Postcards from American social studies class

It has been a month since I pulled my son out of Czech school mid-week and put him in an American online elementary school. It’s been a month of complete reorientation. I even feel like I have jet lag.

Our living room now looks like a homeschooler lives here. We aren’t technically allowed to homeschool because of Czech authorities, but we have been able to enroll in an American online school, thanks to technology that has only existed for a few years. And even with school online the physical environment is starting to look different.

Now we are surrounded by three US maps (two of them in puzzle form), a daily schedule on the wall, science projects involving balloons, makeshift beakers and lots of rocks, a writing lab and color-coded notebooks with big bold labels in English. This isn’t how Czechs do school. My son’s previous school room had piles of identical gray notebooks—six or more per class—a couple of textbooks and nothing with color or three dimensions.

Image by Arie Farnam

Image by Arie Farnam

In other rooms of the house, I am packing and stacking boxes. I came here twenty-two years ago with a single backpack, a laptop and equipment to make a documentary film. In a few months, I’ll be going back. One acquires things in twenty-two years—important things… and people. I’ll be heading back with two kids and about ten large boxes full of books, clothes, special dishes, candle-making equipment, herbalist paraphernalia, children’s toys, board games and much smaller electronics.

I’ll still be leaving behind a lot of value—the huge wooden table my Egyptian carpenter friend made for me, my antique sewing machine, my house, my garden, my animals, a husband. This isn’t all celebration. There is a lot of loss and heartache.

This morning I realized for the first time that we will technically meet the definition of refugees. We are leaving because of community harassment and particularly racially motivated physical and psychological attacks on my son, from which authorities refuse to protect us.

Sure, unlike most refugees, we actually have a pre-set safe harbor to go to. We have citizenship and an apartment already waiting, But still… this isn’t how I ever imagined going home.

The ever-intensifying Covid lockdowns here leave us in a limbo where we might as well have already crossed the ocean. A thick blanket of fine sifted snow has fallen and the temperature has been well below freezing.

We haven’t seen neighbors even poke their noses out of doors in days. But we are out and about, feeding animals, sledding, snowboarding, skating on a nearby pond and shoveling snow. It’s a wonderfully quiet and blissfully unthreatening world for a change with only the sounds of neighborhood dogs and a few engines down on the county road.

Our trans-Atlantic transition has already begun. I’ve got the measuring cups out and we’ve been baking—preparing for a world of cups, ounces, pounds, quarts, gallons, feet and inches. My son is justifiably confused.

“Why, Mama, why do Americans do this? Centimeters are lots easier!”

Oh honey, you have no idea.

The complexity isn’t just in units of measure by a long shot. Europeans don’t study fractions much, which are mostly a consequence of weird American units of measure.

And did you know that European and American cursive handwriting differ significantly? No wonder I haven’t been able to read handwriting for the past twenty years! I thought my eyes were just getting worse. But as it turns out, almost all the capital letters are different and many of the lower-case letters are quite different.

Of course, there is the whole language thing. I didn’t get out of home teaching by going for American school, even if the online teachers do actually teach concepts. My son needs vocabulary help roughly every two and a half minutes, and that definitely includes math class.

The most foreign class though is social studies. Czechs do have a somewhat similar class. It is called “homeland studies,” and is completely nationally focused. In fourth grade, American social studies is quite similar actually—just with information about a different country. A few concepts, like how to read an elevation map, are transferable, but all the facts are, of course, different.

Before enrolling in American school, my son could just barely find the United States on a world map, primarily because “Grandma lives there.” (Not to mention a passel of cousins.) But that’s as far as his knowledge of America went—to my dismay. I thought I’d done a half-way decent job, importing hundreds of American children’s books over the years, many of them about American history or regional cultures. But apparently my son assumed these were every bit as much fantasy as the fairytales and let them go in one ear and out the other.

The social studies teacher in our new school is also the weakest of the teachers, in terms of teaching style and even knowledge base. He’s a middle-aged guy from Ohio named Todd, and I was warned by reviewers that this school has a conservative bent.

But even so, I was disturbed when the first lesson was on the hemispheres of the earth and the teacher insisted that the earth has four hemispheres—northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest. “Hemi-sphere” means “half of a ball.” You can’t have four halves of one ball.

Next, the teacher just goofed. He was trying to explain to the kids how landforms have an impact on weather patterns. One of the simplest examples of this comes from my home turf in Eastern Oregon, where the Cascade Mountains block the wet sea air from the Pacific Ocean to the west and force it to rise, cool and dump all of its moisture before continuing on to the eastern part of the state. That’s why Eastern Oregon and Washington are mostly desert.

But Todd from Ohio got his mountain ranges mixed up and insisted that it is the Rocky Mountains that block the wet air from the Pacific, despite the fact that the Rockies don’t really start until you get into Idaho. And he put it on the unit exam.

But those things are non-controversial, just mistakes, that in reality any teacher makes. We just don’t usually have to teach our classes with parents looking in, analyzing and rewinding the video recording to harp on every little thing. So, I wrote to Todd and told him about the issue gently and I don’t hold it against him. (Well, the bit about the earth’s hemispheres counts against him maybe just a smidgen.)

But the real trouble started in the unit titled “Who are Americans?”

First, the teacher proclaimed that all Americans are immigrants. He made a point of calling out any Native American kids watching and specifically denigrating anyone who says Native Americans are not immigrants. He explained the archeological land bridge theory, though he neglected to mention that this is our best guess as to how Native Americans got there. Mostly it was his tone that was irritating at this point.

But then he made a point of insisting that those first migrating humans or pre-humans were also immigrants and thus “all Americans come from immigrants.” First of all, this isn’t technically correct. “Immigration” describes the movement of specific persons from one inhabited country to another inhabited country. An immigrant goes “in” among those already there and does it during their own lifetime.

The people who crossed the land bridge, if that is indeed how it happened, were not immigrants. They were nomads. They didn’t make the trip all in one lifetime. It took many generations. They didn’t go to live in another country. They just slowly moved around and eventually found themselves on a different continent.

Now, I’m not Native American and I don’t know if Native Americans care whether or not they are considered to be the descendants of immigrants or not. But I do care about the evident reason Todd was making this assertion—to prepare kids to believe that Europeans had every bit as much right to the land of North America as Native Americans did back in the 1400s. That’s a problem.

If that were true any invader could just declare themselves immigrants to any country and might would always make right.

Furthermore, If Todd were right about all Americans being immigrants, it would mean that Europe is a continent of immigrants too… and Asia and Australia as well. The only continent with any claim to having indigenous people would be Africa and all humans would either have to be considered indigenous Africans or African diaspora of various time periods. That is clearly unhelpful and not the meaning of the concepts involved.

This is where the fundamental building blocks of a vast social misunderstandings start—at least some of them. Conservatives in the US have long complained that teaching the facts of US history constitutes the shaming of the white portion of the nation. As a result, I had to learn much of this history outside school from reading and from experiences with people. The primary shame I ever felt over it was that we didn’t learn it in primary school.

This is a political ploy in the classroom. I’ve heard right-wing politicians say the same thing on TV, “we all came as immigrants and we all had the same opportunities.” It’s a comfortable falsehood to shake off uncomfortable feelings that arise from acknowledging historical and present-day injustices.

In the next unit, Todd opened up the topic of the economy of the United States. He defined “free market economics” as “a system where you can make as much money as you want. You decide how much money you will make.”

Creative Commons image by Kath B. of Flickr.com

Creative Commons image by Kath B. of Flickr.com

He never hinted that you don’t just get to say, “Oh, I’d like to make $200,000 please,” and it’s done. Well, I suppose that Todd had that option because he’s an abled white man from a privileged socio-economic background, so maybe he actually thinks that’s an option for everybody. He does point out that he chose to be a teacher, even though it doesn’t pay as much as some other things. But he never hints that not everyone gets to simply point to a dollar amount and choose their salary, as if it is an ice-cream flavor.

Next, Todd addresses America’s political system. America is “unique,” he says, because it is a democracy. He digs deeper into the idea that America is alone in being a democracy when he defines the concept of a political region as “America is a democracy, so that is a political region,” as if the border around the United States was the border around the democratic region of the world.

This, despite the fact that the fairly conservative Pew Research Center found in 2019 that more than half of the countries in the world are now democratic.

And then this morning, a whopper that left me breathless. In discussing America’s borders and neighbors, the teacher claimed that the Mexican-American war was a border dispute over which river should be the border. It was presented as a silly little argument in which the United States proved that the Rio Grande was the right border. In reality the Mexican-American war constituted a massive land-grab on the part of the Americans. It was so unjust that there were quite a few Americans who fought on the Mexican side. And when the United States won anyway, the border was moved and the USA gained 500,000 square miles of territory, increasing the nation’s size by a third. This was no minor squabble over “which river the border should follow.”

One of the ways I deal with the problems with social studies class is to supplement. I brought out the world-map puzzles and eventually my son got the idea of cardinal directions and the hemispheres of the earth. I also got a topographical map of the US. so we could study. the real positions of the mountain ranges and their effects on Eastern Oregon high desert country. And at the moment, we’re reading children’s books about the historical labor movement led by young women in textile mills for a bit of perspective on our economic system. We have books about Native American kids—both present-day and historical—as well.

But now I see the divide in American social studies education in all its glory. To be on the side of facts and history puts me in the position of sounding like I am constantly harping on some injustice or another. This isn’t the choice of those of us who care about our children understanding the real world. I am not in fact against America or focused on complaint and gloom. I don’t even think America is really any more unjust than the vast majority of countries in the world.

But when teachers strip out any sign of the injustices of the past and focus on the myth of glorious European “Founding Fathers,” it makes it hard for facts to come across as anything else.

I find myself longing for a social studies class that would just teach the facts and the story of the country and its many peoples with integrity in the first place. This was one of the reasons why I wanted to homeschool my kids early on, a dream I gave up on due to bureaucracy, special educational needs and the wishes of my children. That’s why I have all these picture and story books on historical, geographic and social matters.

To counteract the sense that even my. blog posts are often a litany of complaints in a world of unrelenting hardship and injustice, I let myself dream about the way I would teach social studies.

We’d build maps where the equator was actually in the middle of the map, rather than in the lower third. We’d sing the oceans and continents. We’d make food from various countries. We’d mix the same paints to get the various shades of brown that color all the peoples of the earth, including those of very light-brown hue. We’d read real or realistic fictional stories about children in different countries.

When we turned, as we eventually must in an American school, to a more in-depth exploration of the United States, we would first spend quite a long time on the first several thousand years of American history and study the physical regions of the country in that context. We would have to search to find child-friendly books and materials on Native American civilizations and we would study their many discoveries and the development of mature democracy in some of them.

Then we would move on to all the history that came after and the nation of immigrants that largely replaced those civilizations. We would study the stories of those immigrants, including real stories of children in those times. We would not look away from hardship, desperation or exploitation. We would see how even good intentions sometimes brought tragedy and not all intentions were good. We would look at how people in the past viewed those of other groups and how that influenced what they did.

We would look at the founding of the United States and the Constitution as significant events, but not as the all-defining, most important events they became in the social studies of my childhood. We would look at exactly who designed the Constitution and why and how they hoped it would work and what worked and what didn’t and how it has been changed and whether or not it now works better. We wouldn’t be looking for saints or devils but rather at people, who were shaped by their times and circumstances.

As we moved toward more recent history, we would have more stories of real people to work with. We’d break down myths and tell the stories with nuance. Rosa Parks would take her rightful place as a savvy, planful activist, rather than just someone who was too tired.

We would learn that there are rarely easy answers, and that while there are sometimes people with dishonorable intentions, most people throughout history took the actions that seemed right from their own perspective at that time. And yes, this would mean in the end that we would not be able to cover everything in one year, because nuance takes a little while, but we could cover it all in the end, since we wouldn’t spend every year repeating the same tired myths.

I hope—I have reason to hope from what I haver read—that there are schools in America that now teach social studies more like this. I have no illusions that we are returning to a country that is truly safer or gentler than the one we are leaving. We are simply going because we must go, due to clear and present danger, and that is the place we can find safe harbor just now.

Mumbled oaths: What to do about kids and the Pledge?

I had heard it was making a resurgence during the Trump years.

For a couple of decades, I enjoyed entertaining people in other countries with my tales of Cold-War-era American schoolroom machinations, when we were required to stand and solemnly pledge allegiance to our flag and then practice hiding under our desks for shelter from Russian missiles.

Pledge of allegiance patriotism gorilla beautiful - CC image by Charlie Marshall.jpg

Creative Commons image by Charlie Marshall

Since Trump took office, I have heard increasing reports that old Pledge statutes have been revived and more and more schools require the recitation of the oath again.

With one of my kids going to school in the US this year, that reality has hit home. My daughter is attending school in Oregon this year, while living with her grandmother, and scarcely a week went by before a note came home from the teacher directing her guardians to explain the importance of the Pledge to her.

My mother’s response was, “Well, it might be an issue, since she is a dual citizen.”

That wasn’t my first inclination, but she does have a point there. If one did believe in the Pledge, wouldn’t it be an issue that a kid clearly couldn’t pledge all loyalty to only one of their two nations? I wonder if school officials in rural Eastern Oregon even know that a person can have more than one nationality. But I frankly doubt they care, since back in my day they always insisted that immigrant children and atheist children swear to the flag and under God, regardless of reason or feeling.

I am sure it was controversial back in the 1980s too… somewhere. But it wasn’t controversial in rural Eastern Oregon where I grew up. There was no public voice of dissent and thus no controversy.

At that time, there was no possibility of open challenge or opting out in school. But there was also no question that my family were dissidents. Some of my earliest memories involve standing on a sheet of black plastic in the sunshine while adult hippies cut out around my shadow to use as a template for chalking onto the streets during nighttime direct-action protests against nuclear weapons.

Some will always claim that anyone critical of their government, must “hate their own country.” But we didn’t hate America. We just didn’t think America was much different from any other part of the globe.

I loved the land I grew up on passionately, but I was not particularly interested in where the borders were. When I was seven, my family spent a few months in Mexico and I quickly bonded with local kids. As a teenager I was concerned about justice for Central American people brutalized by US-backed paramilitaries. Even living in such an isolated, rural place I was aware of and focused on the wider world.

So, it did not seem reasonable to me that I should pledge my allegiance to a flag or the nation for which it stood. My allegiance was already given to truth and justice and human rights wherever they stood. Certainly, my parents instilled some of this in me just by talking politics and hanging out with other people who talked politics in a progressive, international and compassionate spirit. But a lot of the spit and fire for it probably was of my own making.

My older brother also had a significant influence on me and was similarly disposed. When I first entered school, he warned me about the Pledge and eventually he also gave me the means to deal with it, apparently unbeknownst to our parents.

It may be worth pointing out that we had been brought up in a dissident family, where our spirituality, our politics, the extra garden plot out in the woods and even our reading choices, were clearly in opposition to the mainstream and better kept quiet. I don’t recall my parents or any other adult in our circle of friends explicitly telling me to keep our beliefs or politics secret, but I think my brother may have sworn me to silence for my own protection.

So, we did not challenge the Pledge openly either. By the time we entered school, we knew the authorities of society would not take kindly to our views and that we were too small a minority to change things. At least, I’m assuming that’s why we went straight to subterfuge. We weren’t habitually dishonest in most things.

My brother’s method, which he passed on to me, was to recite different words—based on a quote by Matt Groening—that are close enough to the Pledge to go undetected by the casual lip-reading of teachers. The point was not to make a serious alternative pledge that actually meant something. The point was to simply opt out of the one on offer without being detected, even if we happened to be leading the Pledge in front of the class.

For that possibility, it still had to start with the same few words, so we departed a little from Groening’s original and said. “I pledge allegiance to the flakes of the untitled snakes of a merry cow and to the republicrats for which they scam: one nacho, underpants with licorice and jugs of wine for owls.”

It worked fine and saved me from agonizing over being a hypocrite. For many years, I firmly believed my brother had invented it himself, but the wonders of the internet have lead me to its original source.

In any event, when I told my mother this, she was shocked and appalled and forbid me to teach it to my daughter. For one thing, the local school is a charter school and she immediately had visions of my daughter being expelled for unwisely sharing our version, regardless of the 2020 Oregon law that makes it technically legal for kids to opt out of the Pledge. And under the “my roof, my rules” law of our family, my mother gets to call this one.

The truth is that my daughter was not brought up in the atmosphere I knew as a child. We have never hidden much and while we are still outside the norm, inside the US or outside it, I haven’t raised my kids to fear authorities or to keep secrets. I didn’t think I had to, and while I think a parent has got to do whatever it takes to protect their kids in the situation at hand, I don’t think fear and secrecy is the best policy unless safety requires it. If I can choose, I would rather choose openness.

And as such, my daughter is ill prepared for this situation and hasn’t been good at keeping secrets, even about things like someone’s birthday present.

So, what can we do as parents and grandparents if a child doesn’t want to recite the Pledge? Well, there are a few options:

  1. One could research local laws, and use them.

  2. One could tell a reluctant child to simply mouth the words and not think about it too much, whether they want to or not.

  3. Or one could discuss the issues with the child and figure out what part is bothering them and help them secretly change just those few words that bother them most. The child could pledge allegiance to the earth or to truth and justice or something of the like, reciting the edited version without actually informing the school.

The first option above—the option to use laws and reason to demand the child’s right to remain silent during the pledge—is something that has to be chosen based on the specific situation and the openness of the school administration. I might fight that fight if I was there in person and my child had a strong opinion on the matter, but I also might not.

As I said, Oregon law actually makes it legal for a child to remain silent during the Pledge. However, as I discovered as a child with a disability, integrated into an unwilling school by legal force, using that one in a school that is against it can make for a miserable experience.

It would take energy and time that might be better spent elsewhere. And it could result in lengthy homeschooling, which would be exceedingly difficult with my particular child. This decision really depends on the local community atmosphere, how committed the child is and whether or not the child is completely alone in their reticence.

The second option is my mother’s first choice and she was the one who successfully taught me to fly under the radar.

It would also be true to my daughter’s Czech roots. The Czechs—being a tiny nation squashed between superpowers—long ago perfected the art of pretending smiling loyalty to whomever held the castle at the moment.

Just recite and block it out. That was my husband’s first inclination, having grown up with similar anti-democratic tactics under the Communist regime of the East Bloc. His response was: “She’ll just have to bow her head the way we did under the totalitarian Communists. Her father and grandfather and great-grandfather all did it, and so can she.”

“As far as I heard great-grandfather went to jail several times rather than bow his head,” I ventured.

“Yeah, but he too learned in the end.”

I am not really as opposed to that kind of dodging as you might think, given my vehemence about integrity. I dislike it for what it tells kids about oaths, keeping one’s word and integrity, but I can also make up creative ways a kid could interpret those words.

If you are being forced to swear something through rote recitation in a group, I don’t believe it reflects that much on your honor if you don’t mean it. The shame belongs to those who would practice such abuse of an oath, one which permanently cheapens and degrades the concept of one’s word for an entire generation..

The final option is the one I am most likely to recommend to others. If swearing allegiance to a flag and a state and under a god that you don’t believe in bothers either the parent or the child or both, there are options. Certainly, I would prefer to teach children openness, integrity and the sacredness of an oath. But this may well be the best of the bad options those in positions of power have left to us.

If it is the “God’ part that bothers you, which is understandable for some of my Pagan friends, a child could recite “one nation under the gods” or “one nation under the sun.”

Despite my Pagan persuasion that isn’t actually my primary issue, though i don’t like the god bit either. My issue would be with swearing to a flag and to one nation. A child could recite, “I pledge allegiance to the flags of the United Nations, and to the earth for which they stand, one world, indivisible, under the sun with liberty and justice for all.”

Even that clearly isn’t perfect. Not all the states of the United Nations are anything you’d want to pledge loyalty to. But it’s close and it matches the wording enough that while it is easier to detect than my brother’s version, it is less likely to cause offense if exposed and more likely to be accepted by authorities as a reasonable alternative.

A child could insert, “the flags of my countries” if the issue is strictly that the child has allegiance to more than one nation.

For me, this is still very much a stop-gap measure, even if such alterations were officially approved by school officials. My greatest beef with the Pledge is not its wording, not the one nation or the one god or anything of the like. It is the way it handles oaths of loyalty.

i firmly believe that an oath should mean something quite sacred and it should always be a true act of will, i.e. voluntary.

Each autumn, there is a week in which I put images of the Roman goddess Fides, goddess of oaths, up on my altar to give offerings to her and restate my oaths—oaths of marriage and adoption, oaths of loyalty and pledges to action. This just happens to be that week as well as the week of this minor crisis for my family.

Those who claim the Pledge of Allegiance is something positive for teaching civics are sorely mistaken in my view. I find that the Pledge not only does not teach good civics, it does the opposite. It teaches children, even those who don’t have an issue with it, that an oath of loyalty is something akin to words everyone is forced to mumble regardless of the meaning.

It is also like dedicating an infant or toddler to a religion they don’t yet understand. An oath forced on a child is not sacred. It is instead something vile and antithetical to honor.

Even if all oaths may not be entirely voluntary even in adulthood, we as adults at least have some idea what they mean and what the consequences of not taking such an oath may be. Even if forced into an oath, an adult should do all they can to keep it. Otherwise, we should be prepared to take the consequences of not making such an oath or the consequences of breaking it. Sometimes oppressive circumstances make that a terrible choice. But we have the choice.

A child who is told, “Stand here, raise your hand and say these words,” isn’t bound by honor in that way. But the child is taught by this that oaths are cheap and meaningless mumbles. That is the wrong hidden deep in the Pledge.

It is no surprise that the more authoritarian and fascist a state is the more such rote, mumbled oaths it requires. I know it is incendiary to call the Pledge of Allegiance fascist. Clearly it is not such a terrible thing on a day to day basis. I’ve lived through it along with most other Americans. But it is akin to fascism in that it promotes the concept of the automatic, thoughtless loyalty that fascism is built upon. That is the harm in a few seconds of mumbled words at the start of the day.

Here is one of my oaths, one I mean and which I recite anew with each new moon. I don’t make my kids say it because I believe it should be fully empowered through choice.

I pledge allegiance to the goddess of compassion and strength, and to the planet earth for which she stands, one ecosystem under the moon with interconnection and hope for all.

This is the oath I hold above all others. I have, out of necessity, made sacrifices of my comfort, time, resources and safety in the protection of the earth and I expect I will be called to do so again, in accordance with this oath. That is what such a pledge of allegiance should mean, after all.