I've enjoyed the various comments and reactions to my little note about "Why I'm ticked off with Ken Burns." I can't help but make one final comment before we turn our attention on Monday to the article, Constructing cultures in distance education, by Andrianne Bonham, Lauren Cifuentes, & Karen Murphy. By the way, I think it's great to be able to talk about things like baseball and cricket under the guise of instructional technology! (I must admit, though, that despite my UK friends' efforts to explain cricket to me, I just don't get it--I'm willing to learn, though, so let's try to arrange a cricket match the next time we all get together!)
[quoting Reeves, 13 Jan 95] Rather than lamenting the fact that Mr. Burns told the story of the 1960 World Series from the Yankees perspective, we should celebrate it.
Spoken like a true Yankee fan!
Lloyd, you wrote: " I am reasonably certain that Ken Burns sincerely meant to show an objective, balanced account of the Civil War and Baseball." Wrong!
Wrong??? Given the constructivistic tone of your note, Tom, I find your assertion of truth value in my statement strangely behavioristic! I guess I just caught you at a weak moment!
No, I'm still reasonably certain that Ken Burns was trying to present balanced views, he just lost his sense of perspective now and then. We all know the old adage that "history is written by the winners" (though, ironically, in case of the 1960 world series, this rule was replaced with "history is written by the whiners"). When I taught American history to 5th graders I liked to start out the unit on the Revolutionary War with a little talk about why George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc., were all traitors. At the end, I made it clear that I just presented the British point of view at the time. Most of the children were shocked to think that the Americans who signed the Declaration of Independence could have been hung for treason had events during the war gone a little differently (which makes the amusing story of John Hancock's oversized signature a bit more poignant).
Recently, there has been a lot of talk in the USA about the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in WW2. This has become controversial once again because of plans by the Smithsonian Institution to exhibit the Enola Gay (WW2 veterans are outraged at the script's perspective) and the U.S. Postal Service's consideration of a commemorative stamp of the event. I, myself, often wonder why it was necessary to "demonstrate" the effect of a nuclear bomb on a populated area. I've read arguments pro and con. The question of whether the end of the war was hastened due to the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan will never be fully answered. Of course, it is difficult in my case to pretend to have objectivity on this issue because my father served in the Pacific arena in WW2 on the aircraft carrier USS Intrepid. Obviously, the actual events and decisions in the Pacific arena led to one outcome for which I am most grateful--my father returning from the war alive. Of course history is an interpretation, but those who pose as historians (or instructional designers?) have special responsibilities.
Or better yet, why not encourage a group of students to analyze and critique Burns' film, digitize parts of it, and present their own multimedia rebuttals or support for Burns "history." Now that would be beautiful!
Of course, I agree that a master teacher could turn this situation into an opportunity for an intensely meaningful learning experience. But that wasn't my point. Instead, I was trying to raise two issues. First, for the many people watching Burns' work, his (or rather his team's) product is history and they would not know to look beyond the words and images to question whether or not such an interpretation is laced with bias. Ken Burns had an extra degree of responsibility since his interpretation reached millions. His work as an internationally respected filmmaker brings a certain sense of authenticity and trust to people, even when it is not deserved. (Quite a burden to carry!) Just saying that I have the opportunity to do my own version just doesn't cut it. The second, and more important, point is that although Ken Burns does an outstanding job in presenting a balanced account most of the time, with much care and sensitivity, he goofs now and then as I have tried to point out in my "tongue in cheek" way. Therefore, we all need to take heed as I doubt that most of us are as careful as Ken Burns.
[quoting Bergeron, 19 Jan 95] Of course, some things are best taught in one way or another. You don't learn to play the accordion by just reading about it. (Right, Lloyd?)
That's right! Talk about multiple points of view! I have one thing in common with the National Rifle Association (NRA): we both believe in unregulated possession of lethal instruments!