Why do parents let schools teach "Revisionist history"? (war, facts)

[ELOrocks17]

Why is it that schools and textbook publishers are increasingly teaching children revisionist history? They seem to emphasize less on historical facts and dates, and teach more of Women and minorities roles in history. No longer will kids learn what really happened...no, they will be told how America is an intollerant, imperialistic nation who's quest for power lead them to murder millions. They also ignore figures like Thomas Jefferson, George Patton, and Andrew Jackson, in favor of women and minorities who may have participated in history. Sickening

[Dd714]

A balance is good, and minorities and women have a place in history of course, but I agree it gets carried away when they start revising history to meet todays moral standard or their political viewpoint. Personally I think the field of academics, by nature, just attracts those with a more liberal viewpoint, particularly college where you get professors that have no practical real world experience and think of themeselves as the "elite saviors of the world".

I don't see the problem in grade school, but in college you can get some of these professors that have absolutely no accountability just spewing nonsense.

[Grandstander]

You are misidentifying that which generates your complaint. Revisionism and inclusiveness are different things. You seem pissed off that history isn't being limited to the achievements of white males. You object to students being taught about women and minorities and such teaching isn't revisionism, it is expanding the curriculum to mention people and events which had previously been neglected. Revisionism is when either new facts are uncovered which puts lie to traditional understandings, or a new emphasis on factors which previously were deemed unimportant are now discussed. An example of revisionism would be overthrowing the black hat/white hat approach to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. Rather than taking comfort in the idea that America was an innocent bystander which was attacked with no cause by the evil Japanese, we take the harder road to the truth which is to lay aside our ethnocentric attitudes and look at what really happened, look at the the motivations held by the Japanese, look at what America had been doing to frustrate those ambitions, in short, look at the conflict through the eyes of not only the Americans, but also the Japanese.

Given the rather under educated approach you take with your post, I suspect that you are against both inclusiveness and revisionism. However, at least you have them correctly identified for you now. I suppose it is a matter of goals. Are you interested only in the validation of your private prejudices, or are you interested in truth, pleasant or otherwise?

[WHITEWOLF508]

I think many of us are uncomfortable when our core ideas in the USA's goodness are challenged.

I do have to admit that I get angry when I see people trying to drag great people like Thomas Jefferson down to a lower level. These people definitely did some mean and inappropriate things but the great things are ignored for the sake of revisionism. The movers and shakers for the large part were white males. Others took a supporting role and are not remembered as strongly. They affected only a small circle whereas the other effected the nation as a whole and generations afterward. I do not think that their accomplishments should be downplayed in order to make others "feel good.".

I also think that we need to look at history in the context of the times. We interned many Japanese Americans during World War 2. Now, we say it was the wrong thing to do but back then the view was that the Japanese in thsi country held their first allegiance to the emperor. Our government was afraid trhat they would act as a fifth column and against the country's interests. The light of history has proven that wrong but it was the consensus at the time.

Now, we believe that there is nothing inherently different between the races. Back 100 years ago or more, there were alll kinds of "scientific"studies that sought to prove one group inferior or superior to all others. Laws and customs were based on feelings that we know now to be erroneous.

When we study history, we must look at it through the eyes of the people of that era to understand the WHYS of actions before we can judge their correctness.

[ELOrocks17]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

You are misidentifying that which generates your complaint. Revisionism and inclusiveness are different things. You seem pissed off that history isn't being limited to the achievements of white males. You object to students being taught about women and minorities and such teaching isn't revisionism, it is expanding the curriculum to mention people and events which had previously been neglected. Revisionism is when either new facts are uncovered which puts lie to traditional understandings, or a new emphasis on factors which previously were deemed unimportant are now discussed. An example of revisionism would be overthrowing the black hat/white hat approach to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. Rather than taking comfort in the idea that America was an innocent bystander which was attacked with no cause by the evil Japanese, we take the harder road to the truth which is to lay aside our ethnocentric attitudes and look at what really happened, look at the the motivations held by the Japanese, look at what America had been doing to frustrate those ambitions, in short, look at the conflict through the eyes of not only the Americans, but also the Japanese.

Given the rather under educated approach you take with your post, I suspect that you are against both inclusiveness and revisionism. However, at least you have them correctly identified for you now. I suppose it is a matter of goals. Are you interested only in the validation of your private prejudices, or are you interested in truth, pleasant or otherwise?

What I refer to is that a 8th grade history book will mention a scant 2 sentences about Pearl Harbor...but will devote 3 paragraphs to the Japanes internment camps. They will briefly mention the brilliant stategy of Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold taking Fort Ticonderoga, but will go into great detail about how all the founding fathers were slaveholders. Do you see what I mean?

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by ELOrocks17

What I refer to is that a 8th grade history book will mention a scant 2 sentences about Pearl Harbor...but will devote 3 paragraphs to the Japanes internment camps. They will briefly mention the brilliant stategy of Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold taking Fort Ticonderoga, but will go into great detail about how all the founding fathers were slaveholders. Do you see what I mean?

Well I kinda think the internment camps and slavery WERE more important than Pearl Harbor and the capture of Fort Carillon (being diverse ). They deal with our flaws and we should study our flaws, how else can we improve?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by ELOrocks17

What I refer to is that a 8th grade history book will mention a scant 2 sentences about Pearl Harbor...but will devote 3 paragraphs to the Japanes internment camps. They will briefly mention the brilliant stategy of Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold taking Fort Ticonderoga, but will go into great detail about how all the founding fathers were slaveholders. Do you see what I mean?

I understand what you mean, I of course do not see it, I would need to have the books you reference in front of me in order to do that.

I was a school teacher for 22 years and I never saw any history textbooks, revised or otherwise, which sacrificed the main story in favor of exhaustive coverage of American shortcomings. I did live through an era of change, where books which previously failed to mention the slaveowning of the founders, were replaced by books which included the information. I never saw one which did what you are claiming above, go on for pages and pages about a single topic. And I hardly think that in an introductory course to American history, there is any real need for a lengthy discussion of the military tactics of Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen.

Finally, there is this. What stops anyone from reading more if the person wants to know more? If you are completely satisfied with what you learn in school about history and beleive that there is no need to ever have to learn more, then I don't think it matters too much what you are taught in school, you have already established yourself as satisfied with x level of ignorance/learning.

You want to know about Arnold and Allen at Ticonderoga? Plenty of specialty books about the military aspects of the war are available at stores and libraries.

What gets taught in schools about history, represents but a tiny, tiny percentage of what there is to know. You are really in charge of your own education and the failure to learn is yours, not any school's.

[jtur88]

GS, you are referencing the phoenomoen of revisionist history from two eras, both of which are as reprehensible as the other. In earlier days, US hitory books were whitewash PR jobs, to make Ameica seem worth waving the flag for. As times changed and minorities assumed more power, they demanded that the history book be revised in a different direction. Revisionist rhey remained, but the emphasis was placed on refising them in a different direction, at the expense of an objective reality. In both eras, history books were self-censored by the publishes, who said "You can't say that".

When I was studying history in school, we were all being taught to cheer for the cavalry at the Saturday matinee, and Hollywood was happy to comply with our expectations.

[ELOrocks17]

US hitory books were whitewash PR jobs, to make Ameica seem worth waving the flag for.

And its not? Is that what you are saying

[Grandstander]

Living up to the ideals of the American experiment in republican government is worthwhile. Waving a flag around is just waving a flag around.