|
|
THE OTHER DAY my father and I were discussing the volume of letters recently published in the Free Lance-Star on the Civil War and its impact on our region. This led to a friendly debate of our own--and I was reminded of how very different the War Between the States is presented depending on where you live.
At the age of 33, I've spent the first half of my life living just a few hours from Gettysburg and the last half living in Fredericksburg. Growing up in Pennsylvania, I was taught the Union's point of view, while my adult education in Virginia has focused more on the Confederacy's. Regardless of what "side" you line up on, it should bother all of us that "Rebs and Yanks" living in the same country are being intentionally skewed in their understanding of the Civil War.
In the North, "the Gray" is often portrayed as the bad guys, a bunch of barefoot, slave-owning ingrates. In the South, "the Blue" is often remembered as an evil dictatorship, hell-bent on invasion and the nullification of states' rights.
In many ways both are right, and both are wrong. Now, given the relaxed teaching standards in school's today, imagine what our kids think.
I remember in sixth grade, the Civil War took up months of our history-class curriculum. Today, it seems that many schools are glazing over the conflict in a matter of weeks. Many of the newer textbooks, for example, leave out important events and present what is left over in a very generic and politically correct manner.
This can be partially blamed on teachers who blindly use whatever lesson plan is presented to them from the book-of-the-month club.
Also, parents are at fault--as we often accept this "generic" American history (in abbreviated format) as adequate material for our children's education.
Finally, writers and historians (me included) share the guilt as
School textbooks and lesson plans need to be written for the whole country, not just a part of it. They need to teach both sides of the war factually and equally. And they should not sit on the same shelf as books like mine. Children are an audience that can be easily influenced, and sometimes not
Although there is a time and place for the personalization or editorialization of history, history should (at its most rudimentary level) be presented with a fair and impartial agenda.
A good foundation must be balanced before you can build on it. That foundation starts in the classroom.
Why can't schools on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line simply present data in a clear and concise manner, and allow the individual's opinions to form later, based on a well-rounded education?
Why do we have to either ignore things like they never happened, or rewrite them as we see fit, according to our geographic location?
How do you honestly define the "bad guy" when it was brother against brother?
I don't expect every kid in America to become a Civil War buff or grow up to be a re-enactor--but I would like children to have an opportunity to learn the facts about both sides. This problem is not limited to our area, and it's not limited to the Civil War.
History depends on the recording and presentation of accurate data. Anything else is about as truthful as advertising. Nowadays, our country doesn't seem to get that.
One of the many major issues
MICHAEL AUBRECHT ,of Spotsylvania County, is the author of "On
