U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2016, 12:12 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,664 posts, read 64,111,757 times
Reputation: 68425

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikMal View Post
The point I don't get is: Why is the educational system downplaying and bad mouthing American history and civics? Why and when did it become taboo to have pride in your country and what is the ultimate goal?
I don't know of any teachers who do that. Where are you encountering this? AFAIK, Civics or "government" is a required course in all school systems, and it's about teaching how the gov't works, the two houses of Congress, checks and balances, the Electoral College, and all that stuff. It's not about teaching "pride", it's about teaching how things work, so students can grow up to be informed voters at least to that extent.

I don't know what "bad-mouthing history" means. History is what it is, there's no "bad mouthing" it. Are you referring to the newer trend toward including multiple viewpoints? That's an enrichment, and an acknowledgement that the different actors in history had their own viewpoints. That's an accurate reflection of life, which is complex. It teaches students that there are many ways to view an event or historical process. That's an important understanding and skill to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2016, 12:25 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,904,197 times
Reputation: 3782
The one time when recognition of diversities of viewpoints is not important is when you already have your mind made up about things regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,833 posts, read 4,023,167 times
Reputation: 2997
When I was in junior high, in the early 60's, we spent one semester on civics, the way the government works. It was about how bills are formed and passed into law, about the different branches of government and their respective powers, why we have an electoral college and how it works, and so on. My grand daughter, who recently graduated from high school, had no clue about these subjects, I asked her if they taught civics, she said no, it is just mentioned a little bit of it but not in any detail.

As far as U.S History goes, yes some the the text books are very slanted. In my education on U.S. History we were taught all the wonderful thing the United States did. There was very little mention on slavery or the attempted genocide committed on the Native American peoples. Yes, history is bias, it all depends on who is writing the books and how much truth do they want to be told.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,362 posts, read 6,783,711 times
Reputation: 14412
I suspect that the diversity in the methods in which civics/citizenship and history are taught springs from the fact that laws vary between states, and from there among the individual school districts.

And while I fully agree with a requirement for civic education. please don't try to convince me that mandated standardization, imposed by a Federal bureaucracy, is the remedy.

The course I took in the ninth grade seldom diverged into history, and the workings of Constitutional law had been dealt with over the previous two years: our material at the time focused upon the workings of state, county and municipal government, with an occasional "side trip" into things like filing an income tax return (they were still fairly simple in 1963-4), or that still-remembered discussion the morning after President Kennedy's burial.

My teacher would probably have made a pretty good lawyer; he explained, for purpose of example alone, that while the state Constitution forbade legislation mentioning a specific city or county by name, the legislature got around this by grouping counties and municipalities by size -- and most of the more-populated classifications had but one member. Heady stuff for a ninth-grader, but there were a few of us who got, and enjoyed the point. And at that time, our county was enduring a seemingly-endless series of appeals of a local capital-murder case, so a fair amount of attention was devoted to that.

But the point a seek to re-emphasize is that the instruction I got, admittedly helped by a personal enthusiasm for statecraft, was probably better than if an Approved-as-Politically-Correct version had been spoon-fed by an instructor with a personal, or union-driven agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 02:22 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,904,197 times
Reputation: 3782
The work involved in getting a high school diploma and a PhD are two very different things. One of the purposes of public education is to teach everyone everywhere an agreed-upon package of -- dare I say it -- common core bits of knowledge that should be learned and understood by all members of a society. And there is a lot to cover -- math, science, the arts, history, civics, social studies and on and on. Indeed, as knowledge of all sorts rapidly expands, there is more than a legitimate question as to whether K-12 is enough time to teach what every student should know. In any case however, expecting the "whole story" of much of anything to be dealt with as part of the curriculum at these levels is just not very realistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 02:37 PM
 
3,700 posts, read 3,025,705 times
Reputation: 10007
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Oh, please!! That sort of legend was handed down by the parents at home, and it was debunked, at least in part, in the elementary grades. The history lessons I recall from the third through the sixth grades, touched on issues like the settling of the west, but they couldn't be analyzed and criticized in detail because a nine-year-old mind isn't ready for that. And it shouldn't be overlooked that the Fifties and Sixties saw a huge expansion in the role of television and other electronic media.

EXAMPLE: The history book I recall from one year, somewhere between the fourth and sixth grade was entitled My Pennsylvania. It dwelt on a wide variety of subjects, often in an anecdotal format -- everything from the bitter winter at Valley Forge to Pennsylvania artists as diverse as Stephen Foster and Marian Anderson. But it wasted a lot of print lionizing Thaddeus Stevens, the notorious architect of Reconstruction -- because Stevens was also an early, and strong advocate of public education. Absolutely no mention of Stevens skullduggery, which included attempts to undercut the Constitution -- just as in the 1930s and the present day -- was mentioned, nor was it brought up in my Junior High history studies.



Except that demographic trends, such as the near-complete adaption of many tenets of socialism and collectivism by an increasingly-feminized Educational Establishment, place a much heavier burden upon those advocating traditional and/or libertarian (small 'l' emphasized, please) values. To the NEA and its minions, Political Correctness is often an absolutist doctrine -- as demonstrated by many of the ideologues who seek to dominate academia.



FWIW, I was a member of a labor union (United Food and Commercial Workers / AFL-CIO) for eighteen years, participated in one six-week strike, and considered the dues well spent -- so long as the money went for formulation and enforcement of work rules within my shop. That purpose, however, seemed to take more and more of a back seat to politics as the years passed.

Unions serve a purpose, but they are most successful in the capital-intensive industries such as public utilities, or essentials like chemicals and oil -- some of which have been gutted by de-industrialization. In lower-paying industries like food and beverages, local shops have been weakened by competition from nationally-known brands. On the lower rungs of the industrial ladder, unionists tend to sink to class warfare, but they still wield a lot of power when they hold a (usually state-mandated) monopoly in fields like education and public safety, and they are well aware of this disparity, though a lot of the rank-and-file are not.
"Tend to sink to class warfare" Alluding to class warfare as though it is the sole domain of angry low class proles ignores the fact of a manifest class distinction and all of it's negative applications being utilized as a tool of the upper classes in their relentless poor treatment of the working classes. It seems you didn't get a decent lesson in our very violent American labor history, another inconvenient truth ignored in the schools of the fifties.

They (schools) treated it as ancient history, as unions fought the managerial powerhouses of steel, shipbuilding, aviation, and the extraction industries the schools were presenting the age old battles of labor and management as a thing best left to black and white photos of a bygone era.

Unions are political for the reason that the powerful upper class interests hold the government hostage to their economic demands, the very nature of power is political, and, having ANY power connotes the taking of a political stance. Unions have been a long standing appendage of the Democratic party simply because at one time that party supported organized labor by passing federal laws favorable to labor.

I'm getting as tired as the average person of hearing about the evils of the so called "political correctness" aspect of American life. The pendulum of public opinion swings radically with regard to socio-norms, but we usually land on our collective feet and go about our lives in spite of our differences. The Archie Bunkers were left to feel a bit removed from the social norms of the sixties and seventies, but many grew old and realized the folly of standing in the wind of social change.

Your assertions of a "feminized" bent toward "socialism," as though socialism, and women are right up there with murder and mayhem, ignores the huge role socialism has played in the hybrid form of US governance, part socialistic, part capitalistic, and even part anarchist, sure it's corrupt--but show me a government that isn't at some level. The libertarian principles espoused by Rand and others who feared government, never found much support for their fears here in America, and for good reason. As bad as it can be, I'll take this place warts and all over most of the worlds supposed bastions of freedom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 04:18 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,904,197 times
Reputation: 3782
Nice job! What do the kids call that these days? "Grabbin' 'em by the *****." or some such?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 07:36 PM
 
6,166 posts, read 3,249,243 times
Reputation: 12502
The curricula and textbooks in schools are decided upon by the local governmental entities, with the fed requiring some things. Teachers' unions have no say-so in that.

If you don't like the current curriculum in a school, blame the school board and whatever other governmental people are picking the textbooks and crafting the various curricula.

The teachers' unions and teachers also don't decide how many kids are in each class. I believe there are a lot more kids in classes, now, than in your and my day.

Teachers are instructors. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not great philosophers, criminal experts, psychologists, medical doctors, or social workers. The public seems to expect them to teach Johnny how to be a man, Jane how to groom herself properly, Patsy how to get along with others better, etc. But those things are the jobs of parents.

Parents cannot absolve themselves of all responsibility in teaching their children, just because the children go to school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 08:29 PM
 
8,093 posts, read 4,446,122 times
Reputation: 8716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
some the the text books are very slanted. In my education on U.S. History we were taught all the wonderful thing the United States did. There was very little mention on slavery or the attempted genocide committed on the Native American peoples. Yes, history is bias, it all depends on who is writing the books and how much truth do they want to be told.
text books are always written on the winner side of history you will never hear of the loser side. Today text books are claiming that obama was the greatest president ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2016, 08:44 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,664 posts, read 64,111,757 times
Reputation: 68425
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
text books are always written on the winner side of history you will never hear of the loser side. Today text books are claiming that obama was the greatest president ever.
The US History textbook my HS used, I remember my brother saying, it was pretty radical. He was amazed we were using that book. I don't remember who the author was, nor whether it was "radical" compared to standard history textbooks. I only remember it was impossibly thick with finer print, and it was a struggle to keep up with the extensive readings and memorization of events, facts, names, dates/eras. I didn't get any kind of "bigger picture" understanding out of it, like another poster mentioned earlier: how massive immigration affected US politics after the Civil War. That sort of thing. Maybe that type of lesson was there, but it went over my head, as I tried to keep up with the pace set by the teacher.

I remember a very few things, like how controversial Andrew Jackson was, various scandals that would break out during election campaigns (not only pertaining to Jackson, but other candidates throughout history), and how chaotic election campaigns were. I don't recall anything about how Native American history was treated, but I remember there was a lot about Reconstruction, and how unfair it was to freed slaves, who went from slavery to sharecropping, which was little different from slavery.

That's about all I remember. It seemed like an oppressive amount of reading. Maybe that was necessary to go into the kind of detail it did about the problems in the various eras of US History, backgrounds of the Presidents and their election processes, and so forth. I wish I had the book now, so I could see who the author was, and see how they treated history pertaining to Native Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top