What Are We Learning In History Class?

We (America) tend to want to "positively reinforce" our children I believe. Rather then openly annouce faults of the country, the education system takes a bend on reality, and keeps all the education of american history in "patriotism mode"

Being from the US I love my country, I'm patriotic but I also realise that enough is enough. I'm personally sick of all of the propaganda (lack of better word) that we get fed in history class. I'd personally like for our classes to teach more international history and more of the hidden facts about the US.

Isn't it interesting how the textbooks when discussing how we wiped out numerous native Americans the books only tell how they attacked and how we heroicly (sp, don't know how to spell) annilated them. Yet they forget to mention the times that we attacked them, and the times they held their own against us.

Also another interesting thing is that it makes Russian history look like a bunch of dictatorships and chaos. The textbooks don't mention anything good about the Russians, also it makes them look like they wanted to start a war with NATO. Oddly enough textbooks seem to be very pro-French, often glorifing them in various wars, they sort of forget to mention the fact that they lost virtually all of their wars, including the occupation in the 40's.

Well to a certain extent propoganda is healthy. There is nothing wrong with someone having positive feelings about their country, as long as it is tempered with truth. I'm a history teacher and while I teach out of the book, I'm constantly on here and other sites looking for documented information to "enrich" my lessons. I also try to convey to them that history is literally a story and there are different accounts to what occured in many events. So, basically I try to give my students pride in their country while giving them the truth as I can find it within the curriculum I'm required by the state to teach lol.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Also another interesting thing is that it makes Russian history look like a bunch of dictatorships and chaos. The textbooks don't mention anything good about the Russians, also it makes them look like they wanted to start a war with NATO. Oddly enough textbooks seem to be very pro-French, often glorifing them in various wars, they sort of forget to mention the fact that they lost virtually all of their wars, including the occupation in the 40's.

Well, you're cutting wtih both side now, son. If you know anythign about history, then you know that until the fall of Napoleon, the French were among the world's finest soldiers. Hell, they still are. If you want to cut quibbles about world war two, why don't you explain why the US had its thumbs up its ass while the rest of the world -including france and its colonies- were fighting the Nazis? And that hitler's war machine prettymuch invented the way modern conflict was fought, so don't tell me they were crappy fighters. Recovering country+ brand new, supermodern assault force= fall of france. Oh, remember the BEF, and the evacuation at dunkirk? It's not a matter of being pro or anti French or German or British...those are simply the facts.

DE

Yes I suppose I was fairly biased. I still feel that many textbooks are pretty pro-French, failing to note their loses, it's a bit like how according to most textbooks the US has never lost a war, and Vietnam wasn't a true loss.

Originally posted by XX_Mouse_XX
Have we ever actually sat and thought to ourselfs, "What are we learning in history class?", or maybe "How Do We Know This Point Of History Happned The Way It Was Told?". Alot of times I wonder to my self why so many figures in history portrey themselves as hero's, and Native Americans as savages. Even thought its 2005 some history books still insist that the Native Americans were the aggressors and still refered to as Indians in most cases. I didnt see this as a existing post so someone help me out with theories and hypothosis.

History is written in the eyes of the victor. Julius Caesar was a prime example. My history teacher has always stayed neutral though. Believe it or not, it can usually depend a lot on the teacher. There is nothing more annoying than sitting through a class with a biased instructor, especially when your views are completely opposite of what's being said (trust me, I've sat through lessons given by Bush supporters).

All I must say is that you should never voice strong opinions that can offend people. That's rule #1 for all social studies classes. You'll probably end up developing your own strong opinions anyhow. That's when conflict begins .

History has its uses though. You'll be able to debate better in many cases if you can draw examples from history.

History is very useful if for nothing else then to see where other civilizations screwed up and how we're making the same mistakes.

Oh yeah, and as I tell my students

"Those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat 11th grade" lol

[edit on 6-12-2004 by jukyu]

Well you know how history repeats inself and those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. It definatly helps to have non-biased history classes.