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.
In temple there is worry that children will not carry the magnitude of the Shoah, or Holocaust with them.
I find this statement absolutely stunning! Many, many U.S. high school graduates have absolutely no clue about the Congo, Ukraine, Armenia, Rwanda, or Nanking. They have no knowledge of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese Internment, or what really took place on Angel Island (if they even know it exists). Neither do they know about Sand Creek or the Hessian's role in the Revolution. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find a high school graduate anywhere in this country who has not studied the Holocaust in depth and read Diary of Anne Frank, The Boy In the Striped Pajamas, or Night. My children have read all three AND watched the heart-wrenchingly graphic footage of Dachau's emancipation. American kids would have to be living in a cave to miss learning about the Holocaust.
Last edited by randomparent; 05-18-2015 at 09:05 AM..
If people don't know history, how can they make informed judgments about the present. Thoughts?
This is true. Washington, Jefferson and Madison, etc should be forever elevated to the highest position possible for what they accomplished. Yes, they had warts. But what they did is probably the greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind. The current world owes them for changing society in a dramatic way and for the better.
I find this statement absolutely stunning! Many, many U.S. graduates have absolutely no clue about the Congo, Ukraine, Armenia, Rwanda, or Nanking. They have l no knowledge of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese Internment, or what really took place on Angel Island. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find a high school graduate anywhere in his country who has not studied the Holocaust in depth and read Diary of Anne Frank, The Boy In the Striped Pajamas, or Night. My children have read all three.
This is true. Most people don't realize that Mao and Stalin both killed more people than Hitler. Mao killed more than twice as many as Hitler.
One of the real problems in both the U.S. and Canada is the fact that many people, perhaps even our President, have little or no knowledge of the history of the nation, adjoining nations or the world. In temple there is worry that children will not carry the magnitude of the Shoah, or Holocaust with them.
Nationally, the schools have been de-emphasizing or, to coin a word "de-heroing" the Revolutionary War, because of the understandable concern that no account in "traditional" teachings was taken of the abuse of black slaves or Native Americans. Thus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (whom I have other problems with), James Madison and James Monroe have been cut down to "size" because of their slave ownership. Andrew Jackson because of this mistreatment of Native Americans. So the simple expedient is to either eliminate teaching of history or make it stilted and boring.
Similarly, I have met Canadian schoolteachers who do not know of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham or its British general Wolfe or French general Montcalm. How can they teach it if they don't know it. Perhaps the concern is mistreatment of the French or the later mistreatment of First Nations (their equivalent of Native Americans). Same result as in the U.S.
If people don't know history, how can they make informed judgments about the present. Thoughts?
the biggest issue is the constant change in curriculum from grades 1-12. over the years much of what was taught has either been modified, reduced, or dropped altogether. as the federal government has wormed its way into the schools through regulation, and standardization, they have also made many changes in what is taught in the schools. and what was taught in american history in high school when i went in the 70s, is now only taught in college.
the next problem is that people accept what they are taught in school, and dont take the time to do any research on their own to expand their knowledge. and most college programs do not require american history as part of a degree program unless it is a history program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp
Then go to your school board and complain. Our "founding fathers" had feet of clay. They owned slaves, they were rich landowners. Maybe we need to knock some of these guys off their ivory pedistals. It doesn't diminish what they accomplished.
our founding father did not have "feet of clay". remember that they were considered traitors to the empire when they signed the declaration of independence. they also pledged their lives AND their fortunes to the cause. in fact they are the ones that put up the money to cover the cost overruns of the war, and most of them exited the war broke. yes many of them owned land, and yes many of them owned slaves, but they also wanted to end slavery in this country. it was the southern land owners that prevented the ending of slavery in 1789, but they did accept the ending of importing slaves.
remember we cannot look back on history and judge the past by the standards of the present, we have to judge them by the standards of the day, and at the time slavery was a legal enterprise.
Every new generation is faced with increasing expectations for history education, because the clock never stops ticking. Furthermore, as our nation's demographics and political entanglements change, the breadth of relevance changes with it.
In another thread, a teacher correctly pointed out that the average C-Der's grandparents had up to a century less American history to master in the same amount of time students do today. It's an overwhelming amount of information, so we curate, and that's where the conflicts arise.
One person wants the the Revolution studied in depth, while another wants the Civil War. Yet another has a hissy, because we're giving short shrift to Westward Expansion. And, oh yes, we must spend half of seventh grade teaching the Holocaust! ...
Wait! Did the students cover The Magna Carta? Can we shoe-horn that into Freshman English as a exercise in close reading of primary sources? ...
Where do we find the time? History is a subject never truly covered. I have learned more in the last decade of personal research than I ever did as a student, and I have always loved history, so I'm in no hurry to chastise America's young people for not knowing everything there is to know. Neither do I.
Last edited by randomparent; 05-18-2015 at 11:01 AM..
In my experience, the people who complain about how other folks don't know our history or Constitution, tend to know much less about such topics than the general population. It's weird.
I'm not sure why you specifically called out Emily Dickinson. I think it's more likely the students studying that era are tackling Emerson. Brontë makes a showing in sophomore year and overshadows Dickinson. Even the boys enjoyed Jane Eyre.
In any case, a good literature teacher will place novels in historical context, so the Dust Bowl is presented concurrently with the reading of Of Mice and Men, as the Holocaust is taught with Night. This is standard even in the lower grades, at least in the districts where my children have been educated.
Actually Jane Eyre was OK with me but I was in the male minority. I just used her as an example of a poet that bored me.
I agree about placing novels in their historical context as our teacher did with the Odyssey. But things have gotten worse in terms of historical instruction since then.
Actually Jane Eyre was OK with me but I was in the male minority. I just used her as an example of a poet that bored me.
I agree about placing novels in their historical context as our teacher did with the Odyssey. But things have gotten worse in terms of historical instruction since then.
No, things have not gotten worse; they are simply more demanding because time marches on. History teachers evaluate and re-evaluate what should be taught, because, as I pointed out in another post, the time to teach these things is limited. Curriculum are modified to meet the requirements associated with changing demographics and political entanglements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
The way I look at it, just tell the students what happened. Don't put a PC spin on it, let them figure that out for themselves when they get to the age where they start to think of such things.
History cannot be taught without spin. History is spin.
Some may have had those issues, but, for example, what about John Adams? Can you tar him with the same brush? Or his son John Quincy Adams? Or Aaron Burr?
Again, tell the truth about the men who founded this country. They weren't saints, they didn't have halos, they were human beings. It doesn't diminish what they accomplished. It doesn't make the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution any less valid. I don't understand why humanizing these men is in any way disrespectful.
the biggest issue is the constant change in curriculum from grades 1-12. over the years much of what was taught has either been modified, reduced, or dropped altogether. as the federal government has wormed its way into the schools through regulation, and standardization, they have also made many changes in what is taught in the schools. and what was taught in american history in high school when i went in the 70s, is now only taught in college.
the next problem is that people accept what they are taught in school, and dont take the time to do any research on their own to expand their knowledge. and most college programs do not require american history as part of a degree program unless it is a history program.
our founding father did not have "feet of clay". remember that they were considered traitors to the empire when they signed the declaration of independence. they also pledged their lives AND their fortunes to the cause. in fact they are the ones that put up the money to cover the cost overruns of the war, and most of them exited the war broke. yes many of them owned land, and yes many of them owned slaves, but they also wanted to end slavery in this country. it was the southern land owners that prevented the ending of slavery in 1789, but they did accept the ending of importing slaves.
remember we cannot look back on history and judge the past by the standards of the present, we have to judge them by the standards of the day, and at the time slavery was a legal enterprise.
Why judge them at all? Just present history truthfully. And do you know what feet of clay means? It means they were human beings, with human failings, just like the rest of us. It doesn't diminish their accomplishments. Some owned slaves, some were womanizers. So what? I think it would make history at lot more interesting if the gloss were stripped off of it, the pedistals were discarded, and we saw these men for what they were, human beings with a vision of a great country.
Jeez.
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.
