MisHistory

I want to teach mishistory. In the current issue of
Rethinking
Schools  there is an article about the
Mercator projection map and the
Peters'
projection map and how the western Eurocentric viewpoint has skewed students
for generations. (And for those lucky few who were paying attention: this
same argument was presented on an episode of "The West Wing" albeit with
not a very favorable view, still it was broadcast on national TV - maybe
our kids will learn something!) This skewing is based on how we see the world,.
our perceptions, perspectives our "hidden curriculum". This article does
a great job exposing the hidden curriculum between the differences of the
Mercator projection (starting somewhere about Germany as the center most
point East to West as well as North and South.) The Peters' projection focuses
more on the equator but still leaves the "projection" misshapen.

But, alas, what is good about this article is that it talks about the hidden
curriculum, that information we present without realizing that we are presenting
it. The misguided "modeling" of fallacy. And nothing gets me riled and ranting
like the teaching of fallacy as truth, fundamental doctrine as the "standard".

I have a "squeeze" ball, you know one of those things you are supposed to
squeeze when you are angry. Mine happens to be a model of the earth. I like
this because it is soft and flexible and does not hurt when I toss it at
my students. I do this to get them to rethink their perspectives. I toss
them the "earth" and then ask them quite loudly and publicly: "Which is the
top of the ball?" Invariably they will spin the earth until the North Pole
or Arctic Ocean is on top and say "This is." I then toss them a plain red
squeeze ball and again ask them which part is the top of the ball. Here they
look at me and grin like I'm trying to pull something over on them and they
say "Mr. K this is a ball it doesn't have a top."

I then ask them to compare the two balls they have n their hands and have
them explain to me why one has a top and the other does not. This usually
leads into mass confusion where my students grab up their pitchforks and
shovels and try to route me out of the village.

I bring this up because of Western advancement and the Eurocentric view the
Arctic Ocean (according to the standardized Mercator projection map) is at
the top of the world. And therefore the Antarctic (which quite literally
means NOT the Arctic) Ocean is at the bottom of the world.

Why is this important? Please think for a moment: in America everything UP
is good. When we are happy we are "up" when we are sad, depressed, we are
"down". For those Christians notice they "climb up" to Heaven and fall "down"
to hell. Western civilization has associated UP with everything good and
positive and DOWN with everything bad and negative.

Try this simple experiment: ask your students to describe what they think
a typical city in North America is like. Then ask them what they think a
typical city is like in Central America, South America. If my assumptions
are correct most of the answers for the non-USA countries will be something
akin to grass huts or adobe shelters or something similar where everybody
either rides a donkey or an old school bus. But (again I am looking at a
generalization of students) they will not talk about skyscrapers, factories,
suburban homes and late model Acuras, Fords, or Volkswagens.

Why is this? Well many reasons but one is the misconception, the myth we
propagate every time we point at a map on the wall. We (good ol' USA) are
better because we are UP. We are ABOVE, all of the other countries, and therefore
we are civilized and important.

I have this map on my wall (it was designed by Lovell Johns, LTD of
Oxford, England).
TARGET="_blank">









On mine I have written the words "The World as Mr. K Sees It" because I am
trying to make a point. However, the map itself should tell you a lot. What
is even more educational is that MapQuest sells another in the exact same
colors and design but in the more traditional viewpoint.

The point? The point is awareness, awareness of everything in its own
perspective. I do not think that a child in Chile needs to believe that they
live at the bottom of the world, or (while it IS embraced as a badge of honor)
do we need to refer to people who live down under something? Just our simple
act of explaining the Gulf War Crisis or how when we point to where the soldiers
that were accidentally killed this week in Kuwait by friendly fire is a modeling
of how superior we are because "hey, we drew the map!"

I am reminded of that adage: 'history is written by the winners' - since
this is a fundamental truth I want to teach mishistory.