"They were important, we swear!"
This prompt immediately made me think back to a conversation I had a few months ago with my friend Naomi. She mentioned that in her high school, the United States history curriculum was set up in such a say that women were emphasized (chosen in context among all of the usual men studied, and highlighted for their ‘importance’ as a way of ‘giving women a say’). My friend said that this tactic essentially ignored the voicelessness of women in history, and actually made them seem less important in comparison by profiling them according to lesser historical deeds. So: is this a good idea or a bad one?
I have to think it was a bad thing for her history teachers to have done this. Perhaps, if indeed contemporary girls grow up with visions of equality, this type of class will only bury women’s history and it’s importance even more than it already has been.
I can’t say I learned a lot about women’s history in school (or growing up, for that matter). It didn’t seem important- why should it be, if my history was the same as any American’s history? I mean to say that it seemed as though boys and girls had the same history. We learned about Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Rosie the Riveter, and the suffragist movement, too—but women’s history never felt more important than anything else, than say Teddy Roosevelt’s campaign slogans or the Muller V. Oregon court case. In history, it seems, all events share equal relevance.
As I’ve become more aware of women’s issues, I view the historical perspective in a much different light. I’m not much of a history person, but reading the ‘Bust’ article surprised and enthralled me. I felt proud of the suffragists, and I wish we had studied the issue in more depth in school. Textual facts are hard to swallow for many. When we watched the clips of ‘Iron Jawed Angels’, my throat choked up MAYBE 5 times in 15 minutes. It was very moving. There’s a tug-of-war inside of me, with one pull telling me that film is fiction and should be the subject of skepticism, while the other pull tells me that movies are as realistic as historical events are going to get; that a fiction lie can be more moving and close to the truth than bare facts can be.
I think a great deal of historical learning (and emotion) can come from a film. ‘Amistad’ and ‘Roots’ tell the story of slaves, as ‘Gangs of New York’ tells of a lesser known, turn-of-the-century NYC history. I think we get a lot of historical context from films we see growing up.
I don’t know exactly what my opinion on this subject is. I just know that I have missed out on women’s history growing up, despite abundant access to textbooks, American Girl dolls and Spice Girls CDs. I think that history classes tell a collective story that only applies to some of us. To attempt to pander a single history to a mixed group may not be the way to tell the truth, or help us avoid mistakes made in the past.