Birthday Post Hal Lebovitz Style

Hal Lebovitz was a sports writer for the News Herald, the local newspaper in the county where I grew up. By the time I began reading him religiously he had been around for decades and wrote for other papers (Cleveland News and Cleveland Plain Dealer) prior to my hometown Herald. But each weekend he had a column where he touched on a number of different topics regarding the Cleveland teams or other worthwhile, interesting tidbits about the sports world at that time. This was a part of my Sundays that I cherished. We would get home from church and I made a mad dash to the Sunday News Herald to see what Hal had to say. My earlier intentions to be a sportswriter for a career stemmed from this experience.

So today I am using his Sunday format to cover a number of topics I have wanted to touch in this blog but haven't had the time to address. I have some serious catching up to do. My birthday present to myself is this post with the Georgia v. Georgia Tech game on to my right and my ipod blasting a variety of favorite tunes to my left.

Here we go....I hope you enjoy and comment on one or more:

My Dark Period
I have been pretty open about my recent downturn in mood and feeling. Mostly it has been despair, sadness and worry. But underneath these emotions there is a lot of anger brewing. I can feel it come out over little things. I explode over things I should brush off. I get easily frustrated and aggravated. I have been examining the reasons why. I am trying to connect the dots and get to the core issue I must be dealing with so I can fix it.

I keep coming back to one point. This point is that I do not stick up for myself. My wife even recognizes it and has mentioned it. She says that by not defending myself I am accepting things as true. I'll be the first to admit I have a problem with confrontation. I hate it. As a result I have taken a lot of emotional punishment without doing anything about it and then internalized it way too much. Then I feel worse about being too much of a coward to stand up and confront my confrontation fear. I think much of my anger may be coming from this.

In the past I have tried to stick up for myself when I felt like I was being pushed around but then I look like a fool because people say I can't take a joke. They say I'm taking things too seriously or I am too emotional or I am overreacting. So the cycle continues and I try to take things as a joke. But then I hear plenty of negative comments and feel horrible about myself.

I want to start calling people out when they say stupid things about me to me. But I don't want to turn into an angry person either. I have tried to practice this idea of "breaking the chain" and not letting someone else's anger towards me create a negative response from me. I wanted to stop passing forward the bad in the world. I wanted to absorb the bad and "be the better person" in an attempt to make the world better. Yes, I realize this is very righteous or pious or whatever but I tried anyway.

Now I see the damage it is doing to me as an individual and I think it is time to unleash the beast. I could go on listing the issues I have with people's wrongful treatment but I have too much more to write. Just get ready. I am working my way to a point where I am going to seem very mean.

Ohio state Football
Believe it or not there are people in Columbus who are blaming Jim Tressel for a disappointing 10-2 season. They blame the coaching for losing to USC and Penn State. I admit the Big Ten is down which means the Buckeyes really didn't have any signature wins this year but c'mon! 10-2 is 10-2. More importantly it is 10-2 after back to back appearances in the BCS Title game. Has anybody seen the mighty LSU's record this year? Granted they are in tougher conference but they didn't beat anybody of any significance. You can't blame it all on LSU's QB drama earlier in the year because their defense stunk it up all year. It is not easy to maintain the kind of success Ohio State has had over the Tressel era. In his 8 years he has won a national title, played for two others, made BCS bowl games 5(maybe 6 if Oregon st loses a game) times, been in a bowl game every year, beaten our rival 7 times, and won or shared the Big Ten title at least 4 times (off the top of my head). Weak conference or not teams are bound for a let down in that time. OSU really has never had a major let down and when there has been one, it lasts one season. During this same period I can only think of USC and Texas (maybe Florida) as teams that have had the same consistent success. Get off Tressel people. We are lucky to have him.

Raising My Kid
I watched the OSU v. Michigan game at the house of a friend of mine. She used to work with me so another colleague from work was there as well. The game was a blowout allowing our conversation to meander away from sports and it found its way to the Bible. My colleague mentioned Proverbs as a good "book" to use with my daughter. This came about because I mentioned how there are a number of values from the Bible that I plan to instill in my child despite my personal issue with it. To clarify this statement I should say that it really isn't the Bible itself that I have a problem with but the people who constantly use it to support their erroneous, hateful and immoral views. The interpretation is the problem more than the book. I would also cite the narrow point of view many people have who use the Bible as the end all, be all reference to morality and goodness.

With all of this said, I am not a Bible hater. I feel there is so much that can be taken from that book like loving thy neighbor as thyself, the ten commandments, turning the other cheek, the idea that power and greed are the root of evil, giving to the poor and needy in spirit as well as more worldly needs, the importance to fight temptation and reality of it, making sacrifices and prayer. These and many more principles are concepts I find very valuable. While my daughter gets fed many things from the Bible on her mother's side, I am not going to fight it. Instead I want to make sure I direct it. She will NOT grow up thinking slavery is justified or homosexuality is immoral even though the Bible "says so." She WILL be allowed to speak up in church or to her husband. She doesn't need to grow up thinking she has to be submissive to her partner because the Bible "said so." I could go on.

My goal is to teach her these positive values of the Bible and to help as best I can to get her to understand the Bible was written in a variety of contexts and these contexts affected what was written. It is much like politics in that the different books were written to particular audiences with particular goals in mind. These things need to be considered when reading the Bible. I also want her to feel free to explore other religions and their teachings. Many times these other ways of thinking can provide a clearer point of view for someone. There are also numerous parallels. I continue to explore Buddhism and find similarities. Meditation and prayer are both important components of Christianity and Buddhism as well as sacrifice. I want my kid to feel free to discover this for herself. If I have any say in the matter, she will not be pigeon holed in one discipline.

Being a Moderate
My wife and I had a fantastic conversation on the ride up to our families for the holiday celebrating thanks (and genocide through small pox and violence). She is a die hard liberal and is very proud of it. She wants her values and beliefs to fall on the left side of the ledger every time. She believes that is the correct way of thinking.

Most of the time I fall on her side of things. But not always. This is where the conversation got interesting. As we discussed different issues, she proved her dedication and loyalty to liberalism. I, on the other hand, demonstrated that I have no urge whatsoever to be placed in one particular category. I don't like being labeled liberal or conservative (contrary to a friend's belief that I support liberal issues only because it is "cool" and I want to be liberal because my college professors influenced me and my peers to be). I don't want to be put in a box like that. When I determine my stance on different topics, issues or whatever I like to examine them on their own merit and particular circumstances. I then try to base my stance on my own value system. Whether it is conservative or liberal doesn't matter to me. While I do admit I fall on the liberal side more often than not, I wouldn't call myself that at all. That is fine.

What is most interesting about this is that I try to take things on a case by case basis so I can make sure I am consistent in terms of my personal values as opposed to my political stance, but sometimes it creates contradictions. So in an effort to avoid contradictions I am actually creating contradictions within my views or opinions.

John Brown

I continue to read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: What American History Textbooks Got Wrong" by James Loewen. I recently finished a section about John Brown and his treatment or lack thereof in our textbooks. I find this man and his story fascinating. In high school textbooks he is described as this crazed, militant abolitionist. Loewen even shows two pictures of him (pg 177) with one normal portrait next to a wild, long haired, long bearded man with a crazed look in his eye. According to Loewen, he was a well spoken, well read, intelligent man who proved so in his words during his trial for treason as well as his letters to his family and in his diary. He was well aware of the contradiction our country was demonstrating through slavery. He also knew of the inner struggle we were dealing with in regards to it. He wrote just before his execution that the only way these "crimes" of slavery would be "purged" from our country would be "with blood." (pg 175) As we know, it took the bloody Civil War to finally put an end to slavery.

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act tried to deal with slavery by leaving the decision to those who settled there. Farmers from the North rushed in to establish it a "free soil" state while most Southern slave owners didn't make the move. But a number of slave owners from Missouri would cross the border to intimidate and terrorize the settlers in an effort to sway things towards slavery. (Loewen p. 173-174) Brown, an abolitionist with family in Kansas, countered by attacking and killing a number of these "terrorists." Later, Brown led a slave revolt in Harper's Ferry, Virginia where he would be caught by Robert E. Lee, eventually tried and hanged for treason.

What is interesting here is that history textbooks up to as late as the 1970s and some even later, painted Brown as the bad guy. They would even go as far as stating the slaves didn't want to revolt despite the evidence that Loewen presents to the contrary. This is a southern justification for slavery that I have noticed in other parts of the book. There seemed to be a consistent attempt to convince us that slaves actually did not mind being enslaved. While I don't specifically remember being taught this, the textbooks being used across the country during my years in school were openly presenting this idea of acceptance of slavery by the slaves themselves.

What the textbooks miss out on is bringing American History alive by presenting John Brown in a way that can demonstrate the very real inner struggle our country has been dealing with for centuries regarding slavery and racism. There were so many economic issues and states rights issues that played roles in the Civil War too but they were tied into the prevailing racism that took place and still takes place today. High school students could have some unbelievably interesting and enlightening discussions about race and slavery if we would look at people like John Brown and his ideas, beliefs and questionable actions to promote and support those thoughts. Abraham Lincoln was a great president who really did want to eradicate slavery from our country and knew it was a BIG cause of and factor in the Civil War, but he too struggled with his personal racism. On one hand he referred to African Americans as "niggers" but on the other he felt guilty and sick about seeing slaves shackled on a train he rode. Nobody wants to see the racial slurs Lincoln used or hear about Washington and Jefferson owning slaves, cheating on their wives or in Jefferson's case being an atheist. But I think we can present these "heroes" to our high school students in a way that demonstrates their flaws and shows how they accomplished a good bit despite their shortcomings and how these contradictions created interesting situations and discussion points. It doesn't need to be this pure, constant line of progress because it wasn't. Our history has had its ups and downs, progress and set backs, successes and failures and they all have affected how things are today.

LeBron James in 2010
Charles Barkley was on a radio show and called out James in regards to his open dialogue about possibly playing in New York in 2010. He said LeBron should not be so open about it. He plays for the Cavs and will for two more seasons and needs to quit talking about the Knicks or Nets. James responded by calling Barkley "stupid."

I am finding myself more and more anti-LeBron. It is hard to do. He is so, very good, plays for my team and seems like a good guy. But I will not be held hostage by him and I am getting tired of this game. No player should be bigger than the team. Even LeBron. I have been worried about this happeneing. This is one of the things I hated about Jordan. He became bigger than the Bulls. In fact the NBA as a whole fell out of graces with me as a result. Then the new generation of stars came about. Among them, James who seemed like a team first guy on the court. Combine that with being on my team and I was fine with James and his Jordanesque persona.

Now I am getting tired of it. At first, I wanted to write about how the national media needs to shut up about NYC and LeBron and buy a clue that Cleveland is also putting themselves in position to sign LeBron in 2010. They will be in the BEST position to re-sign him to be honest. But we don't hear that on ESPN. Also, we will have enough to get ANOTHER stud that is available that year. ESPN, FOX and other national media outlets won't tell you that.

Instead, I almost want James gone. I don't want to contribute to the "player bigger than the team" concept. Correct or incorrect, true or false....that is what's stupid Mr. James.

(This Georgia v. Ga Tech rivalry game has been pretty fun to watch....especially the second half.)

Thinking About How I Teach Social Studies

I am in the midst of a book titled, "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen. It is more of an indictment on the American History textbooks used in high schools around the country than it is the teachers who use them.

As I read through the book and the interesting, little-known-facts he presents that contradict what has become common knowledge of our country's history, I go back and forth between intrigue and pessimism or skeptical thinking. I am not questioning whether his statements are true as he provides evidence for his points, but his opinion. I believe there is some need to write the textbooks the way they have been despite these errors and misconceptions. It depends on the grade level of the reader and their cognitive development at the time they are presented with the information and objective of the lesson or chapter.

All in all though, it is discouraging how inaccurate and incomplete our education of our own history is to the younger generations. What may be scarier is that it has been incomplete and inaccurate for numerous generations already including my own! Therefore, much of what I read is new to me and hence, the intrigue and excitement to read.

This post is not to review the book or even discuss any of the specific historical events presented in the book thus far. Instead, I am choosing to write about how I, a fourth grade teacher to a predominantly minority class, will continue to teach American history (Ohio history to be more specific according to grade level standards set by the state and district in which I teach) after reading this book and gaining the knowledge that what I teach as fact may be only pieces to the whole story at best.

In fourth grade I can initiate good discussion regarding many of our states historical events but there is a ceiling to what they can developmentally grasp. Also, there may be relevant subjects that are just inappropriate for them to discuss. I want to respect their parents decisions to what they expose their ten year old children to even if they walk in the classroom with T-shirts covered in profane, offensive language and watch music videos or wrestling matches that cheapen women and glorify violence. In the end I need to keep my side of the street clean.

But, the main objective I have gained from this book is the general idea that history is not a concrete, stagnant pile of facts, but a fluid, multifaceted flow of events that should always be questioned. No one factor plays a role in the wars, discoveries, laws, decisions and so on that took place. There are many previosu events that effect these other events we learn. Also, many of the events we read about effect what we do today even centuries later.

I think it is THAT idea of cause and effect that needs to be fostered more than the dates, people and events. Memorizing these facts don't lead to the kind of knowledge that can be used in most of the workforce later in life.

In addition to cause and effect, the encouragement to question what they learn and how to go about questioning it needs to be fostered. Fact memorization won't create a love for learning. But discussion and debate just might.

The curriculum I teach already tries to address cause and effect in several ways. There are chapters that discuss this specific skill. What I'd like to do is find a basic, low maintenance way to incorporate these kinds of discussions in every lesson topic.

Really, I just want to instill the overall open mindedness to possible differences than what we read. I'd like my students to realize more evidence can be found. That history is fluid. What we think is true may not be true or may have more to it. Therefore, it is ok to challenge what is considered "factual." Of course, this would need to be tempered appropriately because questioning just for the sake of questioning may just confuse students more than guide them.

I'd like to share several examples from the book. We all know the basic story of Hellen Keller (Chapter One: Handicapped by History)but rarely touch on the majority of her life as a major player in women's suffrage. I was never taught about her political views and the contradictions of these views to the pick yourself up by the bootstraps message her story is used to portray. While we learn from her story as a deaf and blind, wild and out of control child who learned to read and write and educate herself, that you can do anything if you set your mind to it and work hard...just look at Hellen Keller, she didn't feel as though that was possible for many people in our country due to their economic situation. She was born into a wealthy family and believed without the resources her parents were able to obtain for her, she would have never accomplished what she did. This belief led her to an outspoken socialist stance which has been frowned upon and therefore, left out of our lesson regarding her.

We all know the story of Columbus (Chapter 2: 1493)and how many holes have been shot into his glorified mystique, but did we ever learn that there is evidence that other people were exploring the Americas long before him? Do we truly acknowledge the accomplishments of the Natives who were already there in the first place?

Related to the Columbus story which can be a long post in itself, I also thought it is interesting that slavery is usually taught in the context of the African slave trade and its effects on the American Civil War. I don't remember the fact that Columbus was enslaving the American Indians as well. And the American Indians enslaved other American Indians as did Africans of other Africans and obviously the Europeans enslaving Africans. In fact you can find evidence of slavery in various forms today. This is a subject that goes well beyond the Civil War in America.

Finally, that last sentence reminded me of how we generally teach the Civil War as the North being the "good guys" and the Confederacy being the "bad guys." The Civil War had so many different factors playing their part that it is almost a perfect opportunity to show how history can be viewed differently through different colored lenses. And it can be used to demonstrate the way numerous factor play numerous roles in one event. It is not as black and white as, well, black and white people and slavery. The economy, states rights and more also played roles. Many different people had many different points of views and beliefs and motivations.

So, as I proceed through this book and enjoy reading about my country's history and the things I didn't know or didn't think to question when I was learning it, I plan to keep reminding myself to allow my students to question it. To question me. It would be nice if they learned that they could go "look it up" and actually did.

But that's a whole other blog post.....motivating my students, sigh.