It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
I'm not sure what you mean. You certainly CAN teach just the facts and speak about the politics of the day, nation-building, etc. In fact it is speaking about these things which makes history INTERESTING. That is what is missing from our history classes currently. The part that makes it interesting.
History classes have been distilled down to exactly what you just mentioned, but instead of facts there are "factoids" about hero characters that may or may not be true (mostly not true). Then we have bland events that are completely unrelateable. It's all just "RAH RAH USA USA!" history and it is rather boring pretending like the US has always been completely altruistic.
It also needs to be shown to students that history is the culmination of events that led to the present. Actions in the past effect the present. How can a student appreciate history if she does not know this? A teacher of history must RELATE history to the present. For instance, when talking about Chester A. Authur, bring up the birther controversy around Obama. This can show how political tactics to undermine the other side have ALWAYS been dirty and are largely recycled.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko
Grade school is k - 12 in my book. I didn't see any mention of restricting the conversation to just elementary school. Middle schoolers and High schoolers damn well better relate the past to the present. They aren't robots and can handle the material.
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
OK...this is a fairly simple set of questions and opinions. A teacher is supposed to teach children facts. Math, reading, writing, history, etc. And the vast majority of teachers (from what I have experienced and read) are left leaning, politically. I find that my own daughters being presented with liberal opinions by their teachers and sometimes anti-right propaganda.
I have read about and have personally seen enough to know that liberal teachers like to express, and sometimes force their opinions upon their students. Maybe right-wing teachers do the same, but they are in the vast minority. Maybe giving a "B" for a right leaning essay and an "A" for a left leaning essay...for example. It makes me wonder that with the state of the USA government and the right/left fighting that the left (which includes most teacher's unions) could be having a field-day raising our children to believe that left leaning views are correct and right leaning views are wrong.
One example. My younger daughter asked me the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I was as fair as I could be...being right leaning myself. She commented that her teacher (among other comments) said "Republicans like starting wars". My understanding is quite the opposite.
I would like to propose the following for consideration. A law that states simply that teachers must teach proven facts only, and not opinions. Teach from a book...test upon facts and keep your personal opinions to yourself. I think it is a completely fair idea that doesn't harm or hinder anyone, it may even (in some cases: Religion) support the left side of politics. What does ATS think about this idea?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
You don't teach which side is correct and which side is wrong, but you DO teach both sides and then teach the outcome. Let the students decide what was right or wrong on their own. The problem is that history classes have been DESIGNED to teach us that America is always right so whatever course we chose in the past was the right one and the one we didn't choose is the wrong one. This isn't how you teach history. History is a series of conflicts where each side thinks they are correct and many times we still haven't figured out who was right in the long rung. Stop teaching right and wrong and just teach what happened. Both sides of it.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yeah, well, history is also a field that we are constantly learning new stuff about, too.
They taught me that dinosaurs are big, slow-moving creatures that had live in swamps because they couldn't support their own weight without the extra water, and no one knew for sure why they died off.
Guess how wrong that has turned out to be over the years since 1st grade.
Thing is. How do you want to teach it? I could teach the Civil War in two completely different ways using nothing but facts and give you two very different views. I could Lincoln a saint or a villain. So, you need to be careful what you ask for. Facts are facts, but a fact can be viewed in a very different way depending on its context.
Pearson Edexcel Level 1/Level 2 Certificate
Pearson Edexcel International GCSE
Friday 16 May 2014 – Morning
Time: 1 hour 30 minutes
Contents
Depth Studies
• Answer two questions.
• Answer a maximum of one question from each group.
• Do not combine the following:
– Option 1 and Option 5
– Option 2 and Option 4
– Option 3 and Option 7
Group A
1 Development of a nation: Unification of Germany, 1848–71 Page 3
2 Development of a nation: Unification of Italy, 1852–70 Page 4
3 Autocracy and revolt in Russia, 1881–1914 Page 5
Group B
4 Development of dictatorship: Italy, 1918–43 Page 6
5 Development of dictatorship: Germany, 1918–45 Page 7
6 A world divided: International relations between the wars, 1919–39 Page 8
Group C
7 Dictatorship and conflict in Russia, 1924–53 Page 9
8 A world divided: Superpower relations, 1945–62 Page 10
9 A divided union: Civil rights in the USA, 1945–74 Page 11
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t
No, I know the dinosaur thing is more science than history, but history and our understanding of it changes in similar ways.
New things are always coming to light. Someone has a previously unknown box of letters in their attic ... archeologists discover a new tomb or battlefield ... things like that.
And, of course, the real devil -- our own context changes, so we see old events through new glasses and proceed to judge them that way. Was Mohammad a pedophile? In our modern context, yes; in the context of his times, not as much.
Were the Founders a bunch of racists? By the context of our times, maybe. Study their writings, and you see a much more complicated picture.
Were the Egyptian dynasties a bunch of hopelessly inbred fools? By the standards of our time, probably. But in their day, it was considered necessary to preserve the blood, so they married siblings and cousins.
So maybe the problem is that we do not teach these things in their own historical context, but try to transplant them into our own which skews them and makes them something other than what they really were.