Friday Class

  On Friday, we discussed the Meiland book, and one of the questions that came up was whether Meiland’s definition of a college education is applicable in Japan. When Rab mentioned that in the world’s university ranking, only three Japanese universities placed in the top 100’s, I was not too surprised as I often see it in the newspaper or on television. Most of our group agreed that Meiland’s definition of education applied strictly to American colleges. Before I read this, I did a background research on Japanese higher education, and one website displayed the results of questionnaires filled out by Japanese college students. It demonstrated that most students prefer classes that are fundamental (meaning you mostly memorize terms instead of experiments or discussions) and one-way (from teacher to students) which is the exact opposite kind of education Meiland defines. I agree with Meiland about the importance of questioning your teachers and thinking for yourself, but perhaps it is not as easy for that to sink into the Japanese education because of our somewhat shy culture. I think the kind of college thinking Meiland mentions is significant and useful, but I believe it has to be molded a little to fit the standards of Japanese education. At one point, Meiland says, “but the content is not the main point. Much of the content that you are taught in college will be outmoded or discarded anyway in ten or twenty years. Learning intellectual skills and attitudes is far more important” (1-2). However, I believe that memorization to some extent is necessary. I agree that the methods of approaching the particular subject are crucial; however, I think the content is equally important, and I find it difficult to think it will be outdated in around ten years. It is liable to change slightly, and if so, you can constantly update your knowledge as additional facts are discovered.  In my opinion, Japanese education encourages “excessive” memorizing of facts, but they should not be classified as “useless”. A balanced and integrated studying method of memorizing and critical thinking may be what fits the Japanese people.  Still, as Rab said about the Rikkyo University facilities, some Japanese schools are obviously not providing what I believe to be effective and valuable education. 

Lies... Chapter 1

I was astounded to find how adulatory the introduction was. There were only about two paragraphs that mentioned criticism from some readers, so at the point of merely finishing the intro, I felt that his work seemed to plant a mistaken idea in his readers that the contents of history textbooks are all lies whereas in truth, the information is just “inadequate” and they leave out some facts here and there. There is one example where one student says, “if you truly want students to take an interest in American history, then stop lying to them” (intro xii).  However, as I read through the first chapter, his argument that history textbooks are lying to students grew more and more convincing.

 Honestly, when I started reading the first chapter, I was expecting a negative aspect of Helen Keller to be introduced and was relieved when it was not so. I felt this way because like many people feel, Helen Keller is a heroic and exemplary figure to me. As was mentioned in one of the sample blogs, I was fond of the picture book of Helen Keller that I always read. I was also assigned to read a play on Helen Keller in Middle School and was driven to admire her for her determination and courage. However, I cannot recall ANY mention of her being a radical socialist in both works; it was a completely new fact. I think it’s a degradation to Helen Keller that she is known only for her disabilities and how she coped with them, although that itself has inspired countless people to get through hardships. The authors have cut out the not-so-pretty-parts of Helen Keller and pasted it on the textbooks. Maybe at the time, it was outrageous for Helen Keller to be a socialist but what is the purpose of concealing it now? I am perplexed as to the merit of doing such thing.  History should be presented and taught from a neutral point of view instead of “editing” one’s life.

   

I have never studied American history, and this was the first time that I heard of a U.S. president named Woodrow Wilson. I conjectured from the chapter that Wilson is portrayed as a successful U.S. president in American history books, which urged me to recheck my facts about “good” Canadian prime ministers that I learned in history class because they too may have another hidden side. What Wilson did, such as intervening in the affairs of neighbouring countries in the pretense of granting them “self-determination”, is ruthless. His cruel discrimination of African Americans (according to Loewen) is also upsetting since U.S. is a multicultural nation, and I agree with Loewen that students should be exposed to these ugly facts because Wilson should not be illustrated as perfection when he was far from it. It is not fair to the colonized countries of Latin America as their sufferings are being erased by the authors of American textbooks, which they have no right to do so. Surely, the purpose of textbook authors is not to provide students with crooked views of American history?

 I felt sometimes though that Loewen did not exactly present a neutral viewpoint in his explanation of Woodrow Wilson. Instead, he immensely concentrated on revealing the negative sides of the U.S. president, which might just tell some readers to despise Wilson.