Today, all but 2 of my students left intro #history class for #Palestine walkout. I excused them but noted 2 ironies:
1) They were engaging in a symbolic activity instead of studying #AfricanAmericans & #racism during #WWII
2) They had not known names of US #CivilRights icons A. Philip Randolph, Thurgood Marshall, Mary McLeod Bethune, Marianne Anderson--yet presumed to understand the intricacies of one of the most tragic & intractable conflicts on earth
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I of course understand that students empathize with #Palestinians in #Gaza. Who, after, all, would not be moved by the tragic scenes?
My questions derived simply from what we have been studying about the complexity of evidence, sources, & nuance that undergird historical understanding:
- @AHAHistorians https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/tuning-the-history-discipline/2016-history-discipline-core
- Sam Wineburg on historical thinking https://profiles.stanford.edu/samuel-wineburg
How are students & citizens to navigate today's polarized information world?
@CitizenWald @AHAHistorians @histodons
I certainly understand both, why not learn more on all these topics and the drive to have involvement in expression about current events.
@NovaSynchron @CitizenWald @AHAHistorians @histodons might be a very insightful discussion for the class, especially if both sides are able to document their arguments well
@mapto @NovaSynchron @AHAHistorians @histodons
Well, that's what I would hope (as this is a course about historical thinking): #EverythingHasAHistory: get students to learn about origins, compare perspectives, documents, evidence; understand nuance, develop empathy [https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/tuning-the-history-discipline/2016-history-discipline-core].
It's less about what they believe (that's up to them) than about being able to explain why they believe it, citing their evidence; learning why others may read that evidence differently. It's what we do.