Can "Reacting to the Past" Help Students Learn About the Israel/Palestine Conflict?tags: Reacting to the Past
The beginning of a new decade always seems to be a time of anniversaries. Reacting to the Past, the interactive teaching program developed at Barnard College by American historian Mark C. Carnes, is hosting its Tenth Annual Summer Institute at Barnard from June 10-13, 2010. The meeting provides opportunity for teachers at the forty colleges and universities where Reacting courses are taught to come together to develop new curriculum and for schools interested in implementing Reacting to learn more about the program (and even play a few Reacting games).
Reacting to the Past (RTTP) consists of elaborate games set during critical historical events, some ancient, such as Threshold of Democracy: Athens in 403 B.C., Confucianism and the Succession Crisis of Wanli Emperor; and some modern, like Defining a Nation: India on the Eve of Independence 1945, and a yet-to-be-published simulation of the Peel Commission in Mandate Palestine in 1937 entitled The Struggle for Palestine. This game, written by Natasha Gill in consultation with a number of Israeli and Palestinian academics, is still in development, but it has been tested by students at Barnard College, in a class led by Ms. Gill herself, and at Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa.
Each RTTP game is guided by a rule book consisting of rules and background information, although it is up to the students to research the issues that underpin the game and the biographical details of their “roles.” The roles assigned vary from important historical figures like David Ben-Gurion in The Struggle for Palestine game to the anonymous historical everyman, such as a long-forgotten farmer serving in the Athenian assembly.
As designed by Mr. Carnes, “Reacting” is intended to teach students the role of historical contingency. To quote the “Reacting” website:
Often missing from scholarly studies is the importance of individual actions and decisions….[B]roader economic and social forces place constraints on what individuals may do, but [these] forces do not determine human events. People do.
Of course, not every historian agrees with that statement, but one need not necessarily accept that assertion as true in order to make use of Reacting. One of the curriculum’s strengths is that it can be adapted to suit the pedagogical and historiographical needs of an individual instructor. “It’s amazing how flexible [Reacting] is,” said John Eby, professor of history at Loras College and a seasoned Reacting veteran who used The Struggle for Palestine in his January seminar on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Whereas Ms. Gill stresses historical constraints when teaching Reacting courses—“My primary goal is for students to understand the constrictions that the real players faced”—Mr. Eby emphasizes the role of historical contingency when teaching his students. For example, a particularly strong student in his class played “the most moderate role in the game,” that of George Antonious, and was therefore able to significantly influence the course of the game. Mr. Eby used this anomaly to illustrate in the post-game discussion the importance of seemingly random factors (in this case personality) that dramatically affect the course of history.
Mark Carnes notes, “Reacting is a power motivational tool, but every instructor uses it in a different way. The best Reacting instructors challenge, inspire, goad, criticize, and do all of the things that constitute the art of teaching—an art that each of us practices differently.”
By almost all accounts, the program has been remarkably popular with both students and faculty. Ruthie Fierberg, a recent graduate of Barnard and a student in the Struggle for Palestine class (she played Musa Alami), said, “I came to Barnard knowing that I wanted to take the class [Reacting to the Past]. It had a reputation for being a valuable way learning.” Brennan Tesdahl, a sophomore at Loras and a biochemistry major, also praised the program: “I think that Reacting…provides a good foundation in the areas of public speaking, creative problem solving…as well as the interpretation and use of documents that would not necessarily used in every class.”
In order to be successful, however, Reacting requires active student participation. Indeed, sometimes students can become too involved in the game, regardless of whether or not the topic is controversial. Mr. Tesdahl noted, “The stressful situations and tensions between students [during the game] created grudges that still existed after the [end of the class].” Still, Mr. Eby said that Reacting is “very good at drawing out the quiet students, better than anything I’ve ever seen.”
At the Struggle for Palestine course at Barnard College, there was little need to draw out quiet students (see here for video excerpts from the class). Almost all of the students in the class were either Jewish or Muslim, and formed their opinions about the conflict from a very early age. “I was a little nervous [about this game],” said Ms. Gill. “I took the pedagogical equivalent of the Hippocratic oath to cause no more conflict while teaching about the conflict…I wanted to wean students away from their talking points and give them some real material upon which to reflect.” This did not mean that the class shied away from controversial issues—far from it. In order to fulfill her goal of getting students’ “hands dirty,” Gill assigned the Jewish roles to her Muslim students and vice versa.
The students learned that there was (and is) no easy solution to the conflict. “I think my one preconception of the game,” said Ruthie Fierberg, “was that…we were going to unlock some secret solution, as we had in other games. But Israel/Palestine was different…we didn’t find the answer.” This was entirely deliberate. Said Ms. Gill, “I didn’t create The Struggle for Palestine so that they could make a better partition commission and we’d all be happy with it. My primary goal is to understand why this conflict hasn’t been solved.”
At the very least, though, her students—indeed, all Reacting students—have a better understanding of the multiple points of view of any historical conflict. With Reacting, Ms. Gill, said, “you don’t have to [merely] hear the other, you have to BE the other.”
comments powered by Disqus
Elliott Aron Green - 6/8/2010
In my comment from 8:11 AM, I was referring to `Iz ad-Din al-Qassam, not to any other al-Qassam. This Lebanese Muslim fanatic became a hero to the Hamas. They name their Gaza-produced rockets after him, the al-Qassam rocket. That is one reason why Israel does not want steel shipped into Gaza.
Al-Qassam was an Ottoman officer during WW One, serving in a predominantly Muslim army in a jihad [so declared by high Muslim religious officials in the Ottoman Empire]. After the war, he came from Lebanon to the internationally designated Jewish National Home, to which Western powers gave the territorial name "palestine" in various international instruments. This shows that the Arab/Muslim anti-Israel or anti-Zionist struggle was never limited to local Muslims.
David Austin Walsh - 6/8/2010
While I can't answer the question about secondary schools (my personal thinking is that the concepts may be a bit too advanced for high schoolers), I consulted my copy of "Threshold of Democracy" to answer your question about source material provided to students.
The rule book provided to each student includes background information on the historical context, brief bios of each role, excerpts from primary sources, and recommendations for further reading.
The program is adaptable (I've heard of some teachers squeezing a game into as little as a week), but the instructor's manual for the Athenian game recommends ten classes.
Elliott Aron Green - 6/8/2010
The terms "palestine" & "Israel-Palestine conflict" are problematical if not false and misleading. Hence, the very name of the project is taking sides. The traditional Jewish name for the country is Land of Israel. Traditionally, through the Mamluk and Ottoman regimes, the Muslim Arabs generally and in the country in particular did not see the country as a separate land but as an indistinct part of bilad ash-Sham, Syria or Greater Syria. That is, neither Jews nor Arabs believed that there was a "palestine."
The term "palestine" is Western, nor was there ever a "palestinian" people. See link:
The term "Israel-Palestine conflict" is false since the conflict has always involved parties outside the country. The local British regime plus outside Muslim leaders and govts were involved since 1920 in supporting the Arab side of the conflict. Abdul-Karim al-Qassam was a Lebanese Islamist from Tripoli. In the 1930s, the Arab Revolt was supported by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and the local British govt themselves [see "Revolt by Leave" by Horace Samuel]. The 1947-1949 war saw active, direct British military support for the Arab side plus the invasion of the country by five Arab states, Transjordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Hence, the term "Israel-Palestine conflict" is false.
Clay Burell - 6/8/2010
Just curious whether anyone with experience knows whether RTTP is suitable for secondary students.
Also curious as to the amount of source material provided for students to research their characters, and how much time/how many classes one of the units typically requires.
Any links or input appreciated in advance.
- Most Millennials Resist the ‘Millennial’ Label
- Isis profits from destruction of antiquities by selling relics to dealers – and then blowing up the buildings they come from to conceal the evidence of looting
- China military parade commemorates WW2 victory over Japan
- New documentary explores the legacy of the 5,000 Rosenwald schools set up by a Sears magnate and Booker T. Washington
- Rare silent Native American movie of 1920s attracting a lot of interest
- AHA President Vicki L. Ruiz named National Humanities Medalist
- Historians of Color Are Revolutionizing the Narrative of ‘American Exceptionalism’
- Henry VIII voted worst monarch in history
- The Fuhrer style: Historian says press coverage of Hitler’s lavish life fueled his rise to power
- Two scholars from UT object to the Texas school's decision to remove the statue of Jefferson Davis