In order to have a more complete view of history, it must be seen on all sides: the good, bad and ugly. If one knows the people in history more completely, he can understand why things did or didn’t occur. For example, the dictatorships in Latin America may be explained by Wilson’s interfering military action, the Soviet’s reason of initial distrust of the West is also apparent after learning of Wilson’s anti-communist beliefs/actions, and by learning of Keller’s involvement in the radical communist movement we can fully understand how she attempted to contribute to society. Heroification is a problem in the education of history because it covers up the ugly side of historical figures and sometimes produces lies to do so.
With limited time, resources and pages, there is only so much that can be taught to students these days. If the textbook were to give a complete depiction of each historical figure, there wouldn’t be any pages for anything else! Heroification simplifies matters by only showing the good side of things. As Loewen demonstrates, sometimes “heroification” includes flat-out lying. Passages of “Wilson wanted the United States to build friendship…” or “he saw no way to avoid it…” in referring to the invasion of the Carribean have no documental proof of such sentiments (Loewen, 14-15). Another comment in a textbook on Wilson’s racial policies states that “those in favor of segregation lost support in administration”, completely the opposite of the truth (Loewen, 18). I believe that one way to solve the problems of “heroification” is to dissolve all the misguided facts it produces. If we omit the supposed reluctance of Wilson, the invasion enacted by Wilson will seem to go against his “self-determination” ideals. Of course, there is always the chance that a textbook may just omit all the invasions if they have to change their image of a reluctant Wilson, but it is such a integral part of his presidency that it is unlikely. It must be noted that there is a fine line between heroification and just praising a historical figure for their actions but the key difference is whether the “praise” has justification or proof. Anything else would simply be wasteful lies of heroification.
But there is another problem heroification. The overwhleming emphasis of the good side of historical figures will still give many the impression of near-perfect indviduals even if the lies about them are dispelled. Some merits of such simplicity are that it may induce the audience to give “consent” to the society he lives in or that it doesn’t “rock the boat” too much in the mind of our students (Loewen, 25). Solving omissions of the ugly warts on historical figures is harder than solving the pretty lies written about them. One way to be more objective of events is to acknowledge that historical figures can’t be judged based on the values of today. For example, some may view communism as unfair, corrupt and inefficient but the rise of communism was seen as a promising idea in the time of Keller who saw that the lower class were being inflcted with blindness just because of their labor status (Loewen, 12). It is convinient for some to judge the past with today’s value because of 20/20 retrospectiveness. It is harder to put onself in the time period to truly understand the context of the situation.
Heroification is indeed a problem. It simplifies the past and prevents many from gaining a more wholisitc view of their history. A simple way to combat this process is to have a more careful construction of reading material in order to prevent misleading or outright lies from sneaking in. The second step is more problematic. It requires the audience not to judge the historical figures with their own values. If the audience can do that, then the authors will be less hesitant to show the ugly sides of our so-called heroes.