How good is your history class

[VoidCat]

I had a teacher say the civil war in the US was about state rights and had nothing to do with slavery

To which i replied: State rights to do what?

Never seen a teacher so flustered

 

[Subduction Zone]

All my classes were pretty poo (except art). Not entirely the fault of the teachers though they should have noticed something rather than classing me as thick and unteachable.

I'm dyslexic which was not diagosed until i was 14, simple green tinted eye glasses brought letters into focus and my education began in earnest

Weird how eyeglasses can do that. On a similar note I had a British lay working in my store once and she asked when I was going to deliver "the blue chair". Now I was truly confused and asked her what blue chair. She thought that I was teasing her since she was just as sure that there was only one blue chair. Finally I realized that she was speaking of a chair with a color that was close to jade green. At the same time I realized it was her eyeglasses with a slight purplish tint to them that was the culprit. I explained that to her and gave her a pillow to take to the daylight. She came back with an "I am angry at myself now" expression. Usually it is men with the problems when it comes to color perception. Not in this case

PS After retiring she returned to Leeds.

 

[ChristineM]

Weird how eyeglasses can do that. On a similar note I had a British lay working in my store once and she asked when I was going to deliver "the blue chair". Now I was truly confused and asked her what blue chair. She thought that I was teasing her since she was just as sure that there was only one blue chair. Finally I realized that she was speaking of a chair with a color that was close to jade green. At the same time I realized it was her eyeglasses with a slight purplish tint to them that was the culprit. I explained that to her and gave her a pillow to take to the daylight. She came back with an "I am angry at myself now" expression. Usually it is men with the problems when it comes to color perception. Not in this case

PS After retiring she returned to Leeds.

My problem is that red bleeds, considering most colours including white paper have some red in them. Reading the red blur that letters become is impossible. Solution, filter out the red.

Funnily enough i cannot wear glasses for driving, red traffic lights become black, who ever heard of stop on black? It's extremely difficult to take notice of.

 

[Stevicus]

Something of a cliche that I’ve always kind of grew up with is, honestly, how badly the US education is in terms of teaching history. (I assume below a College level.)

So I’m curious as to what your experiences were in school, at the younger levels specifically. Up until college level.
With history specifically. Though you may chime in with faults of other subjects if you so desire.

Because I’ve had many interactions with my US brethren which indicates that history was largely “whitewashed” and many that indicated the opposite
I assume that’s to do with how different states handle such things, yeah?
And honestly it’s something I’ve always been a little curious about.

Have at it.

As far as a school subject, history was often relegated to what was generally referred to (in my school) as "social studies," which was kind of a catch-all term to cover history, political science, economics, culture, philosophy, or anything else in that general realm.

It also varies from state to state, as state governments tend to mandate that state history get taught in schools. I went to schools in California, New York, and Arizona, and I could tell that history classes would often be very state-oriented.

Much of history would also find its way into popular culture, including many of the cartoons we watched as kids. It was also relatively common in families to tell of their own family history. It was popular to visit many of the historical sites, such as the sites around Boston, Williamsburg VA, and battlefield sites of the American Revolution, War of 1812, and the Civil War. A favorite attraction at Disneyland was America The Beautiful, which included a 22-minute film which can be described as very pro-American.

That's the key point about American history which is driven home from a very early age, emphasizing America being the greatest country on earth - the land of the free and the home of the brave. TV shows and movies also influenced Americans' historical view, such as all those Westerns and other historical dramas.

A lot of the traditional historical viewpoint has been challenged and countered openly during my lifetime, so a lot of it may be generational. I have no idea what history they're teaching in schools nowadays.

By the time I reached high school (late 70s/early 80s), there was definitely a sense of profound regret over many aspects of America's past. Most kids recognized, at least on intellectual level, that slavery and stealing the Indians' land was an unforgiveable moral wrong.

I had been living in New York when I got some of my early Civil War education, so slavery was taught as "something the Southerners did." A few years later, attending Arizona schools, the position was that slavery was something that only a very, very small percentage of Southerners did, while the rest were just good old country boys who just wanted to be left alone.

So, there was recognition regarding the atrocious wrongs of our history, but there's always been this rather strange and funny attitude regarding concepts of historical guilt. Of course, no one should ever be made to feel guilty for the sins of their fathers, but at the same time, I noticed a lot of people who made a point of saying that their fathers were sin-free. People might say their ancestors were never slave owners or that they even fought on the side of the Union and ended slavery. My personal favorite is those who claim their ancestors arrived after the end of slavery, so therefore they're off the hook.

I think it's kind of exaggerated how Americans are ignorant of history. Some are, but I don't think that they're that ignorant of history.

What seems more at issue is how many Americans perceive history, both from a personal level and a more objective one. It's common to use the pronoun "we" when Americans are referring to actions of their government or ruling class, even if they happened centuries ago. It can also be racialized when "we whites" are discussing matters of our history. If there are people from other races or nations involved in the discussion, then one has to be more careful about using the pronoun "we" in referring to things that "we" did. ("What do you mean 'we' white man?")

That's why history can be a touchy subject. Ultimately, we're going to have to come to terms with our history. We'll have to find ways of telling the truth about it from a more detached, unemotional, non-judgmental viewpoint, without necessarily personalizing it or making it about "us" (or "them").

 

[Subduction Zone]

My problem is that red bleeds, considering most colours including white paper have some red in them. Reading the red blur that letters become is impossible. Solution, filter out the red.

Funnily enough i cannot wear glasses for driving, red traffic lights become black, who ever heard of stop on black? It's extremely difficult to take notice of.

That also reminds me of the glasses that are supposed to give the color blind better color perception by removing wavelengths between red and green (if I remember correctly) our three different color sensors detect a range of light frequencies. For the partially color blind two of the sensors are too close to each other in the frequencies that they detect. The solution? Eliminate the light frequencies in between those peaks or even a bit more. That way if one has a "red orange" detector and an "orange green" receptor they then become a "red" and a "green" detector by eliminating the orange colors. I am not color blind, but it does make some sense to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To get back on subject. When I was a senior (I think, maybe a junior) in high school our social studies class stopped working out of the book and we watched the Watergate hearings because it was history in progress according to our teacher. He was right.

 

[MikeF]

As far as a school subject, history was often relegated to what was generally referred to (in my school) as "social studies," which was kind of a catch-all term to cover history, political science, economics, culture, philosophy, or anything else in that general realm.

It also varies from state to state, as state governments tend to mandate that state history get taught in schools. I went to schools in California, New York, and Arizona, and I could tell that history classes would often be very state-oriented.

Much of history would also find its way into popular culture, including many of the cartoons we watched as kids. It was also relatively common in families to tell of their own family history. It was popular to visit many of the historical sites, such as the sites around Boston, Williamsburg VA, and battlefield sites of the American Revolution, War of 1812, and the Civil War. A favorite attraction at Disneyland was America The Beautiful, which included a 22-minute film which can be described as very pro-American.

That's the key point about American history which is driven home from a very early age, emphasizing America being the greatest country on earth - the land of the free and the home of the brave. TV shows and movies also influenced Americans' historical view, such as all those Westerns and other historical dramas.

A lot of the traditional historical viewpoint has been challenged and countered openly during my lifetime, so a lot of it may be generational. I have no idea what history they're teaching in schools nowadays.

By the time I reached high school (late 70s/early 80s), there was definitely a sense of profound regret over many aspects of America's past. Most kids recognized, at least on intellectual level, that slavery and stealing the Indians' land was an unforgiveable moral wrong.

I had been living in New York when I got some of my early Civil War education, so slavery was taught as "something the Southerners did." A few years later, attending Arizona schools, the position was that slavery was something that only a very, very small percentage of Southerners did, while the rest were just good old country boys who just wanted to be left alone.

So, there was recognition regarding the atrocious wrongs of our history, but there's always been this rather strange and funny attitude regarding concepts of historical guilt. Of course, no one should ever be made to feel guilty for the sins of their fathers, but at the same time, I noticed a lot of people who made a point of saying that their fathers were sin-free. People might say their ancestors were never slave owners or that they even fought on the side of the Union and ended slavery. My personal favorite is those who claim their ancestors arrived after the end of slavery, so therefore they're off the hook.

I think it's kind of exaggerated how Americans are ignorant of history. Some are, but I don't think that they're that ignorant of history.

What seems more at issue is how many Americans perceive history, both from a personal level and a more objective one. It's common to use the pronoun "we" when Americans are referring to actions of their government or ruling class, even if they happened centuries ago. It can also be racialized when "we whites" are discussing matters of our history. If there are people from other races or nations involved in the discussion, then one has to be more careful about using the pronoun "we" in referring to things that "we" did. ("What do you mean 'we' white man?")

That's why history can be a touchy subject. Ultimately, we're going to have to come to terms with our history. We'll have to find ways of telling the truth about it from a more detached, unemotional, non-judgmental viewpoint, without necessarily personalizing it or making it about "us" (or "them").

The question I am curious about is whether "rose-colored" social studies presentation is required for our youth in order for a country to remain a country. If a positive group identity is not instilled in the citizenry, can a country exist, or will it fall apart into some other "natural" division, be it geographic, language use/accent, racial, etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Something of a cliche that I’ve always kind of grew up with is, honestly, how badly the US education is in terms of teaching history. (I assume below a College level.)

So I’m curious as to what your experiences were in school, at the younger levels specifically. Up until college level.
With history specifically. Though you may chime in with faults of other subjects if you so desire.

Because I’ve had many interactions with my US brethren which indicates that history was largely “whitewashed” and many that indicated the opposite
I assume that’s to do with how different states handle such things, yeah?
And honestly it’s something I’ve always been a little curious about.

Have at it.

I had a child that graduated high school in 2020 and another one that will graduate in a couple of weeks. As with all education, you get out what you put into it. Both my kids took the AP History classes in highschool which is college level material. It was not whitewashed, in fact they seem to go out of their way to introduce non white history throughout grades. I learned a lot through them.

 

[sun rise]

My classes were very Euro-centric focusing on the history of Europe and America with occasional nods to the rest of the world such as Marco Polo's travels which again were from the European perspective. The rich history of China, India and the Islamic empire were glossed over.

Since my early schooling was pre-civil rights, slavery was mentioned but the books ignored the ongoing discrimination.

 

[Augustus]

The question I am curious about is whether "rose-colored" social studies presentation is required for our youth in order for a country to remain a country. If a positive group identity is not instilled in the citizenry, can a country exist, or will it fall apart into some other "natural" division, be it geographic, language use/accent, racial, etc.

People are naturally divided into groups of some kind.

A diverse country needs a common identity that can (theoretically) unite all people as otherwise the division start at some other level.

Religion was one way of doing that, but can't really serve that function now. A sense of patriotism or positive national identity is really the only other option imo.

Many progressives seem to be against this, but if you want a healthy, diverse society with a strong welfare state you really need to foster group identity.

I'd say schools should teach the positive history of their nation, without whitewashing. They should also contextualise the negative aspects though. In the past, everyone was a **** by modern standards, and you mostly had a choice between being a **** or being the victim of a ****.

Actually, scrub that, I think we should all go full Mongolia

 

[MikeF]

People are naturally divided into groups of some kind.

A diverse country needs a common identity that can (theoretically) unite all people as otherwise the division start at some other level.

Religion was one way of doing that, but can't really serve that function now. A sense of patriotism or positive national identity is really the only other option imo.

Many progressives seem to be against this, but if you want a healthy, diverse society with a strong welfare state you really need to foster group identity.

I'd say schools should teach the positive history of their nation, without whitewashing. They should also contextualise the negative aspects though. In the past, everyone was a **** by modern standards, and you mostly had a choice between being a **** or being the victim of a ****.

Actually, scrub that, I think we should all go full Mongolia

I actually thought of you as I wrote that post.

 

[Secret Chief]

That is a variant of critical thinking. Is that actual taught or is it just fancy words?

Sorry, no idea, I just provided the link for anyone interested.

 

[Nakosis]

Something of a cliche that I’ve always kind of grew up with is, honestly, how badly the US education is in terms of teaching history. (I assume below a College level.)

So I’m curious as to what your experiences were in school, at the younger levels specifically. Up until college level.
With history specifically. Though you may chime in with faults of other subjects if you so desire.

Because I’ve had many interactions with my US brethren which indicates that history was largely “whitewashed” and many that indicated the opposite
I assume that’s to do with how different states handle such things, yeah?
And honestly it’s something I’ve always been a little curious about.

Have at it.

As I recall we learn small parts about different topics.
The Civil War, slavery, the atrocities against Native Americans, contributions by African Americans to American history etc...
We didn't really go into details on anything. It was mostly facts without commentary we had to answer on tests.

We weren't really encouraged to question anything or taught in a way that made it interesting. This was back in the 70's.

 

[Polymath257]

I grew up in central Kansas 50+ years ago.

History amounted to a discussion of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, synopsis of the Revolutionary war, primarily about the Boston Tea Party, and some stuff about the settlers going across the plains in covered wagons and the horrors of the 'Indians' (the ruts from the wagons were still visible in some locations). America was the leader of the free world and could do no wrong. Manifest Destiny was an obvious fact and is how it should be.

Let's just say that a lot has changed in how history is taught since that time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something of a cliche that I’ve always kind of grew up with is, honestly, how badly the US education is in terms of teaching history. (I assume below a College level.)

So I’m curious as to what your experiences were in school, at the younger levels specifically. Up until college level.
With history specifically. Though you may chime in with faults of other subjects if you so desire.

Because I’ve had many interactions with my US brethren which indicates that history was largely “whitewashed” and many that indicated the opposite
I assume that’s to do with how different states handle such things, yeah?
And honestly it’s something I’ve always been a little curious about.

Have at it.

Canadian, not American, but here goes:

One of my favourite bits of history from school was a cross-subject unit we did in grade 9: while we were reading Richard III in English class, in history, we read The Daughter of Time and discussed why people would be motivated to spin and even fabricate historical accounts, and how to evaluate conflicting accounts to decide what's true.

As for whitewashing... a few things from earlier years stands out:

- the relationship between Canada - and earlier, Britain - and indigenous peoples was generally shown as friendly and cheery (in contrast to the US): no "trail of tears," all the treaty negotiations were fair, Indigenous tribes fought on our side against the Americans, etc.

- slavery was portrayed as not really a Canadian thing. Our classes didn't outright say it didn't happen in Canada, but it was emphasized that by the US Civil War, there were no slaves in Canada, not really dwelling on the fact that slavery was legal here about 30 years prior.

- the War of 1812 was portrayed purely as an opportunistic attack by a US driven by Manifest Destiny, taking advantage of the fact that the British Army was tied up in Europe fighting Napoleon. It wasn't until I was an adult that I even heard about "impressment" or the other reasons the US gave for going to war.

 

[Vee]

I was lucky to have very good history lessons in school. It went from pre-history to the end of the cold war and even though I don't remember everything, it gave me a very good idea of how we got here.
But I like history and that's probably why my experience was positive.
Last weekend I was babysitting my little cousin and she told me - I quote - "I don't like history because they're all dead and it's boring".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When I looked at some of my oldest son's history courses, they... well, there was a certain bias. You could say it was white washed(not denying some is/was), but I don't think that's entirely the right phrase... it was taught through a specific lens, what you were supposed to think/feel was laid out... there wasn't a lot of room for critical thinking or personal reflection.

That sounds like my Christian schooling. I still remember being told Nelson Mandela is a very bad man and it's just wrong and regressive to end aparthy in Africa. I also remember being told not to believe those foolish scientists who say primitive humans didn't have developed languages because people have always spoke as we do and all the languages of the world today came from the confusion of the languages at the Tower of Babylon. And then being taught Alexander the Great conquered the world to unite it and prepare it for Jesus' birth. That one is a riot, lol.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My public school history tended to be heavily centered around Mesopotamia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Church, England and France, and the New World/America. Everybody else barely existed as more than barbarians causing problems for the empires or mere subjects of the empire.
As for US history, that was very white washed with the role of slavery and prejudice minimized (the Civil War even was hardly fought over slavery).

 

[Viker]

State rights to do what?

A state's right to keep slavery legal and to keep that pesky big gub'ment out of slave owners affairs. Yanno? The right to own other humans and force them to work for nothing.

 

[VoidCat]

A state's right to keep slavery legal and to keep that pesky big gub'ment out of slave owners affairs. Yanno? The right to own other humans and force them to work for nothing.

Exactly why I asked that.