Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This was completely absent from my American education growing up. I'm 28 and i'm just learning about it today.
What are some other things absent from your education growing up? Now I have to wonder what else I missed.
WWII is far too big a topic to cover in-depth in any one or two semester HS world history course. It's good that you have enough interest to learn about these things on your own. More people should have a greater curiosity about that war. Historians have labeled it the biggest single event in human history.
It seems that a great deal of WWII is an almost total mystery to millions of Americans.
The good thing is that it isn't difficult for anyone to learn about it if they're at all willing to put forth a little bit of time to find out.
Except those that fought in it, or had relatives fight in it, or who received high school educations.
Teaching WWII (as well as WWI) is pretty standard in all American high schools. Just b/c something like ^^ is not included in the curriculum does not mean that Americans are ignorant of WWII.
Moreover, a lot of school districts probably wouldn't discuss human vivisection to a class room full of adolescents (at least, they didn't when I was growing up), as it wouldn't be viewed as age appropriate. They usually save that stuff for college. Even then, there is so much material to cover on that war alone that profs are only able to teach the basics.
It seems that a great deal of WWII is an almost total mystery to millions of Americans.
The good thing is that it isn't difficult for anyone to learn about it if they're at all willing to put forth a little bit of time to find out.
They teach to much about 1942 Hitler, and not enough about 1934 Hitler. What kids think is that Hitler came out of nowhere, didn't have much public support, and just started killing people. They don't teach much about him being elected by a vast margin, promising the world to everyone, and promising the answer to an outside threat.
Learning is not a spectator sport. I learned far more under my own initiative. The biggest problem is the majority of people are far too lazy or don't care and pass along some of the most ignorant propaganda to come down the pike in this lifetime. If things don't change we could experience our own rude awakening.
They teach to much about 1942 Hitler, and not enough about 1934 Hitler. What kids think is that Hitler came out of nowhere, didn't have much public support, and just started killing people. They don't teach much about him being elected by a vast margin, promising the world to everyone, and promising the answer to an outside threat.
Actually he was never elected by a large majority but appointed by the Chancellor as the leading canditate of the pack with multiple parties. But control crept in until one day people realized that it was too late to say no.
Every classroom should watch the History channel documentary Third Reich: The Rise and Third Reich:the Fall. Its about how Germans allowed Hitler to become the dictator he did and how in the end they paid for it. It's one of those documentaries that really involves you in the story with passages like "If you were a German in 193x, you would have been ..." kind of like "You are there". It does draw you in. Its unsparing in its visual pictures but most are those taken by ordinary Germans.
I remember when I was recording the World at War documentaires and my husband was sitting there watching the one called "Genocide". Mostly pictures and facts, very little else. I looked at him and he had this look of shock and horror and was crying. He just sat transfixed. He had gone to school and 'heard' about such atocities but they never showed any pictures. He had never seen anything like that. I would say considering the blood and gore movies kids watch in highschool now, that real pictures wouldn't be too terrible.
because ZOMG CONSPEERACY GET UR TINFOIL HAT'S ON!!!!1!
Seriously though, American textbooks are very clear on the fact that the Japanese committed many atrocities during WW2. I'm not sure why you're expecting minute detail on every single one, outside of an upper-level college course which is restricted to a specific region during a short time period.
This was completely absent from my American education growing up. I'm 28 and i'm just learning about it today.
What are some other things absent from your education growing up? Now I have to wonder what else I missed.
How about such word as "Stalingrad?" Was it even mentioned in your textbook?
What WAS in your textbook? How many of them did you have on history ( from, say 4th grade to 12th grade?)
I am asking all these questions because from what I see my son is learning at school (as far as history goes) is simply abysmal.
When some people here are suggesting that "education is there to give you a foundation for learning and teach you how to expand your knowledge on your own." - yeah, with the same success your teachers could have told you "history is too big of a subject to teach - we'll teach you the "research technique on the internet - you go and find whatever you like." The results I suspect would have been approximately the same that you've had at your school while studying history *with textbooks.*
And while we are that, why not to teach schoolchildren the "research technique on the internet" for math and science as well - after all those are subjects that are "too big a topic to cover in depth." So hey - why bother?
the amount of information is overwhelming and you can't hit every point in detail - even on a topic like WWII, which is really only a portion of military history (let alone history at large or american/world history) there is so much to cover
My HS did a pretty fair job at covering the major players, causes, their rise to power, their fall (including looking at the political climate after WW1 and how it set the stage for WW2)
I always found history to be interesting and WWII a good subject - so in college I took a WW2 class as an elective.
My god it wasn't what I was expecting. The scope of the course was very narrow. The main focus was on the luftwaffe and the US & German rocket programs and how they shaped the war. They added enough of the surrounding scene to frame this aspect of it, but the amount of information was very detailed, very intense with a lot of reading.
It was enlightening to see just how impactful one single element of strategy, decision making, technology could have on the war as a whole.
I was one of 4 students in the class invited to take a private study class he was setting up on advanced topics of WW2. I declined as I only had so much course space carrying a double major and taking 20 hours each term, balanced with part time work. I felt I needed the time to focus on my major and my job.
I still kind of regret it though as the professor was very good (although most student hated him because they thought they signed up for an easy elective) and it is a subject I find interesting.
How about such word as "Stalingrad?" Was it even mentioned in your textbook?
What WAS in your textbook? How many of them did you have on history ( from, say 4th grade to 12th grade?)
I am asking all these questions because from what I see my son is learning at school (as far as history goes) is simply abysmal.
When some people here are suggesting that "education is there to give you a foundation for learning and teach you how to expand your knowledge on your own." - yeah, with the same success your teachers could have told you "history is too big of a subject to teach - we'll teach you the "research technique on the internet - you go and find whatever you like." The results I suspect would have been approximately the same that you've had at your school while studying history *with textbooks.*
And while we are that, why not to teach schoolchildren the "research technique on the internet" for math and science as well - after all those are subjects that are "too big a topic to cover in depth." So hey - why bother?
Then supplement the education at home, work with your school board and state on the curriculum, etc.
The schools can provide a foundation - in my HS we hit on global studies, american history, government and state history.
Geography is often lumped in there as well.
Pretty broad topics - even if you had 3 full years of american history at the HS level that is roughly 120 weeks of subject matter.
On a really high level (and forgive me because I will forget some items) you have the discovery, the settlement, the expansion of the nation, the formation of government, the wars (starting at the revolutionary war the US has been involved in near 20 wars/conflicts in one form or the other), civil rights movement (suffrage & slavery, et al), reconstruction, industrial revolution, great depression, and countless other topics
Sometimes the best you can do is provide the key elements, broad points and then move on with further information at the students desire or a more specific advanced course
This is the way it is for all topics - just because you take HS biology (heck, even AP biology) that doesn't mean you're going to be able to converse with a med student at their level
Just because you take HS math doesn't mean you have enough of a math background to complete a collegiate engineering curriculum.
I had a perfect grade in my HS accounting class - doesn't mean I could take the CPA exam
Most of HS is just the foundation for all subjects - it's then up to the students to build upon that if they so desire
Then supplement the education at home, work with your school board and state on the curriculum, etc.
I was already "supplementing" so much through the elementary/middle school, that enough is enough.The way American schools are operating is clearly to educate children whose parents are educated and to keep ignorant those children, whose parents can't "supplement" their school curriculum - it's quite obvious.
Quote:
The schools can provide a foundation - in my HS we hit on global studies, american history, government and state history.
How about "foundation" in middle school, so that you wouldn't have to "lump geography" into history during the last four years?
Quote:
Pretty broad topics - even if you had 3 full years of american history at the HS level that is roughly 120 weeks of subject matter.
Oh, it can be even 5 or 10 years, judging by the lessons about Rosa Parks and "Native Americans," that took about four years through elementary-middle school.
When you don't know how to ( or don't want to) organize the curriculum in efficient manner, there is always an excuse regarding "pretty broad topic."
Quote:
On a really high level (and forgive me because I will forget some items) you have the discovery, the settlement, the expansion of the nation, the formation of government, the wars (starting at the revolutionary war the US has been involved in near 20 wars/conflicts in one form or the other), civil rights movement (suffrage & slavery, et al), reconstruction, industrial revolution, great depression, and countless other topics.
Sometimes the best you can do is provide the key elements, broad points and then move on with further information at the students desire or a more specific advanced course
Let me describe you the way history has been taught in crummy Soviet schools, starting from the 4th grade.
From 4th to 10th grades we went through the "History of the ancient world" ( from the dawn of the humakind to the times of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt) history of ancient Rome and ancient Greece, history of Europe in the middle ages, ( including history of church - (Roman catholic, church reformation, Martin Luther and all) history of Asia (overview) history of the United States ( overview,) history of Russia AND history of the Soviet Union WWII including, naturally. At that GEOGRAPHY in no way has been lumped into history, as much as Botanical Science was not lumped into Biology. It's all quite possible to do, when BOARD OF EDUCATION is doing its job and sifts through tonnes of materials in order to choose and organize it in a coherent and purposeful way, instead of SHIFTING this responsibility to parents and leaving teachers to their own devices. When basis of education ( be that history or any other subject) is adequately developed and written ( not just OUTLINED) by trained specialists of the Board of Education, THAN and only than teachers can think how to make every lesson more interesting and more productive ( instead of just reading the textbook aloud.) And only in this case parents can think about SUPPLEMENTING education at home if necessary; meaning if their child would like to drill on something or to explore in depth certain question, that was covered in broader terms at school. ( For the most part with QUALITY education for school children it's not all that necessary; just watching your child doing homework is good enough.)
So yes, I know quality education when I see one, but that's definitely NOT what my son is getting in American public school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way American schools are operating is clearly to educate children whose parents are educated and to keep ignorant those children, whose parents can't "supplement" their school curriculum - it's quite obvious. 
