a policy. Thus, this was his marker for believeing they were not productive members of society (if they were productive, why would they need grants from the government?)
Secondly, as Muzzey explained further in the paragraph, anthropological studies of his day focused on the traditions of native Americans (they didn't work in factories, didnt do the jobs whites or even asians or blacks did) thus they didn't seem productive to him, they were usually into agriculture.
Lastly, any historian who has read primary sources knows that writing was more flowery from the renaissance to the 1960s. Writers, especially one like Muzzey, who was writing to high school students, did not write with sarcasm (read: writing like a complete dickhead). He knew his audience and probably did not want to perpetuate any hatred towards Native Americans (whom he called Indians because this was prior to the coinage of the term Native Americans).
Yet, she took none of these historical factors into account, she did not contextualize the writing. Simply that it was racist and outdated. I cannot have a woman like that teach me social policy. Because it's a cop-out to go back and criticize dead people for believing what science and popular culture led them to believe. Why not go back and call Greeks dumbasses for not understanding electricity?
Unfortunately, the only other professor offering the class is a man who is said to be "highly unorganized, not good at connecting with students." But, he's better than that idiot, who is said to play favorites with women.
Somehow, someway, sometime, someone switched the professor to someone else. I will not say this woman's name but she is a horrible professor. She lets her emotions get in the way of her historical analyses. I had her as one of the professors in the immigration class's honors option on high school history textbooks (a topic i am very interested in). I was giving a brief presentation on high school history books where I showcased how authors looked at native americans in each third of the century. The first they looked at them with optimism and as a people worthy of study, second civil rights kicked in, third the pc age of studying the native american culture and white wrongs.
in the first portion I selected a quote from David S. Muzzey's (one of the foremost american historians of his day) 1901 book, "It is my hope that Indians will make the most of the governmental grants and become productive members of society."
After my presentation was over, i was looking down at my papers, and when I looked up I was shocked to notice this professor two inches away from me, saying, "I completely disagree with you..." and she then just continued to glare. "what do you disagree with?" I remarked.
"Calling Muzzey's comments optimistic? It is racist, and I am appalled to hear comments like that and to know they were in textbooks." Rather then continue the argument, I did need to move on to discuss something with Anna and leave my dad was waiting for me it was Easter.
But, this woman made the two great historical analysis mistakes. 1. not being objective, 2. criticizing authors of the past for what we know today.
Remember Muzzey wrote in 1901, this was a good 35 years before FDR changed the American governmental system by offering grants and welfare etc. Before this, governmental grants were extremely rare and the native americans represented one of the only cases of such a policy. Thus, this was his marker for believeing they were not productive members of society (if they were productive, why would they need grants from the government?)
Secondly, as Muzzey explained further in the paragraph, anthropological studies of his day focused on the traditions of native Americans (they didn't work in factories, didnt do the jobs whites or even asians or blacks did) thus they didn't seem productive to him, they were usually into agriculture.
Lastly, any historian who has read primary sources knows that writing was more flowery from the renaissance to the 1960s. Writers, especially one like Muzzey, who was writing to high school students, did not write with sarcasm (read: writing like a complete dickhead). He knew his audience and probably did not want to perpetuate any hatred towards Native Americans (whom he called Indians because this was prior to the coinage of the term Native Americans).
Yet, she took none of these historical factors into account, she did not contextualize the writing. Simply that it was racist and outdated. I cannot have a woman like that teach me social policy. Because it's a cop-out to go back and criticize dead people for believing what science and popular culture led them to believe. Why not go back and call Greeks dumbasses for not understanding electricity?
Unfortunately, the only other professor offering the class is a man who is said to be "highly unorganized, not good at connecting with students." But, he's better than that idiot, who is said to play favorites with women.