Week 24- A Superlative Letter to National Geographic (IMO)

The biggest!  Really?

The most powerful!!  Prove it.

The most important!!!  Please stop it.  Now.  No, I’m not kidding. 

This is the letter I am about to send the National Geographic, The History Channel, PBS, and the BBC. 

Dear National Geographic,

As much as I appreciate your dedication to history and your willingness to create documentaries on issues that may go overlooked by, say, A&E, I grow more and more frustrated by your egregious abuse of superlatives.

My class has benefited from at least two of your documentaries this year, and for that we are very grateful.  However, my students and I were appalled by the sheer number of “best”s, and “biggest”s, and “most influential”s  that we were regaled with.  It is also galling because we are educated.  We know that, say, the port in Carthage and the port in Syracuse, compared with the port at Caesarea, also used tufa rock (which your video doesn’t seem to think we need to know) to make amazing defense works.  Archimedes’ port easily rivals the work of Herod the Great’s.

I ask you, Where is your evidence?  I teach my students to defend their arguments.  I require that they do not take anybody’s word at face value.  I expect them to question authority, mine, yours, especially the text’s.  Is it that you feel that the information isn’t interesting enough?  If it isn’t, maybe you aren’t telling the story correctly.  Because, the story of history is far more interesting than any throbbing soundtrack or abundant list of superlatives can make it.  And if you are going to make comparisons, please don’t assume that I don’t know anything about any other place on the planet.  It’s offensive.  Maybe it was the best thing in Judea.  Maybe it was the best thing on the planet, at that time, that we know of.  But after a series of documentaries all saying that whatever it is they are presenting is the best, it rings hollow; sounds false.  Teeters dangerously close to propaganda.  The bad sort.

Again, I thank you for the work you do in bringing this information to the screen.  But I will ask the same of you that I ask of my students when they present me with research: prove it or don’t say it.

Thank you,

A History Teacher

If anybody wants to help me put together videos that show how big, say, Alexander’s Empire (at its fullest) was to the size of, say, the Roman Empire (at its fullest), please contact me.  Or, if you know of someone already doing this, please let me know.  I want to start the Intelligent Society of People Who Bust Superlatives.  Represent.

Week 10 – History Becomes Politics: Don’t Be an Idiot

Quite a few of my students wanted to discuss the current election in class.  A desire I absolutely, 100%, shut down immediately.  There are many reasons for this.  1) I do not know what I’m talking about.  I’m not qualified to do more than spew my personal beliefs at them.  2) This is a class on Ancient Western Civilizations, not American History.  3) Students will argue instead of debate.  4) And most importantly for me, what I think or feel about the election is (and I’m going to use bold here) none of their business.  I say this because, going back to number one in the above list, it will be what I will default to, being, as I said, unqualified to talk about it.  It would take me a few good weeks to get up to speed enough to lead a class discussion that might be worth something.  (By contrast, I feel no qualms whatsoever about spewing ad nauseam about Shakespeare.)

This does not mean I am not a political animal.  I am.  It’s why I teach ancient history.  Because, of all the lessons that history teaches us, the most important is that the wealthy (and in ancient times this was synonymous with powerful) will make decisions for the middle and lower classes.  We see this pattern over and over.  It is up to the less-powerful to work together to make sure that the absolutely powerful are not corrupting absolutely.

Last year in class we studied Ancient China.  The students were in love with the idea of the Mandate of Heaven.  They thought it was awesome that a god would send a message to the people by way of a drought or an earthquake, telling them that their ruler was corrupt and should be deposed.  Of course, we talked about whether or not it was a god sending the message, but, theology or no, if your leader is not responding appropriately to a natural disaster, then he or she is the wrong person for the job.  The concept of the Mandate of Heaven showed how one culture dealt with the idea of the government’s responsibility for its people.  As in, how a government takes care of its people when, oh, let’s say, a humongous, deadly, über-hurricane is bearing down on its eastern shores.

We spend a lot of time in class talking about the traits of a civilization.  According to the Penguin Historical Atlases, a civilization only begins to emerge once you have enough people — once you have enough human bodies to fulfill certain traits.  These are cities, full-time specialization of labor, surplus production of food, class structure, government, long-distance trade, public works, standardized artwork, writing, and maths such as arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy.  As we move through the curriculum, students start to realize that, once achieving this status, no civilization is guaranteed to maintain it.  Numbers alone do not guarantee that a culture has these traits — the culture has to work to organize themselves.  Otherwise, it’s just a group of people, often beating each other up.

Take Alexander the Great.  Amazing man.  Totally nuts.  He was probably the world’s best conqueror.  He was not a ruler.  He broke more civilizations than he created.  And the fact that we westerners cling to (and use to absolve him of his greed and ego), that he “brought Greek concepts to the rest of the world,” is insulting.  It only hides the fact that many of the civilizations that were in play before he stomped all over Asia were irretrievably broken by him, and some have never recovered to this day.  (Although, in all fairness, many of them were struggling when he was born.)  If he had been interested in the welfare of the people he conquered and had reestablished the traits of the civilizations he controlled, then (and only then) would he have been great.

Take the Harappan Empire.  Take the Romans.  Take the Minoans.  Take the Gauls.  Take the… well, you get the idea: these are all civilizations that are now extinct.  I hope that students start to see that you have to work to keep these traits.  You have to think about the rulers you have.  You have to have caring leaders who create a solid government which will protect the civilization and its various classes.

I hope they remember this when they get to an age when they choose between being, as the Greeks in ancient Athens said of one who doesn’t vote, an idiot, or a true citizen.

Week 8- The Power of Pothos: 6th Grade History Essays

Alexander History Essay Test Question:

In a four paragraph essay (Intro, 2 body, conclusion) brainstorm, outline, and draft (1st) this question:  Compare and contrast Alexander the Great and Iskander the Accursed.  Defend what made him great.  Explain what made him accursed.

Student 1- The Power of Pothos   (Pothos means an unquenchable yearning)

In this essay on Alexander the Great, I will question wether he is all that great or not.  I will pick out the important parts which make him who he is and what he did.

I will start with the things that made him a great and reasonable conqueror.  When he was young one of his great achievements was taming a wild horse, which he used for almost half of his life. I think this shows his self-bravery, throughout.  Later in his life as he rules most of Asia, he captures his enemy’s wife and children, but takes very good care of them, even if they are different from him.  He is also “great” for his intelligence in political strategy, for example when he fights one of his last battles with King Porrus, even though Porrus surrenders, Alexander is impressed with him and gives back his kingdom.  But possibly he did this to make a good ally.  It’s also very impressive that when in battle Alexander is always encouraging his men and does not take all the glory just because he is king.  Lastly, Alexander’s love for the arts and philosophy shows why he kept his powerful pothos.

Now I will explain what some cultures think of Alexander as a cursed king.  I think the over all terrible thing that happens is that his power corrupts him to even kill his own historian for giving him wisdom.  Second to that is his forgetfulness of the importance of the Persian palace as he burns it to ashes.  3rd to this is the massacres that he goes through with no explanation.  And fourth of all was what he left behind him, because after he died he left the countries he conquered in a world of unrest.

I left my reader off with lots to think about.  But overall I think that Alexander corrupted himself with the power he earned through all of his accomplishments.

Student 2- Essay Comparing and Contrasting Alexander of Macedon

This essay will mainly be around the question “Compare Alexander the Great to Iskander the Accursed”. They are both Alexander of Macedon, but two different points of views on him. I will compare them both, and contrast them both.
Now I will compare the two. He was both when he built roads, and killed the Persians and King Darius. He was also both because he was mortal. And his troops responses considered him to be both. And he was known almost all over the entire eastern side of the Earth for doing great things and terrible things.

Now I will state the differences between the two. He was great because he was very smart (politically). Another reason for him being great was how he was nice(ish) to his troops! He motivated and helped them (sometimes, only when Alex needed them to continue). And some people almost loved him for what he did! Now I will say some of the things that made him terrible. One thing that made him terrible (and probably the most obvious one to) is that he killed so many people that were innocent! And that made a lot of people hate him. Plus he was a terrible ruler!!
Well, time to wrap it all up. I think that there are two sides to every story. And to understand the story, you have to understand both sides. And my personal opinion on Alexander is that he was terrible! Mainly because, no one should want to kill so many people and no one should want to conquer so much land. Especially if you’re not prepared to deal with it.

Student 3- Great or Not so Great?

In this essay I will explain how Alexander of Macedon was Alexander the Great and how he was also Iskander the Accursed. During Alexander’s life the Greeks were pretty much the only people who thought that Alexander was great. The rest of the world thought he was accursed. Many people at this time were both great and bad. It was just the time period.

This paragraph will explain how Alexander of Macedon was Alexander the Great. A feat that made everyone around him impressed was when he tamed an “untamable” horse named Bucephalus. He also built large postal roads going through all of Macedonia once he conquered the Persians. Alexander unties the Gordian knot. The legend of the Gordian knot was whoever untied the knot would become the lord of Asia. Alexander also made Tyre become a peninsula as oppose to an island when he built the amazing Tyre causeway. Alexander also invaded Persia for revenge when the Persians burned down Athens. The Greeks were happy about this because they thought something like, “Yay! He’s gonna avenge us!” Last, another thing that made him great was when Alexander gave King Porus’s kingdom back.

This paragraph will explain how Alexander of Macedon was Iskander the Accursed. He became cruel by acts that drove him insane. The death of Hephaestion made him insane and I am also sure the death of his only son ever also drove him insane. Another thing that would make him insane is that he killed his second best friend (Hephaestion was his first best friend) Cleitus at a drunk party. Cleitus was a general. One thing more that would have made him psycho is when he became deathly sick which not only reminded him that he was mortal but he really wanted to die in battle. He also became more evil when Callisthenes says he needs to stay Greek. That made him really mad. He was additionally Iskander the Accursed when he persecuted the Zoroastrians. Another not to good deed was he was funding his campaign with slaves. It was pretty bad when he burned Persepolis on top of all that.

Overall, I think Alexander of Macedon was neither good nor bad because I do not think his deeds did much to me. I have shown how he is both good and bad so remember not to just say he was one side and one side only. The reason his deeds grew worse is because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Finally, the source of Alexander’s strength was he thought he was the son of Zeus which gave him mental power which gave him physical power in the body.

Student 4-  Accursed or Great?

Is Alexander the Great not so great?  Some call him Iskandar the Accursed.  He can be either but sometimes he is both.  For example, in the desert, his men gave him the last of the water in a helmet.  Instead of drinking it, or giving it to him men, he pours it on the ground.

Now, if we zoom in on Alexander’s bad side, one, too, can see the deaths caused by so called “Alexander the Great.”  The massacres he commits are too great a number to count all the lives dead by his hand.  But, I would estimate about… 450,000 innocents and enemies slain.  He was brutal and bloody, pushing people off of cliffs, some by opposition’s own free will.  He pushed his men too far over the limit of their abilities, killing without trial, and suspending freedom of speech.

Though, we do have to give him credit for the empires he conquered.  He was kind to his men by cheering them on to greater lengths.  Agreeing to turn away when he knew it was too far.  If he saw fit to reward, he does.  So brave, as to not turn back when he only had an army of three men with him against a few hundred.  His men truly loved him.

Now one can see the different views.  He funded him men, so they cound have less death in their army, but funded it with slavery, not so great.  One sees not he is both great and accursed.  What does, my friend, he seem to you?
It’s not a bad start.  –  Me

Week 7- Tests as a Learning Tool (How boring does that sound? Ipes!)

Do my kids know Alexander of Macedon or do my kids know Iskander the Accursed?  They know both, and I’m bubbling over.

Structuring a test for success takes a lot of time, but it pays off.  This unit’s process looked something like this: First, students took notes on a few PowerPoints and Michael Wood’s In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great.  Second, students use their notes to write questions for a game.  I usually use a chutes-and-ladders style board on the overhead projector.  Third, I use the questions they created (and I have vetted) on the test.  By the time they get to the test, they have reviewed the information several different ways, not counting any of the studying that they might have done on their own.  A student has to work very, very hard to fail the test.  (And when they do, they are generally trying to tell me something that has nothing to do with History.)

The test is presented in short answer questions if not an essay.  I like the short answer questions method over anything else.  Students can learn to dig for an answer.  For example, students had a hard time remembering that Alexander’s engineers built a bridge to Pir Sar where they massacred the refugees (according to Arrian, one of Alexander’s biographers — poo to historian Lane Fox), but 300 of his men climbed the Sogdian Rock where he accepted the Bactrians’ surrender.  For a short answer, they don’t need the names Pir Sar or Sogdian Rock, per se.  They can describe the scene, and I will know what they are talking about.

So, they really knew their stuff.  Yet, many of them failed it, officially.  I require students to write using Academic English.  The number of answers correctly answered are checked, answers with grammar issues but are correct are circled, and wrong answers get an X.  When I was finished grading, I called those students with a B or less up to the desk.  First, I praised them for their command of the information.  But then, I focused on capitalization issues and periods at the end of sentences.   As I graded, I circled the places where mistakes were being made.  I want students to get so used to capitalizing sentences and using periods that then never have to think about it.

I offered these students a deal.  They could keep the grade they earned, or they could take their recesses and breaks to re-write the questions they missed either grammatically or informationally (is that a word?).  Anyway, they asked the best and obvious question?  “Will my grade go up?”  Yes.

I get some flack from other educators for giving students full credit on re-doing tests.  But I look at it this way: 1) students review the material again, adding more myelin to the brain.  2) Students learn what the Academic norms are with minimal fuss.  3) They are generally happy to be able to say to their parents, “I got an A!” with just a little more work. This improves their work ethic.  4) Failure is really their choice.  They can’t really say that I just gave them a grade if they have the opportunity to go back and fix mistakes.

Some educators have said to me, “But that’s not real life.  In real life you don’t get to take tests over.”  But that’s obvious bullshit.  I can rip out a sweater as many times as I like.  I can take the Bar exam over and over.  I can take my driving test and the GREs again and again.  The question I have for these educators is, “How badly do you want your students to remember the information you are trying to cram into their heads.”  Furthermore, being drug away from your recess/lunch/after school activities for most students is worth more in the long run than taking points off of some ephemeral test.

So, half of the class will be in here, taking up my prep period to re-do the test.  Hallelujah!

Week 6 – The Danger of Superlatives

I love documentaries.  They can be wonderful texts to teach from.  We finished watching Michael Wood’s “In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great”.  The students and I all took Cornell Notes while we watched.  Although I preview all videos before I show them, I find that if I am taking notes with students I can model the process more effectively, I can remember better what I told them was important, and I slow myself down.  We took about three pages of notes for the four episodes.

I only allowed “clarification” questions during the showing of the film.  This was to help students focus on what they wanted to write for their note.  Any other question, comment, or anecdote needed to be written down separately from their notes and wait until the end of class to be expressed.  This was very hard on all of us, but it made the film go so much faster.  It also required students to decide if their comment was worth the bother.(Including me.)

The film concluded and students felt they had a pretty good grasp of who this guy was and how he changed the world.  Then, I showed them a National Geographic documentary responding to Oliver Stone’s movie.  Wow.  There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Students were in an uproar about what they weren’t being told.   They howled when the film gave the battle of the Persian Gates a complete miss, and when it neglected to tell them which of the many ancient biographers the film was referencing.  They were frustrated by the actors, the music, and the sensationalism. They felt that the film had a clear bias, and one they might not have recognized if they hadn’t done other research.

We talked about the danger of superlatives and how they often convey bias.  We also talked about how they often co-opt meaning for the viewer.  People who are not paying attention can easily buy into words like “greatest”, “biggest”, “most flatulent”.  I’m glad my students are beginning to see bias and are reading documentaries at a much higher level.