Education: Teaching History

[Malik Ambar]

A conversation i was having yesterday got me thinking : Exactly what is being taught as History and why ? Children are primarily taught about ancient history and civilizations and at secondary level taught about important world events and history of their own nation (AFAIK). But how is it often portaryed ? I mean is it should be as accurate and unbiased as possible, but is it so ? Are there instances where you feel a very one-sided narrative was being provided in the textbooks and if so how have to tried to explain it to the child ? If a certain historic figure is being brow-beated or portrayed as a saint , can providing the correct perspective to set things right result in the student becoming confused and consequently disinterested in the subject itself ?

Students today have access to various sources to get a complete perspective of their own, yet what is taught in schools shapes one's perspective. So shouldn't education boards take notice and start designing curriculum accordingly ?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I was taught ancient history during my "world history" course in the 11th grade. When was this course removed from requirements.

[maarsen]

Most of the history I learned was self taught. I did have the obligatory courses in Canadian history, and a bit of American history, especially the bits where we kept beating them in wars. Did you know there was a border conflict between Maine and New Brunswick? We also had a bit about the great explorers such as Magellan, De Gama, Drake and Cook. Ancient history was done in high school and was mainly about Greece and Rome.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maarsan,

You get the War of 1812. I'm unaware of any others. Please enlighten me.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

We invaded Quebec in 1775 to force them to take our side in the revolution (remarkable when the Continental Congress was still dithering on the question of independence and professing loyalty to the King). It didn't go well. It did make Benedict Arnold, who was in partial-command, something of a hero and rising star in the Continental Army, though. :lol:

[maarsen]

There was the Aroostoook War as mentioned before between Maine and New Brunswick, and The Pig War on Vancouver Island. Check them out on Wikipedia.

[maarsen]

We invaded Quebec in 1775 to force them to take our side in the revolution (remarkable when the Continental Congress was still dithering on the question of independence and professing loyalty to the King). It didn't go well. It did make Benedict Arnold, who was in partial-command, something of a hero and rising star in the Continental Army, though. :lol:

Forgot about that one.

[Jo498]

I read a lot of popularized history books, some even before the subject was touched in school. Of course those give you at best a rough outline of some facts (or stories "how people lived back then"), nothing detailed or systematic.

In (German) high school we had history almost continuously from 7th grade until the end as an obligatory subject (although only one or two lessons a week). This was not very good, as I recall. More or less one started with the Egyptians and Ancient Greece and than covered "everything" until 10th grade when the earlier half of the 20th century was reached. In 11th grade we more or less started over and again began with Athens and Sparta at a "higher" level. Everything non-European was woefully underrepresented, i.e. a little conionalism and the Americas, but hardly anything elser.

The main thing which is probably not made clear to younger students is that usually all the sources are "one-sided" and it is a difficult job to get to the historical truth, if it is possible at all. Although many "naked facts" might be presented and learned as unproblematic positive knowledge, everything else, especially the presentation of importan figures as "heroes", "saints", "villains" etc. is always one-sided. And there probably is not enough space on the curriculum to get both the important facts and developments as well as historical method of comparing and interpreting sources across. Except in some advanced/specialized classes.

[Summah]

Lots of lies aggrandizing dead white men.

[sologdin]

of course public high school text books are one-sided. the reason is that the books must be approved by state school boards prior to their adoption. because the publishers prefer to economize general subjects such as US history, the largest state school boards will control what gets placed into the general market. this usually means texas exercises virtual veto power of textbook publishing. if a liberal school board in vermont wants to have an honest appraisal of slavery or class warfare or genocide against natives, it will be a difficult proposition to get that through the normal producers of tertiary sources. rather, arriere garde school boards will preclude the generalization of arguments critical of US foreign policy, slavery, dixieland, jim crow, and so on. one famous case involved the state school board of mississippi 86ing textbooks that mentioned lynching. FFS. textbooks, if they get to the cold war, will not mention US genocides, and will present it only as a heroic narrative of struggle against the evil empire, the reaganite election narrative transformed into 'history.' this fits into the general narrative of prior conflicts. it's nasty business. private schools will no doubt only be worse. one can only imagine what happens in home school situations: camps for theocrats and fascists.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maarsan,

Was there any shooting in the "pig war"? I'll have to look up the Aroostook War. 1775 doesn't count as defeat as the US won independence.

This says the Aroostook war was a draw and a compromise where the US was significantly outnumbered 6,000 for the US and 15,000 for Canada.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War

As such a draw seems pretty good for the US.

[sologdin]

Scot, the 1775 invasion was a strategic defeat for the US, even though the ultimate political objective was obtained.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

My point is that it wasn't a lost "war" as with the War of 1812 where the capture of Canada was one of the primary objectives. The best the US can claim as to 1812 is a draw wherein our capital city was sacked and burned.

[Galactus]

The problem is really, "What is history teaching for?"

To understand the political history? To understand how people lived, thought, ate, etc. in past times? To understand the historical process (how to criticize sources, understand what is meant by the historical record, historiography, how sources can be skewed and incomplete, etc.)? To provide a basic set of "general facts" that are considered useful for a citizen? To instill some kind of value or teach some kind of lesson?

All of these things are part of history education to various extents.

[maarsen]

Scot, the 1775 invasion was a strategic defeat for the US, even though the ultimate political objective was obtained.

Imagine the result if General Arnold had succeeded in wooing Quebec. Especially for Louisiana. Would the Acadians have moved back to the Maritime provinces of Canada if they had also joined the breakaway colonies? With the French presence above and below, would the US be an officially bilingual country now? Would Solo be the man we know now?

[Aemon Stark]

I think we got a fairly and interestingly balanced review of a lot of major events. I vaguely remember a lot of ancient history in earlier grades, but in grade 7 and 8 we covered a lot of Canadian history, especially pre-Confederation. And we watched all the Heritage Moments repeatedly. My grade 8 teacher genuinely made things fun, up to and including a "re-enactment" of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. (We got lots of Titanic stuff too since it was my teacher's particular obsession. Yes, this was a year or two before *that* movie.)

Later on in high school we covered a lot of 20th century stuff. WWI, causes thereof, and the effects of Versailles and everything afterward, the Halifax Explosion, Africville, race relations, immigration, and multiculturalism. Most of the time the approach was fairly thoughtful and required a lot more than the memorization of dates.

And I do know my Heritage Moments (like everyone else born in the 80s).

[Aemon Stark]

Imagine the result if General Arnold had succeeded in wooing Quebec. Especially for Louisiana. Would the Acadians have moved back to the Maritime provinces of Canada if they had also joined the breakaway colonies? With the French presence above and below, would the US be an officially bilingual country now? Would Solo be the man we know now?

Given opposition to the Quebec Act, I can't imagine bilingualism would've been on offer...

[maarsen]

Given opposition to the Quebec Act, I can't imagine bilingualism would've been on offer...

With Quebec in control of the St Lawrence and in de facto control of the fur trade and as Upper Canada was still politically part of Quebec, there would be reasons to guarantee them the right to use the French language in exchange for access to a huge swath of territory and routes into the interior.

[maarsen]

Maarsan,

Was there any shooting in the "pig war"? I'll have to look up the Aroostook War. 1775 doesn't count as defeat as the US won independence.

This says the Aroostook war was a draw and a compromise where the US was significantly outnumbered 6,000 for the US and 15,000 for Canada.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War

As such a draw seems pretty good for the US.

I think a pig got shot, which was the cause of all the problems in the first place.

[HexMachina]

I read a lot of popularized history books, some even before the subject was touched in school. Of course those give you at best a rough outline of some facts (or stories "how people lived back then"), nothing detailed or systematic.

In (German) high school we had history almost continuously from 7th grade until the end as an obligatory subject (although only one or two lessons a week). This was not very good, as I recall. More or less one started with the Egyptians and Ancient Greece and than covered "everything" until 10th grade when the earlier half of the 20th century was reached. In 11th grade we more or less started over and again began with Athens and Sparta at a "higher" level. Everything non-European was woefully underrepresented, i.e. a little conionalism and the Americas, but hardly anything elser.

The main thing which is probably not made clear to younger students is that usually all the sources are "one-sided" and it is a difficult job to get to the historical truth, if it is possible at all. Although many "naked facts" might be presented and learned as unproblematic positive knowledge, everything else, especially the presentation of importan figures as "heroes", "saints", "villains" etc. is always one-sided. And there probably is not enough space on the curriculum to get both the important facts and developments as well as historical method of comparing and interpreting sources across. Except in some advanced/specialized classes.

Hm, from what I recall at school in the UK (I missed quite a lot of.secondary school for.various reasons, do I didnt get the full syllabus taught to me) we did ancient civilisations in Year 7 (Incas, Aztecs for the most part, though we did a couple of others too) and.we studied a little about piracy and the slave trade. We also did various figures from British history and some stuff about Victorian London. We then started WWI stuff, at which point I started missing a lot of.school. As I understand though, a lot of focus was on WWI and WWII.

We were always told to evaluate sources though, to consider where our information came ftom and whether it may be biasd