Now that I have you, this review is going to be about the role of blacks...in the American Civil War. It was first aired on NPR today and I picked up the webpage for this blogpost.
The original radio segment and subsequent article points out two glaring gaps in the American depth of knowledge. This first is of the role of African Americans in the Civil War (though I disagree), but the second is both deeper and grander at the same time. The second fault of this shows the lack of understanding about American History as a subject in the American mind.
I feel as though Mr. Coates is somewhat mistaken when he denotes that the role of blacks in the Civil War is underplayed or forgotten. He obliviously has not taught American history at the high school level in several years (if ever) and has fallen prey to what is common amongst the ivory towers of academia. Thinking "what are they teaching down there?" is common in colleges and one cannot fault Mr. Coates too terribly much for asking that. We (high school history teachers) teach the Civil War, and if memory serves, we teach the roles of blacks in the Civil War. It is infused in the standards (which one might argue show a need for standards), written in the fiber of the texts that we use, and is intelligently thought about by students and teachers alike. In my history classes we showed GLORY, spoke of the 54th Massachusetts, and talked deeply about the effects that slavery had on the war. We talked about the roles freed men and women had on the abolition movement, the war on the home front and even the effects former slave did/ could have on the battlefield. In at least some senses I felt as though Mr. Coates had somewhat of chip on his shoulder about his perceived lack of interest. Should I have been in his shoes I would be better encouraged by the fact that school children are learning about my history than counting the number of statues on a battlefield.
In addition, Mr. Coates (in the radio interview) demonstrated a slight ignorance about facts regarding Stonewall Jackson and his ownership of slaves. While Jackson did own slaves, and never breached the slave/owner divide, he did teach them to read, held church services under his tutelage and never had more than three his entire life. Also as a man you deplored the physical violence; there is no record of him ever beating his slaves as was the practice of some slave holders. Yes he still owned another human being, but he did so in the best manner possible. Mr. Coates' comment about GODS AND GENERALS portrayal of "devoted slaves" misses the point to a broad degree. My impression is, Jackson's slaves remain loyal to him because they recognized the opportunities afforded to them as opposed to other options. They might well have faked a love for the man but they did so well.
Mr. Coates has an argument about the lack of knowledge of blacks in the Civil War. It is on that point I can passively agree with Mr. Coates, but I think his frustrations might best be aimed at the big picture. Of coarse his little picture arguments might better be solved if he were to climb down from his lofty tower and experience real teaching for a change.
So, was this not the article you thought you would read judging by the title? If it wasn't, leave me a comment, and let me know what you thought. Did you expect this? Did you think I was going to blast off with some tyrant? This goes for any of my articles as well. If you like what you read, let me know. If you dislike it really let me know. I would love to start up a debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment