1) …In a CONCRETE WAY, acknowledged the “smaller” voices within the
historical narrative in which your lesson was placed.
Because my lesson focused on the Boston Massacre mostly – a conflict between two sets of people who are covered extensively in history – there isn’t a lot I could have done with that angle. However, I did also cover Primary Sources in my lesson, and could have stated that the majority of primary sources that we have come from the “winners” of history, or come from groups of people who are likely to ignore the cultures and histories of certain other types of people. That wouldn’t have really been an important part to the lesson, and could have been a little distracting I think, but it would have been one way to tie in the fact that there are “smaller” voices within history that get ignored very often. One eye-witness account I used as a primary source concerning the Boston Massacre did come from a slave, also, and I maybe could have pointed that out as well.
2) …Battled the “continued disavowal” of land theft and genocide
settler colonialism perpetrated upon First Peoples, and which serves
as the platform for all American education today”.
Again, while the Boston Massacre did not directly concern the Native Americans, I maybe could have reminded the students that, even though the British and Colonists were fighting for control and authority over certain parts of land, that the land originally belonged to neither of them. This might have been a little distracting and added too much “noise” to what otherwise was a simple lesson, but it would be a way in which you could keep constantly reminding students that even though the Americans are often painted on the “good side” of history, that they originally took the land themselves. This adds some complexity and shades of grey to the idea that the colonists were simply fighting off the British from taking their land and rights – obviously, they did the same thing first.