Is history racist?

jenny12

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,225
It was better than no one having any say because god chose king George to rule them with absolute power. It was extraordinarily progressive!

Yeah, I’m sure that was comforting to the enslaved and the dispossessed: At least they didn’t have to deal with King George! Sorry, I’m not sold on your “Critical At Least Theory” of American History.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,761
I'm not sure I know what is meant by "founded on slavery." Do people mean that they believe that slavery was the sole reason for the revolution against British rule and the founding of the United States? That seems to be how @caseyedwards is taking it. That slavery was a central factor driving the events of the American Revolution and creation of the Constitution and country as well as the following decades down to the Civil War, even @caseyedwards seems to agree.

I'm not convinced that slavery was the one reason for the establishment of the United States. I'm also not convinced that you can just dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a white supremacist document with no relevance beyond the historical moment it was written by property-owning (and slave holding) white men. I think that leaves out much too much complexity. I think Thomas Jefferson and others believed in representative government and equality, their view was limited by their inability to include more than those who resembled themselves in that vision, but it was a vision that has been the center of a struggle throughout our history to extend its meaning to everyone.

I also think its relevant to consider casting yourself back to the 1850s and thinking about what was at stake. Would it have been better to stand on principle and watch the southern states remove themselves from the union? At the time, people didn't know the outcome of the struggle, and what the compromises would bear.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
67,778
The problem with slavery and racism is they are independent but overlapping issues. The US revolution was most certainly not a one issue movement and neither was the US Civil War. They were much more complex. Slavery crosses racial/ethnic lines and is alive and well today, including in the US. We call it human trafficking now. It's all around us and ignored by most. Bringing the issue back to high school students is complex in how we teach this. All non-collegiate history classes white-wash the text, can't upset the little kiddies, and leave out most of it. Partly, simply due to the fact of a lot of information and a short period of time. Most schools don't have the luxury of having separate classes on historical eras like college, but most college students, except the history majors, don't study this either. By the time you cram everything into 20 chapters or so, most has been ignored. Based on the fact universities despair of teaching critical thinking skills to students, they do not do this in high school.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,761
The problem with slavery and racism is they are independent but overlapping issues. The US revolution was most certainly not a one issue movement and neither was the US Civil War. They were much more complex. Slavery crosses racial/ethnic lines and is alive and well today, including in the US. We call it human trafficking now. It's all around us and ignored by most. Bringing the issue back to high school students is complex in how we teach this. All non-collegiate history classes white-wash the text, can't upset the little kiddies, and leave out most of it. Partly, simply due to the fact of a lot of information and a short period of time. Most schools don't have the luxury of having separate classes on historical eras like college, but most college students, except the history majors, don't study this either. By the time you cram everything into 20 chapters or so, most has been ignored. Based on the fact universities despair of teaching critical thinking skills to students, they do not do this in high school.

This is where I have lots of questions about how history is taught, given that I don't have any recent experience as a student or parent or an educator. There is clearly limited time for teaching history. So how do we decide what to teach? More can be taught in High School than elementary school, but we do teach history in elementary school. But it must be a boiled down version, essentially highlights.

What should we teach? That the US is a shining city on a hill founded without flaws? That it is a racist country founded to protect and promote slavery and its founding documents are documents of white supremacy?

Is there time for something more nuanced? Is something more nuanced acceptable to a enough people?
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
67,778
These are the questions and there isn't a simple answer. Given that most K-12 education is rote memory and not critical thinking, it's a real challenge and to date, it's been easier to just ignore it. Which leads students to a whole lot of misconceptions that they are often dumbfounded when they get into a good college level class. But, even then, most general ed classes are very basic. It begins with the textbooks and then the teacher who uses the textbook. Look at how Thanksgiving is taught...happy Native Americans and happy Pilgrims sharing a turkey and pumpkin pie. Neither of which is remotely based on reality, but it makes for good elementary school plays and posters.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,848
I also think its relevant to consider casting yourself back to the 1850s and thinking about what was at stake. Would it have been better to stand on principle and watch the southern states remove themselves from the union? At the time, people didn't know the outcome of the struggle, and what the compromises would bear.

The more I've studied and seen of U.S. history, the more I wonder what would have happened if the Northern/Southern parts of the country did in fact go their separate ways after the Revolution. It's the great unknown in our history, with implications almost too wide-ranging to fathom.


The problem with slavery and racism is they are independent but overlapping issues. The US revolution was most certainly not a one issue movement and neither was the US Civil War. They were much more complex. Slavery crosses racial/ethnic lines and is alive and well today, including in the US. We call it human trafficking now. It's all around us and ignored by most. Bringing the issue back to high school students is complex in how we teach this. All non-collegiate history classes white-wash the text, can't upset the little kiddies, and leave out most of it. Partly, simply due to the fact of a lot of information and a short period of time. Most schools don't have the luxury of having separate classes on historical eras like college, but most college students, except the history majors, don't study this either. By the time you cram everything into 20 chapters or so, most has been ignored. Based on the fact universities despair of teaching critical thinking skills to students, they do not do this in high school.

I don't know if it's really as bad as this? AP History classes, at least, should be teaching kids critical thinking skills. As discussed in other threads, many schools today don't use textbooks much, at least in lower grades ... theoretically, one benefit of this is opening the door for teachers to emphasize non-standard versions of history.


This is where I have lots of questions about how history is taught, given that I don't have any recent experience as a student or parent or an educator. There is clearly limited time for teaching history. So how do we decide what to teach? More can be taught in High School than elementary school, but we do teach history in elementary school. But it must be a boiled down version, essentially highlights.


One of the basic problems with teaching history in the U.S. is that it is not, IMO, valued by educational thought leaders at the government level. In elementary education these days, there is a lot of focus on STEM topics, because there is a general belief that STEM knowledge is more important for jobs in the future. Thus, as an elementary parent, you see things like afterschool STEM camps, funded through grants. But you never see anything like history camp. In our school system, my kids took science for a couple years in elementary school, and the science teachers/lab materials were funded by a private group that supports STEM education. Then that group decided our school system's MCAS scores weren't showing enough improvement ... and they dropped their investment. No more science teachers or lab materials, and the elementary science curriculum got pushed back on the general education teachers. Still, at least there was a science program for a while ... Nothing comparable for social studies or history. This is the kind of weird stuff that goes on in schools in the U.S.

In elementary school, my kids only had social studies for a couple afternoons a week in the upper grades. That is all. I can say that, during that very limited time, the curriculum was in fact fairly sensitized. The kids learned about Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. They learned that Columbus did not treat indigenous peoples well. But, with only a couple afternoons a week, there was little structure or continuity to what they were learning.

This past year at their charter middle school, they finally had history as a regular class. Their teacher started with foundational information about basic geography. Then they started learning history literally from the beginning, looking at the initial development of agriculture/recorded history in the Middle East. They did units about ancient Egyptian culture and ancient Central/South American cultures. I don't know how in-depth it's been, but there is a logical development and inclusiveness to the curriculum that I like.

This represents my recent experience as a parent with elementary/middle ed teaching of history. Would be interested to hear what other parents have experienced.

I do think it's a fine line with kids and history. So many of them see history as simply the past and not relevant to their current lives. Even one of my daughters had this attitude (much as we tried to explain otherwise!!). Good teachers are important in history (as in other subjects).
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,761
Thanks @clairecloutier for going into detail about your kids schooling. Its interesting to hear what is actually being taught.

It makes me feel like I had some charmed experience those 60 or so years ago in elementary school because we did have a lot of history lessons though they were "white-washed" without question. One thing I remember clearly is in 5th grade our history started with a whole lot of information about the Europeans who "discovered" America. For a long time I knew all the names of the Spanish explorers.

ETA: What I've been thinking about is that ultimately we have a national narrative of our history. The narrative I grew up with was a white-centered narrative that didn't exclude slavery but downplayed its importance and dismissed the experience of peoples of color as not central to US history. I think we are still struggling to remove that narrative and create a new one based on inclusivity. And so we have incredible contention in the teaching of history and social studies now and I'd guess that leads to an environment which it makes it hard to have quality education in those areas.

BTW, a plug for a book I just read: White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea by Tyler Stovall. It focuses not just on US history but also France; its an interesting look at how white supremacist thinking has been ingrained in our history.

 
Last edited:

Prancer

Demonic Chihuahua
Staff member
Messages
51,709
I'm not sure I know what is meant by "founded on slavery." Do people mean that they believe that slavery was the sole reason for the revolution against British rule and the founding of the United States? That seems to be how @caseyedwards is taking it. That slavery was a central factor driving the events of the American Revolution and creation of the Constitution and country as well as the following decades down to the Civil War, even @caseyedwards seems to agree.
I am not sure who, besides @caseyedwards and some politicians, think that the slavery was the sole reason for the revolution. Maybe we could have some sources--and not fringe people with fringe opinions, but actual people who teach CRT.

This is typical of the response to such requests that I have seen.

A couple of months ago, there was a school levy on the ballot here and a parent group formed to fight the levy as part of a movement to deny passing levies to any school systems that were teaching CRT. This came up on my Nextdoor forum; some people said "Um, DO our schools teach CRT?" The founder of the local group didn't actually know, but if the schools WERE teaching CRT, they weren't getting a penny from her! And when people pointed out that the schools are not teaching CRT, it didn't matter because the schools wouldn't come out and SAY they were teaching CRT; liberals are sneaking it in!

Which leads students to a whole lot of misconceptions that they are often dumbfounded when they get into a good college level class.
AKA liberal brainwashing.
Look at how Thanksgiving is taught...happy Native Americans and happy Pilgrims sharing a turkey and pumpkin pie. Neither of which is remotely based on reality, but it makes for good elementary school plays and posters.
Is Thanksgiving still taught that way? That wasn't what my kids got in school.

I still remember my son coming home from first grade, almost in tears because the greedy colonists had killed the Native Americans, which was wrong because the Native Americans were all peaceful people who just wanted to share the earth.

This past year at their charter middle school, they finally had history as a regular class. Their teacher started with foundational information about basic geography. Then they started learning history literally from the beginning, looking at the initial development of agriculture/recorded history in the Middle East. They did units about ancient Egyptian culture and ancient Central/South American cultures. I don't know how in-depth it's been, but there is a logical development and inclusiveness to the curriculum that I like.
I had history every year starting in eighth grade and it was ALWAYS American history, never anything else. I had social studies before that; I don't remember exactly how it went in terms of year, but we covered Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, skipped through a lot of European history and ended with a year on South and Central America in seventh (I remember that one very clearly). ETA: Reading BR's post reminded me that yes, in fifth grade, we covered explorers. I read at least 10 books about Sacajawea that year.

I think with my kids, there was some sort of general social studies until they went off to sixth grade, where they did a year on the Ancient World (Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.), one year of early Western Civ (Greece and Rome) and one year of later Western Civ (Europe, mostly England, through the Industrial Revolution and the founding of the US). In high school, they did two years of American history, one year of World History and one optional history/cultural studies class.

My son really likes history and knows a lot about all kinds of things; my daughter thought it was boring and knows very little. It's just like any other subject in that regard. What is taught and what is learned are not the same things.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
67,778
I am not sure who, besides @caseyedwards and some politicians, think that the slavery was the sole reason for the revolution. Maybe we could have some sources--and not fringe people with fringe opinions, but actual people who teach CRT.

This is typical of the response to such requests that I have seen.

A couple of months ago, there was a school levy on the ballot here and a parent group formed to fight the levy as part of a movement to deny passing levies to any school systems that were teaching CRT. This came up on my Nextdoor forum; some people said "Um, DO our schools teach CRT?" The founder of the local group didn't actually know, but if the schools WERE teaching CRT, they weren't getting a penny from her! And when people pointed out that the schools are not teaching CRT, it didn't matter because the schools wouldn't come out and SAY they were teaching CRT; liberals are sneaking it in!


AKA liberal brainwashing.

Is Thanksgiving still taught that way? That wasn't what my kids got in school.

I still remember my son coming home from first grade, almost in tears because the greedy colonists had killed the Native Americans, which was wrong because the Native Americans were all peaceful people who just wanted to
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,761
My son really likes history and knows a lot about all kinds of things; my daughter thought it was boring and knows very little. It's just like any other subject in that regard. What is taught and what is learned are not the same things.
:lol: I had two years of algebra in high school and one year of history. I came out knowing a lot more history than algebra...
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
67,778
:lol: I had two years of algebra in high school and one year of history. I came out knowing a lot more history than algebra...
Yeah, me too. Then I did a minor in history as an undergraduate as a counterpoint to my biology major, and learned that a whole lot of the stuff I learned in that minor was really basic or flat out questionable when I was in grad school. Historical archaeology goes in a totally different direction because it does not focus on the written record. People's trash often tells a different story than the sanitized version they wrote down. But combined with the written record, we gat a better understanding of the past and how it led to the present.
 

Prancer

Demonic Chihuahua
Staff member
Messages
51,709
:lol: I had two years of algebra in high school and one year of history. I came out knowing a lot more history than algebra...
I thought I would die of boredom in all those American history classes. It was always the same thing, over and over, and it was always all about dates. If people learned things just because they were taught, I should be able to rattle off all the major battles of the Civil War and their dates, but I couldn't tell you any of them. I honestly couldn't have said for sure when the Civil War took place with any certainty until a few years ago when I taught a class in Civil War literature. Before that, I would have said, "Um, in the middle 1800s?"

But I still remember taking American Federal Government in college (only because it was required for my degree) and having to do a timeline of American federal government history on a test. The girl who sat next to me asked me if I had gotten any of it right, then told me she had gotten it all wrong and asked me what I had put for the first thing. When I said "the Magna Carta," she frowned and said she didn't know what that was, but she had put the Inauguration of George Washington first because he was a really old guy.

Not only had we covered this in class, but she had to have had all that in K-12, too, because it's in the state educational requirements (more than once). But whoosh! And she wasn't alone; almost everyone in the class got that timeline completely wrong. The professor ranted about it for almost an hour.

Most of what I learned about history came from reading a lot of biographies when I was young and from reading literature. You cannot understand literature without having a pretty good grasp of history. But school? Meh.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,761
I was lucky, or maybe just interested enough, to learn a good foundation of US history. I didn't know the dates of much, and didn't learn anything much about the US after WWI, but I had something to go on when I was interested in finding out more later in life.

I didn't take any history in college for my degree, so having that foundation of at least an idea of the time frame and the development of the country was a good thing.

I read articles that talk about how much of what US Americans know about history comes from movies and tv and popular fiction. I think that is an important source for influencing how people see history.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704
In CT, in the 50's, someone or other decided on using the following theory of teaching history to kids: in third grade you would do town history, in fourth grade you would do state history, in fifth grade you would start US history, 6th grade was Central and South America history & geography. Then we were off to JR high & high school which was the same kind of history classes everyone else is describing, lots of lists, dates, and battles.

The idea was that kids would better understand the idea of history if you started with places they would recognize and people and place names that might have figured in their own lives.

The interesting part of this curriculum was there was, of course, no town history book, and the teachers in the Town had to get together to figure out what to teach. One of those teachers was Mary Virginia Morgan Goodman who wrote the history column for the local paper, was one of the founders of the local Indian and Colonial Research Center, and identified as Pequot. And so we learned about the genocide (the word was not used) practiced against the Pequots during the the Pequot War, and how the Mohegans and Narragansetts fought on the side of the English.


And we learned about the Revolution from the Battle of Groton Heights where a force led by Benedict Arnold against Groton and New London massacred the defenders of Groton Heights and burned New London. Col. Ledyard, the leader of the American forces, was stabbed with his own sword as he surrendered to the British.

And we learned about the hurricane of 1938.

From a pedagogical point of view, it is interesting I remember this stuff from third grade, but I too could not tell you much about boring Civil War battles.
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,612
We had Social Studies for K-6 and then American History for 7 and World History for 8. Then I went to a private school and I don't remember what the requirements were except there was a state requirement to take US History to graduate. I am pretty sure I took a history class because I remember reading de Tocqueville but I also remember not taking US History because I went to college early and got my HS Diploma that way. I took a history class in college because it was part of the Gen Ed requirements and, again, I don't remember what kind of history but we did study the Peloponnesian War. So probably something classical.

The Social Studies curriculum my kids got in K-5 is similar to the new curriculum we just approved which is called "Social Studies Alive!" if people have heard about that. It starts out talking about your place in the world -- how there are different kinds of family and families live in cities/towns and towns are part of states which are part of the country. There are units on CA history and on US history.

There isn't as much white-washing as there is a bit of "both sides"-ism. One good aspect of this is that it shows the motivations of the South in the Civil war as making economic sense and not some "those evil slave owners who just are evil" that I learned. But there is not enough pointing out that one side was enslaving people and that's just wrong.
 

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,300
This represents my recent experience as a parent with elementary/middle ed teaching of history. Would be interested to hear what other parents have experienced.

I can comment on high school curriculum a bit since I've got a recent grad and a student going into 11th grade in the fall. Typically, history is taught as one component of the overall social studies curriculum, and students have some flexibility to pick their courses as long as they tick all the boxes. My kids are/were on the advanced placement (AP) track, so that affected their choices, and since I live in a red area, I like the idea that the AP courses should (in theory) have content that is less impacted by local politics.

In general, our district's social studies curriculum is as follows: 9th grade is civics and geography, 10th grade is world history, 11th grade is US history, and 12th grade is government. All students also need to take economics and human behavior (sociology or psychology) at some point. So, unlike when I was a kid, much of the the high school social studies curriculum is content other than history. In contrast, I believe I had to take at least 3 years of history in high school, with two full years of US history (pre Civil War and post Civil War), plus world history. Then I also took European history, but that may have been an elective.

Also, when my older kid went through the curriculum (not long ago since he just graduated), the world history requirement on the AP track was satisfied with AP Human Geography, so he never actually took a world history course! That has since changed and my younger kid took the AP World History course in 10th grade. I like the fact that they take world history rather than human geography, but I wonder about the best sequencing of world vs. US history? I find that I can argue for either ordering, so I wonder what the experts recommend? Also, the world history AP exam is supposed to be one of the more challenging ones (at least within the social studies category), so taking that in 10th grade can be daunting. The human geography AP exam was a nice easy introduction to AP exams, so that worked out better in terms of building confidence and gaining experience. But of course that isn't really a curricular issue!
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,848
It is interesting to hear about other people's curricula. For myself, I always liked social studies in school. I don't think we had much in elementary. I vaguely remember a lot of American history in middle school, and I loved kids' books and shows/movies with historic themes, so between all that, I always had a good grasp on the basic outline/dates of American history. (I agree with you, @Prancer, that learning some history via literature is a key avenue.)

In high school, we were all over the place! Ninth grade was human evolution (which I found, and still find, fascinating) and maybe some ancient civilizations. Tenth grade ranged from studying castes in India to a big unit on the French Revolution. We also did current events, LOL. Our teacher that year was tough as hell, but I still liked the subjects. I remember her making us do extensive outlines (several pages long, with dates/facts) before writing our papers. In 11th grade, it was AP American History. For the first time, we were reading source documents and studying different theories about history. I loved it! Then in 12th grade, I did a combined social studies/English class that studied history through literature. Some odd reading choices, but interesting.

In college, I started out as an English major, because English/reading had always been my thing since elementary school. But I took history classes for core requirements as much as I could. And soon realized that I enjoyed them more than my English classes. So I kept the English major, but also double-majored in history.

My road not taken in life is going to grad school for history. One of my history professors urged me to, but I felt like I needed a break from school after college. I'd do it now if money were no object, LOL.
 

Prancer

Demonic Chihuahua
Staff member
Messages
51,709
From a pedagogical point of view, it is interesting I remember this stuff from third grade, but I too could not tell you much about boring Civil War battles.
:lol: I remember so many things from school more than I remember the Civil War battles. I do remember taking a test of the Civil War and just writing "Bull Run" for all the battle questions because I knew it would be right at least part of the time.

My students in Civil War lit were bracing themselves to be bored to death in class, but most of them ended up really into it. It's people and stories that make history interesting.

There isn't as much white-washing as there is a bit of "both sides"-ism. One good aspect of this is that it shows the motivations of the South in the Civil war as making economic sense and not some "those evil slave owners who just are evil" that I learned. But there is not enough pointing out that one side was enslaving people and that's just wrong.
I find it interesting that you were taught that slave owners were evil. Slavery was just presented as slavery; I don't remember a lot of moralizing (I could have forgotten). But we definitely talked about the economic aspect of slavery; I was in school when "The war was about economics, not slavery" was becoming popular, although I missed the years when that was really widespread.

But at least I learned that slaves were slaves and not immigrant workers.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,704
:lol: I remember so many things from school more than I remember the Civil War battles. I do remember taking a test of the Civil War and just writing "Bull Run" for all the battle questions because I knew it would be right at least part of the time.

My students in that Civil War lit were bracing themselves to be bored to death in class, but most of them ended up really into it. It's people and stories that make history interesting.
....
:lol: When we weren't doing boring Civil War Battles, we were doing Revolutionary
War boring battles in 10th grade. The only thing I remember is a test on the Revolutionary War which consisted of only 3 essay questions. And one was about The Cherry Valley Massacre. I had never heard of the Cherry Valley Massacre, or at least did not remember it, so I wrote an essay based solely on what I could guess from the title. If it was a Massacre, the British must have won, and there must have been Indians involved on their side, hence near the frontier at the time. If it took place in a place called Cherry Valley, it must also be in a place where cherries grow, so I guessed Iroquois and NY state. I got a B+ on that test and was very amused about it, but privately though.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
67,778
It seems the Southern Baptist Convention has met and did not elect the really right wing guy as the new President. Apparently there was a significant discussion on CRT and racism within the SBC https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/southern-baptist-convention-president-ed-litton.html Apparently a lot of young and diverse members showed up to vote which was not anticipated by the faction that wanted to move farther to the right side of the political spectrum. I do wonder if this will just result in a splintering of the denomination. A lot of Black pastors left last year and more threatened to leave this time if the Convention went in that direction.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
42,612
I find it interesting that you were taught that slave owners were evil. Slavery was just presented as slavery; I don't remember a lot of moralizing (I could have forgotten).
So you saying this makes me wonder too. I mean this was over 50 years ago and memory is malleable. So is this was what was taught? Or what I learned? I definitely don't remember being taught very much about the economic issues involved. There was cursory mention of it but not really the implications. However, there was definitely a bit of smugness that our state never had slavery. That I'm pretty sure of.

I do wonder if this will just result in a splintering of the denomination. A lot of Black pastors left last year and more threatened to leave this time if the Convention went in that direction.
You don't think this will cause some of those Black pastors to come back?

My view of the world is that here in CA and in my city, liberals are the majority but the right thinks they are and also is very organized and vocal making it seem like our city (in particular) is conservative. [Note: this may or may not be accurate--it's my impression only] I see that this means that those of us who are the majority need to stop being so damn complacent and also be organized and vocal.


And I am going to steal this quote from someone I work with and offer it to those who are so freaked out by (supposed) CRT being taught in schools:

Every nation, every people, every tribe, has some things in their past and present that don't live up to their own self-professed ideals. Commitment to growth, to examination, to self-awareness, is not easy.

It is part of our commitment to excellence as a nation (a core American value) that we need to examine past and present missteps and vow to do better.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,717
Yeah, I’m sure that was comforting to the enslaved and the dispossessed: At least they didn’t have to deal with King George! Sorry, I’m not sold on your “Critical At Least Theory” of American History.
there was no reason to believe or expect people to go from willingly being ruled by one man by divine right to what’s current modern day politics suffrage in 1776! The mainstream opinions and the middle ground was debate between divine right and voting by land owning men
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
30,411
Re STEM, I prefer STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and math).

Plus, studying history would be very useful for STEM students (and for any student) to understand how ideas develop and spread, and how to think critically about information. I took a history of science course a few years ago and it was absolutely fascinating, to see how people tried to understand the world around them, and how that understanding evolved across time.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,665
So many of them see history as simply the past and not relevant to their current lives.
This is where a good teacher can make all the difference.

For example, if the history of the women's movement were taught in schools (maybe it is today?), I think the relevance is really clear. It's not hard to understand that women's suffrage and the second wave of feminism made major contributions to the advancement of women's rights. Mind you, at least some American schools seem to be anti-woman to a certain extent (e.g. pro-life) and 'herstory' has always been understudied.

Civil rights movement also retains relevance, given that Blacks continue to face discrimination and oppression.
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,665
I thought I would die of boredom in all those American history classes. It was always the same thing, over and over, and it was always all about dates.

This. I chose American History as an elective in high school because I so badly at French. It bored me to tears. Shame - American history (any history) doesn't have to be boring. I would have been to learn about women's suffrage and the civil rights movements. IIRC there none of that in the curriculum. It was only about white people in power who did certain things at certain times.

Canadian history was of course no better.
 

Prancer

Demonic Chihuahua
Staff member
Messages
51,709
It seems the Southern Baptist Convention has met and did not elect the really right wing guy as the new President. Apparently there was a significant discussion on CRT and racism within the SBC https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/southern-baptist-convention-president-ed-litton.html Apparently a lot of young and diverse members showed up to vote which was not anticipated by the faction that wanted to move farther to the right side of the political spectrum. I do wonder if this will just result in a splintering of the denomination. A lot of Black pastors left last year and more threatened to leave this time if the Convention went in that direction.
This it totally thread drift, but I have been riveted by coverage of the infighting in the SBC for months now and have read so many articles this week that I need to stop for a while. I thought about starting a thread, but I'm not sure anyone else would be as interested as I am.

I had expected the right wingers to win. I am boggled that they didn't. I'll bet they are even MORE boggled that they didn't, as they were pretty much set to do it. And they almost did.

:watch:

Er, back to history.

This isn't about CRT, but about how history is learned as narrative:

A few years ago, I decided to travel around America visiting sites that are grappling—or refusing to grapple—with America’s history of slavery. I went to plantations, prisons, cemeteries, museums, memorials, houses, and historical landmarks. As I traveled, I was moved by the people who have committed their lives to telling the story of slavery in all its fullness and humanity. And I was struck by the many people I met who believe a version of history that rests on well-documented falsehoods.

For so many of them, history isn’t the story of what actually happened; it is just the story they want to believe. It is not a public story we all share, but an intimate one, passed down like an heirloom, that shapes their sense of who they are. Confederate history is family history, history as eulogy, in which loyalty takes precedence over truth.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,848
This article discusses how John Marshall, influential early Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was a dedicated slaveowner, buying up to 300 slaves during his life, and how this likely influenced his judicial opinions on issues relating to slavery and Native Americans:


When you read a story like this, it becomes hard to argue that slavery isn't intrinsic to the founding experience of the U.S. Certainly it was interwoven into the story from the beginning. The teaching of U.S. history has to acknowledge that. If it doesn't, it's selling a false narrative.
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,067
I studied history up to GCSE in the UK. The two years of GCSE are taught when kids are 14-16. The first thing I remember being given to do in history was read a bunch of things and identify if they were primary or secondary sources and discuss why it mattered. I remember thinking - i don't want to think, i took history because i have a good memory and i can remember dates really well :rofl:

I got a C in that particular GCSE apparently i wasn't ready to think:shuffle:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information