Socialization: Another one of those terms tossed around, debated, and assumed to be something "for good", often without any definition. Well, my training in philosophy will not allow me to discuss a term without first defining it. So, here goes.
"Socialization, also spelled socialisation, is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society." (Wikipedia.org)
I like this definition because it mentions a lifelong process. Socialization starts from the moment a child is born and introduced to others in a society. That society can be initially as small as a family unit. They gradually learn the routines and patterns of that unit. They then branch out to larger units and continue to grow. My difficulty arises when a person is introduced to a unit which has little or no reference to the society in which the child will eventually have to participate. Let me give an extreme example. Children born in war-torn countries without any stability may not learn the skills of participating in a peacetime society. This has proven to be a significant problem in several parts of the world. So it is important that children learn the skills and habits which will help them to succeed in the world they will inhabit at adulthood.
The most common use of the world "socialization", at least from my perspective of education, is in reference to homeschooling. Parents seeking to homeschool teenagers are warned that the children might not learn to socialize. This is based on the assumption that public high schools are microcosms of the adult world. Let us examine that assumption.
Public School (PS): All members, with a few exceptions (teachers and administrators) are born within a few years of each other.
Real World (RW): Multi-generational and multi-aged in almost all sectors, private and professional.
PS: Members are grouped by age.
RW: Members are grouped by common interest.
PS: There is one dominant culture and all students are pressured into participating or being marginalized.
RW: There are a multitude of cultures (social, professional, athletic) and members select the groups
PS: Members develop special language, habits, customs that are only relevant within that specific culture and are often contrary to the customs of the larger world.
RW: Different habits and customs are developed within the context of participating in the larger world, or not, if that is the preference.
Okay, so my bias is definitely making itself known and perhaps I am not being entirely fair. After all, students still join other groups and have home lives. My point is that high school is not the place to learn social skills. Those are better learned by participating in the real world. I will not repeat what has been said before about the socialization skills of homeschooled children. This is a topic which keeps repeatedly raising its head, even though it has been answered numerous times. To read some of those answers I refer you to the following link : http://ontariohomeschool.org/socialization/
Children will socialize just fine. They don't need to attend a public school to do so. In fact, they will learn better socializing skills by visiting their grandparents or helping a neighbour rake the yard. For anyone who confuses socialization with the ability to be popular, you might want to read the following report from Time. (Especially the part about "popular" kids!)
http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/18/does-high-school-determine-the-rest-of-your-life/
I am not against children attending public high schools but send them for academic reasons, not because they will learn social skills to help them later in life. You're looking in the wrong place.
Musings on the roles and purposes of education in modern society
Thursday, 21 May 2015
To do or to just think about it
Theory or practice. If we get stuck in theory then nothing ever happens. If we make the bold move to putting theory into practice then we risk disillusionment. Particularly if we are dealing with a huge immovable bureaucracy. This is my dilemma.
For years I have read about education reform. I even did my Masters of Education hoping to find insight into the area. I have thought extensively about how education should be. I have even taught in my own school in this fashion and have tweaked and polished my theories. I think they are valid. I think they have merit. But what does it matter if they are not applied on a larger scale.
My theories are simple:
1) All humans are learning creatures.
2) The mind must be engaged in order to learn.
These are, to me, rather obvious. Give anyone the opportunity to learn something they love and the job of the teacher becomes the job of the mentor. A mentor guides, assists, encourages. That is the job of the teacher.
I applied this at my little school. I still apply this to my students who come to my house. It works. They learn. I guide. We have fun and education is achieved.
So to that extent I apply my theories. But what about the thousands of children stuck in an antiquated behemoth of the public education system. They are not learning, largely because they are not engaged. Hours, days, and years of boredom are destroying any desire to learn. Time and youth are wasted. Teachers prepare lessons for non-existing standardized children. Even those children who find morsels of information in this wasteland achieve a tiny fraction of what they could. We are destroying them and our future. Parents know this. Children know this. And, above all, teachers know this. But no one does anything. Because that antiquated behemoth rolls over anyone who suggests that it is destructive and should be destroyed.
So I ask the question that all reformers must ask: Is it worth dying for? Literally, probably not. But do I give my time, my energy, my passion to pit my little, tiny David against that Goliath? The immediate response is that to do anything else is cowardice. But where is my slingshot? How do I find a chink in the armor?
The answer surely lies in getting other Davids together. There are so many out there, each choosing their rocks. There is a tendency to want to create another Goliath to make this a fair fight. If we can get enough people invested in taking down the beast, it might work. Except that we might just replace it with another monster. It is not the monster that we need to change but the very ground that it walks upon. As long as we base any educational model on a business model, we are doomed to failure. There are no best practices. There are no products or methods that work for all children. We need to stop looking out there for the perfect way to teach. We need, each teacher, that is, to look at the children right in front of us each day and guide them.
Parents do not teach their children to walk. The children learn that all by themselves. They provide a safe, conducive learning space and let the children figure it out. That is the first school. That should be the premise for all schools.
Coming next: The blueprint for educational spaces
For years I have read about education reform. I even did my Masters of Education hoping to find insight into the area. I have thought extensively about how education should be. I have even taught in my own school in this fashion and have tweaked and polished my theories. I think they are valid. I think they have merit. But what does it matter if they are not applied on a larger scale.
My theories are simple:
1) All humans are learning creatures.
2) The mind must be engaged in order to learn.
These are, to me, rather obvious. Give anyone the opportunity to learn something they love and the job of the teacher becomes the job of the mentor. A mentor guides, assists, encourages. That is the job of the teacher.
I applied this at my little school. I still apply this to my students who come to my house. It works. They learn. I guide. We have fun and education is achieved.
So to that extent I apply my theories. But what about the thousands of children stuck in an antiquated behemoth of the public education system. They are not learning, largely because they are not engaged. Hours, days, and years of boredom are destroying any desire to learn. Time and youth are wasted. Teachers prepare lessons for non-existing standardized children. Even those children who find morsels of information in this wasteland achieve a tiny fraction of what they could. We are destroying them and our future. Parents know this. Children know this. And, above all, teachers know this. But no one does anything. Because that antiquated behemoth rolls over anyone who suggests that it is destructive and should be destroyed.
So I ask the question that all reformers must ask: Is it worth dying for? Literally, probably not. But do I give my time, my energy, my passion to pit my little, tiny David against that Goliath? The immediate response is that to do anything else is cowardice. But where is my slingshot? How do I find a chink in the armor?
The answer surely lies in getting other Davids together. There are so many out there, each choosing their rocks. There is a tendency to want to create another Goliath to make this a fair fight. If we can get enough people invested in taking down the beast, it might work. Except that we might just replace it with another monster. It is not the monster that we need to change but the very ground that it walks upon. As long as we base any educational model on a business model, we are doomed to failure. There are no best practices. There are no products or methods that work for all children. We need to stop looking out there for the perfect way to teach. We need, each teacher, that is, to look at the children right in front of us each day and guide them.
Parents do not teach their children to walk. The children learn that all by themselves. They provide a safe, conducive learning space and let the children figure it out. That is the first school. That should be the premise for all schools.
Coming next: The blueprint for educational spaces
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
The dangers of the Comfort Zones
Boxes. We all have them. They are also called comfort zones. They are ways of looking at the world that are comfortable to us. Perhaps one box deals with relationships. In that we put our ideas of friendship, marriage, parent/child. Another box deals with work - ideas of productive activities, financial security, working towards retirement. Many of these ideas come from others. We get ideas from parents, school, friends, mentors, media. They become ours either because we have considered them and agree or because we have had no reason to question them because they work. However we arrive at these ideas, they give us comfort.
The fascinating paradox about boxes is that some will stay in them even when they don't work. When they see that the box not what they wanted. When they complain about the results. They still don't step out of the box. They somehow think they are better complaining about a broken box than risking the unknown involved with building a new box.
People will stay in an unsatisfactory job rather than launch into a new venture which might be financially, status-wise, egotistically risky. They will conform to standards with which they don't agree. They will keep their children in the same school system even when the children hate it and are failing. Just how uncomfortable does a box have to get before people will go out of the box?
If something is not working, change it. Don't complain, don't accept, don't blog. Change it. Out of the box is much less frightening than most people think and infinitely more rewarding. Try it!
*****
So far I have been speaking generally but I do have a specific box in mind. The Education Box. This box is highly structured. All children enter at a specific age (4,5,or 6 or whatever the local school board determines). All children are classed together by age. They attend school for specific hours Monday to Friday between September and June. There they will be taught lessons by a qualified teacher in a systematic way, separated by grade and subject. Their learning will be assessed by an objective standard. They will remain in school until they are able to take their places as adults in the outside world. This has been the public school system for a long time. And it sounds great. We teach them how to be adults in the real world. Except that it doesn't work. And it hasn't worked for a long time.
If we take these pieces of structure one at a time we can see that it is doomed to failure. Real life does not categorize people according to age. In jobs people are sorted by ability. In social groups people sort by interest. Learning takes place continuously, not just 8 am to 3 pm on weekdays. If these hours are intended to teach children that misery has these hours and play is only after misery, then I guess we have prepared them for miserable careers. Is that what we want? Why can't we play all the time - both kids and adults? People who love their jobs do it. Play does not equal irresponsibility. Play is not a waste of time. Perhaps it is the boring job that is the waste - of both time and potential. The objective standard has fish being graded on how well they climb trees (in that popular FB post). And lastly, life is not separated into subjects. We all need the creativity of the arts, the precision of mathematics, the communication skills of language, the perspective of history. And we need it all together for each situation.
It is time to rethink our education system from top to bottom. What is the goal of education and how best to get there. Stay tuned because I have a few ideas!
The fascinating paradox about boxes is that some will stay in them even when they don't work. When they see that the box not what they wanted. When they complain about the results. They still don't step out of the box. They somehow think they are better complaining about a broken box than risking the unknown involved with building a new box.
People will stay in an unsatisfactory job rather than launch into a new venture which might be financially, status-wise, egotistically risky. They will conform to standards with which they don't agree. They will keep their children in the same school system even when the children hate it and are failing. Just how uncomfortable does a box have to get before people will go out of the box?
If something is not working, change it. Don't complain, don't accept, don't blog. Change it. Out of the box is much less frightening than most people think and infinitely more rewarding. Try it!
*****
So far I have been speaking generally but I do have a specific box in mind. The Education Box. This box is highly structured. All children enter at a specific age (4,5,or 6 or whatever the local school board determines). All children are classed together by age. They attend school for specific hours Monday to Friday between September and June. There they will be taught lessons by a qualified teacher in a systematic way, separated by grade and subject. Their learning will be assessed by an objective standard. They will remain in school until they are able to take their places as adults in the outside world. This has been the public school system for a long time. And it sounds great. We teach them how to be adults in the real world. Except that it doesn't work. And it hasn't worked for a long time.
If we take these pieces of structure one at a time we can see that it is doomed to failure. Real life does not categorize people according to age. In jobs people are sorted by ability. In social groups people sort by interest. Learning takes place continuously, not just 8 am to 3 pm on weekdays. If these hours are intended to teach children that misery has these hours and play is only after misery, then I guess we have prepared them for miserable careers. Is that what we want? Why can't we play all the time - both kids and adults? People who love their jobs do it. Play does not equal irresponsibility. Play is not a waste of time. Perhaps it is the boring job that is the waste - of both time and potential. The objective standard has fish being graded on how well they climb trees (in that popular FB post). And lastly, life is not separated into subjects. We all need the creativity of the arts, the precision of mathematics, the communication skills of language, the perspective of history. And we need it all together for each situation.
It is time to rethink our education system from top to bottom. What is the goal of education and how best to get there. Stay tuned because I have a few ideas!
Monday, 19 January 2015
Back at it!
It has been a few years since I last posted a blog. I used to post as part of my marketing campaign. Not that I ever said anything in my blogs which wasn't 100% true, but the intent was to market the school. So, although my blogs were sincere, they weren't honest.
Many years ago I had a problem to solve. So I found a solution and, sort of as a happy accident, I found a passion. Now I have always had passions and I have been lucky enough to indulge several of them at various time during my life. (To those of you who know me, I am NOT talking about chocolate! That is not a passion but an obsession.) To continue, this passion for teaching led to a dream of a private school to help my community. The pursuit of the dream became all encompassing as my own children spread their wings and no longer needed teaching. The problem that slowly came about was that the dream and the passion were no longer going in the same direction. It took me quite awhile to realize this. I had switched from a passion to teach to a need for the school to grow in order to feel successful. I was striving for something that I didn't really want. The journey had gone astray. I found all my time being taken up with administrating and marketing. There was no time for teaching. And I was not happy nor benefiting anyone. And so I stopped. Very suddenly. I abandoned the school. I stopped going to networking groups. I closed the website. I cancelled all the social media. And I stopped posting any blogs. I pulled into my little cocoon and reassessed my life.
Slowly I re-emerged with the passion firmly grasped in my hands. And now I teach. That is all that I do. And I am ecstatically happy. And ready to post another blog.
Maybe I should have titled this blog "Another Life Lesson Learned". What I have learned is that it is good sometimes, when on our journey, to stop and check to see where we are going and if we still want what awaits us there. So I am back at blogging - because I love to write and because I still have something to say. When I look at my tiny class of students I feel that I am helping. But I know that there is so much more that I can do. So this blog will be the start of my sharing my own experiences and studies to try and improve education for others. The public school system in Ontario is not all that it could be. Maybe I can at least give my informed opinion to anyone who wishes to listen (or read). So I am back at it! Stay turned for more.
Many years ago I had a problem to solve. So I found a solution and, sort of as a happy accident, I found a passion. Now I have always had passions and I have been lucky enough to indulge several of them at various time during my life. (To those of you who know me, I am NOT talking about chocolate! That is not a passion but an obsession.) To continue, this passion for teaching led to a dream of a private school to help my community. The pursuit of the dream became all encompassing as my own children spread their wings and no longer needed teaching. The problem that slowly came about was that the dream and the passion were no longer going in the same direction. It took me quite awhile to realize this. I had switched from a passion to teach to a need for the school to grow in order to feel successful. I was striving for something that I didn't really want. The journey had gone astray. I found all my time being taken up with administrating and marketing. There was no time for teaching. And I was not happy nor benefiting anyone. And so I stopped. Very suddenly. I abandoned the school. I stopped going to networking groups. I closed the website. I cancelled all the social media. And I stopped posting any blogs. I pulled into my little cocoon and reassessed my life.
Slowly I re-emerged with the passion firmly grasped in my hands. And now I teach. That is all that I do. And I am ecstatically happy. And ready to post another blog.
Maybe I should have titled this blog "Another Life Lesson Learned". What I have learned is that it is good sometimes, when on our journey, to stop and check to see where we are going and if we still want what awaits us there. So I am back at blogging - because I love to write and because I still have something to say. When I look at my tiny class of students I feel that I am helping. But I know that there is so much more that I can do. So this blog will be the start of my sharing my own experiences and studies to try and improve education for others. The public school system in Ontario is not all that it could be. Maybe I can at least give my informed opinion to anyone who wishes to listen (or read). So I am back at it! Stay turned for more.
Monday, 10 December 2012
Why Are There So Many Private Schools?
I just read an article that there will be three more private schools opening in the Ottawa area. This has occasioned the usual comments about two tiered learning and schools catering to highly specialized groups. My response? So what. I have news that may come as a shock to some people - rich people have more opportunities than poor. Is this fair? No, but it is a fact.
Shouldn't all children have a right to a good education? Yes, and according to the Education Act, that is precisely what the public school system offers. However, neither the Act nor most of the public can define a good education. That is because we all have our own idea of what a good education entails. Some want what they had. Others don't want their children to go through what they went through. Some want strong academics. Others want applicable, useful skills training. And the public system is supposed to do its best to accommodate all these different goals and ideas.
But, let's be realistic, can one system meet everyone's needs? Can one grocery store offer all kinds of food? Can one hospital specialize in all areas? No. So the society compensates by offering options. And those options are private, because our public system is a huge monopoly that acts more like a big business than a public service. We need to separate the concepts of "a strong public system" and the current public system. I am in support of the former but not the latter.
I wonder at the people who get upset with the existence of private schools. Do they really think that these schools will weaken or diminish the public system? That really doesn't make much sense. If they are only for the wealthy, then only a few will ever attend. The loss of wealthy parents from the local school will have impact only if the parents were happy with the local school. In which case, they have no reason to leave. Unhappy parents do not support that school which is not meeting their needs. And, just in case you have forgotten, parents of children in private school still pay public school taxes. Some claim that the private schools are taking the best and brightest. If this is true, then why aren't the public schools doing something about this? Why aren't they meeting the needs of the best and brightest?
Why are there so many private schools? Because parents are willing to pay for the education they think their children need. If there weren't unsatisfied parents, there wouldn't be private schools. As with all sectors of our economy, there is only a supply when there is a demand.
The increase in number of private schools and homeschooling families should be a wake up call to the public system. Is the alarm loud enough? I hope so. I would love to see my grandchildren get a good education at their local public school.
Don't believe in private schools? Then don't send your children to one. But if you want something different from what the local school is offering, there are options.
Shouldn't all children have a right to a good education? Yes, and according to the Education Act, that is precisely what the public school system offers. However, neither the Act nor most of the public can define a good education. That is because we all have our own idea of what a good education entails. Some want what they had. Others don't want their children to go through what they went through. Some want strong academics. Others want applicable, useful skills training. And the public system is supposed to do its best to accommodate all these different goals and ideas.
But, let's be realistic, can one system meet everyone's needs? Can one grocery store offer all kinds of food? Can one hospital specialize in all areas? No. So the society compensates by offering options. And those options are private, because our public system is a huge monopoly that acts more like a big business than a public service. We need to separate the concepts of "a strong public system" and the current public system. I am in support of the former but not the latter.
I wonder at the people who get upset with the existence of private schools. Do they really think that these schools will weaken or diminish the public system? That really doesn't make much sense. If they are only for the wealthy, then only a few will ever attend. The loss of wealthy parents from the local school will have impact only if the parents were happy with the local school. In which case, they have no reason to leave. Unhappy parents do not support that school which is not meeting their needs. And, just in case you have forgotten, parents of children in private school still pay public school taxes. Some claim that the private schools are taking the best and brightest. If this is true, then why aren't the public schools doing something about this? Why aren't they meeting the needs of the best and brightest?
Why are there so many private schools? Because parents are willing to pay for the education they think their children need. If there weren't unsatisfied parents, there wouldn't be private schools. As with all sectors of our economy, there is only a supply when there is a demand.
The increase in number of private schools and homeschooling families should be a wake up call to the public system. Is the alarm loud enough? I hope so. I would love to see my grandchildren get a good education at their local public school.
Don't believe in private schools? Then don't send your children to one. But if you want something different from what the local school is offering, there are options.
Monday, 3 December 2012
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Every year thousand (more likely hundreds of thousands!) of teenagers sit down with a parent, or a teacher, or a school counselor, and try to figure out what courses to take the next year. And these students are asked "What do you want to be when you grow up?" A few lucky children might actually have an answer but most have no clue.
So what is a student (or parent) to do? The key is to keep as many doors open as possible. Take classes that will lead to many opportunities. If there is really no direction or preferred subject then try a few of these simple tasks.
Without thinking too much, quickly write down three things that you would like to achieve in life. There are no limits except that you have to stay a human and probably live on Earth, although that is becoming unnecessary. Then write down three things you would get if you could have anything in the world. No restrictions. Remember these tasks have nothing to do with reality or being practical. This is pure fantasy land. Next, three things you would like to learn right now. And lastly, three people, living or dead, whom you would like to meet.
Now take your lists and find common factors. With the achievements: are they solitary or in a team? Do they require physical skill, mental skill, both? Are they competitive, collaborative, or a combination? With the things: what is the appeal of each? Do they represent a certain lifestyle? Is that a life based on security (house, family) or adventure (fast car, world trip) or freedom (island holiday)? For learning: are they hidden passions? Would they take you somewhere else? And people to meet: why did you choose them? What do they represent that you admire?
All of these, particularly if done over and over with no repetitions allowed, will start to show you what you would like to do. The trick is to take these clues, explore possibilities that lie in this direction, and make this into a viable career. If you are still wandering, then head in a direction that has a secure future, while keeping your eyes open to other opportunities. Luck is being open to opportunity combined with the courage to go for it.
So, what courses do you take? Mathematics, because almost every career out there needs you to be able to do consecutive steps with precision. English, because communication skills are vital. The best idea in the world is useless if you can't communicate it to someone else. History teaches us our place in the world. How we got to where we are and why others might be in a different place. And science is crucial to understand and examine everything around us. A second language opens up huge vistas of understanding our global community. The words of any language reflect the priorities of that people. Take a broad spectrum, do your absolute best, and keep those eyes open. You will be amazed at what lies out there.
And don't worry about what you will be when you grow up. You'll find out when you get there.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
A Very Tilted History of South America
This week we were studying the Incas. There was a line in the book which really caught my attention. "Because the Incas had not yet invented the wheel, the mountain paths did not have to be very wide." I thought, "Wait a minute, why can't we flip that around? Because the mountain paths were not very wide, the wheel would not have been very useful to the Incas."
It makes me laugh when I hear anyone talk about an unbiased view. Do you have an opinion? Then you have a bias. Are you breathing? Then you have an opinion! And guess what? That opinion is based on several prejudices of which you may not even be aware. We all have basic assumptions given to us by our society, but that is fodder for another blog! Here, just let me clarify that I am not talking about blatantly prejudiced views but more pervasive tiltings which reflect the culture and motivations of the author.
Incan history is particularly fascinating because there are almost no primary sources. They apparently hired professional memorizers (South American version of minstrels and town criers?) so they had no need for written history. Of course, like most history, the memorizers only remembered big events involving important people. After the Spanish arrived it would have taken some time for the Spanish to learn enough language to engage these memorizers, the few that probably were still alive. And the Spanish had to justify their treatment of the Incas by demonstrating that these people were primitive and barbaric. So many filters that the history recorded by the Spanish (the only written history that we have) probably had very little to do with reality.
How many of you have heard the story that the natives, having never seen a horse before, thought that the horse and rider were one creature and were the god incarnate? This was the popular story told to me as a child in school to explain the rapid conquest of the Incan empire. In truth, this is highly unlikely. The Incan Empire rivaled Rome in its sophistication and development. There was a complex bureaucracy, superb road and infrastructure system. Huge cities and a population estimated at around 12 million. Books like to point out that they were technologically backwards, having no wheels, or ships, or writing, or metal tools. The geography precluded wheeled transportation. The only water around was an endless ocean. They could not see islands on the horizon to indicate that there might be purpose to head out to sea. I have explained perhaps why they didn't need writing. Necessity is the driver of invention. If they didn't have metal tools, then they didn't need them. They certainly were proficient at working gold and other metals.
These were highly intelligent and advanced people. They could easily separate a man and a horse. Most likely their isolation and relatively conflict free lifestyle left them vulnerable both to the Spanish weapons and Spanish germs. The truth is we will never know and that is something that I love to read in a history text. How refreshing when the author admits that these are merely probable guesses. Sometimes we can figure out more using our own brains and relying less on the highly coloured accounts of the conquerors.
My point is that, in any history, unless you can examine the primary source yourself, there is a tilt in the account. This is not a bad thing unless it is not acknowledged. The first thing we always do when reading a text is figure out the slant of the writer. What is the purpose of the writer? What world view or paradigm does the writer hold? Are there other criteria that might be in play? For whom is the book written? By any chance, are the publishers trying to make the "Acceptable Curriculum Resource List"? :)
It makes me laugh when I hear anyone talk about an unbiased view. Do you have an opinion? Then you have a bias. Are you breathing? Then you have an opinion! And guess what? That opinion is based on several prejudices of which you may not even be aware. We all have basic assumptions given to us by our society, but that is fodder for another blog! Here, just let me clarify that I am not talking about blatantly prejudiced views but more pervasive tiltings which reflect the culture and motivations of the author.
Incan history is particularly fascinating because there are almost no primary sources. They apparently hired professional memorizers (South American version of minstrels and town criers?) so they had no need for written history. Of course, like most history, the memorizers only remembered big events involving important people. After the Spanish arrived it would have taken some time for the Spanish to learn enough language to engage these memorizers, the few that probably were still alive. And the Spanish had to justify their treatment of the Incas by demonstrating that these people were primitive and barbaric. So many filters that the history recorded by the Spanish (the only written history that we have) probably had very little to do with reality.
How many of you have heard the story that the natives, having never seen a horse before, thought that the horse and rider were one creature and were the god incarnate? This was the popular story told to me as a child in school to explain the rapid conquest of the Incan empire. In truth, this is highly unlikely. The Incan Empire rivaled Rome in its sophistication and development. There was a complex bureaucracy, superb road and infrastructure system. Huge cities and a population estimated at around 12 million. Books like to point out that they were technologically backwards, having no wheels, or ships, or writing, or metal tools. The geography precluded wheeled transportation. The only water around was an endless ocean. They could not see islands on the horizon to indicate that there might be purpose to head out to sea. I have explained perhaps why they didn't need writing. Necessity is the driver of invention. If they didn't have metal tools, then they didn't need them. They certainly were proficient at working gold and other metals.
These were highly intelligent and advanced people. They could easily separate a man and a horse. Most likely their isolation and relatively conflict free lifestyle left them vulnerable both to the Spanish weapons and Spanish germs. The truth is we will never know and that is something that I love to read in a history text. How refreshing when the author admits that these are merely probable guesses. Sometimes we can figure out more using our own brains and relying less on the highly coloured accounts of the conquerors.
My point is that, in any history, unless you can examine the primary source yourself, there is a tilt in the account. This is not a bad thing unless it is not acknowledged. The first thing we always do when reading a text is figure out the slant of the writer. What is the purpose of the writer? What world view or paradigm does the writer hold? Are there other criteria that might be in play? For whom is the book written? By any chance, are the publishers trying to make the "Acceptable Curriculum Resource List"? :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)