Teachers sign pledge not to lie to students.

[Kooky]

Opinions are opinions. It is my opinion that if the facts are presented in a straight forward manner the student should be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusion.
Your two examples are basically "gotchas".
For example would you have a problem with telling students that the use of the atomic bombs were right or wrong?

It seems you intend this as a counter-"gotcha" to my alleged "gotcha questions" as you deemed them, because you don't seem to distinguish between issues that are genuinely contentous within both society at large and the historical profession in specific (whether dropping the atomic bombs was a good thing, all things considered) and issues that are essentially settled and only considered controversial by people who oppose the accepted mainstream position (whether the Nazis were bad, whether slavery was wrong) or historical facts that are settled but opposed by people who peddle blatant lies (the Civil War wasn't about slavery, the Holocaust never happened, there was no genocide against Native American populations).

With that said, while I wouldn't have a problem with teachers asserting what is clearly a consensus opinion in the historical mainstream, for more contentous issues like the atom bomb, I would suggest presenting students with historical arguments in favor and against. This would have the advantage of fostering critical thought and argumentation, while still presenting students with a near-accurate understanding of the historical issue.

 

[Kooky]

99.9% of those topics are not even addressed in high school.

From the POV of a foreigner, this seems like a rather glaring omission. German high school students are taught of Nazism and the horrors of the Holocaust, specifically so as to foster an understanding of these crimes to the point where it is hoped that such a thing would never happen again.

Why are the Native genocides, slavery and racial discrimination not receiving similar attention in US high school curricula?

 

[esmith]

didn't say that WWII was not covered, nor our civil war, nor the expension into the West.

 

[Kooky]

didn't say that WWII was not covered, nor our civil war, nor the expension into the West.

Are US high schools covering the underlying reasons of the US Civil War, and the crimes against Native Americans committed by US forces? Do US kids learn about e.g. Wounded Knee, or the Trail of Tears?

 

[esmith]

Are US high schools covering the underlying reasons of the US Civil War, and the crimes against Native Americans committed by US forces? Do US kids learn about e.g. Wounded Knee, or the Trail of Tears?

Graduated from high school in 1960 so don't remember.

 

[Revoltingest]

Opinions are opinions. It is my opinion that if the facts are presented in a straight forward manner the student should be intelligent enough to come to their own conclusion.
Your two examples are basically "gotchas".
For example would you have a problem with telling students that the use of the atomic bombs were right or wrong?

Another potential problem...
It's an opinion about which facts to present,
ie, which story to tell.

 

[Revoltingest]

Graduated from high school in 1960 so don't remember.

As I recall, you graduated before the Civil War.

 

[esmith]

Another potential problem...
It's an opinion about which facts to present,
ie, which story to tell.

Ah, but if they are facts then there are only one set of facts.
That is unless they are using facts that are after the fact which might be generated by false facts represented as facts; thus false facts

 

[esmith]

As I recall, you graduated before the Civil War.

got set back a couple of times

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, but if they are facts then there are only one set of facts.
That is unless they are using facts that are after the fact which might be generated by false facts represented as facts; thus false facts

History cannot be presented solely with facts.
There are too many to teach, so there must be
a culling process. It will be opinion based.

 

[Augustus]

History cannot be presented solely with facts.
There are too many to teach, so there must be
a culling process. It will be opinion based.

And what context to put the facts into.

Should you teach the history of Empire X without some context on the history of empire in general? Or slavery in country X, without some context on slavery in general? Or human sacrifice in culture X without looking at executions in general?

Teaching facts without context can be very misleading, but there are limits to how much context you can give.

Should you analyse the past with 21st C morality (which is more often an attempt at self-righteousness than historical enquiry) , or seek to understand it on its own terms?

The study of the past cannot be separated from the political climate of the present, and different political climates can make the same set of facts appear very, very different.

 

[esmith]

History cannot be presented solely with facts.
There are too many to teach, so there must be
a culling process. It will be opinion based.

Ah but if the facts don't agree with me then they must be incorrect. (democrat logic)

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah but if the facts don't agree with me then they must be incorrect. (democrat logic)

Ah, the old bi-partisan problem that'll
rear its ugly head for all eternity.

 

[Valjean]

The only problem with that is that world history and US history is at most a 1 year course of instruction and a schoold year has on average 180 hours; so at most you would have 180 hours
How would one decide what topic should be open for discussion.

How would one decide what would be covered in any class? High school classes are overviews and introductions to basic principles.

It may have changed since I attended high school but there was no discussions in the class.

There should be. Education is more than just filling heads with facts.

99.9% of those topics are not even addressed in high school.

Exactly!
If you don't understand what happened in the past; attitudes, how people responded to situations, which policies worked and which were disastrous, how are you going to make competent political decisions?

 

[Valjean]

Are US high schools covering the underlying reasons of the US Civil War, and the crimes against Native Americans committed by US forces? Do US kids learn about e.g. Wounded Knee, or the Trail of Tears?

Video: College students don't know who won Civil War ⋆ Conservative Firing Line

 

[Revoltingest]

Video: College students don't know who won Civil War ⋆ Conservative Firing Line

I like the black guy who thought the Confederates won.

 

[Jose Fly]

I figure what gets taught in history classes should be set the same way as science curricula....you go to a group/panel/committee of mainstream experts and teach what they agree is generally accepted in the field. If there is legitimate disagreement on an issue, then teach that (also according to how the experts describe it).

Usually it's the folks who hold to fringe, non-mainstream ideas who advocate the "just teach the facts and let the students decide" approach. They'd prefer students get a sub-par or confusing education, rather than one that leads kids away from their alternate reality.

 

[Stevicus]

Video: College students don't know who won Civil War ⋆ Conservative Firing Line

I've learned to be skeptical of these kinds of videos. It's possible that they could have asked 200 people, with 185 getting it right, and 15 getting it wrong. And those 15 would be the only ones they show in the video.

We learned about the Civil War when I was in school. Some of it was influenced by the Lost Cause version, although we still got accurate information as to where/when the battles were fought and who actually won the war.

I've known a few people who refer to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" and took a decidedly pro-Confederate view. But they still got their dates right and they readily admit that the Confederacy lost. Despite any other historical misinformation they may embrace, there's absolutely zero confusion on that point.

One of my favorite movies is Gettysburg, and on a message board for that movie, I encountered a great many Civil War buffs and even a few battle re-enactors who enjoyed doing that. Someone mentioned they were doing a re-enactment of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, and someone pulled out their cellphone and answered a call right in the middle of the charge. That was a serious faux pas; you just don't do that sort of thing during a Civil War re-enactment.

For a lot of people, studying the Civil War is more an exercise in military history than anything else. It's like studying a chess game, with the causes and motivations being of secondary importance. Part of it may be due to a general reluctance to discuss topics which remain sensitive and controversial. Also, after the Civil War, there were leaders from both sides who made a big push towards national unity and reconciliation.

It's a shame that a lot of people don't seem to know much about that era or about history in general. The Civil War was a pivotal event in U.S. history. Prior to the Civil War, it was more common to hear "the United States are, but afterwards, it was more common to hear "the United States is," implying a singular unified nation.

 

[Stevicus]

If you don't understand what happened in the past; attitudes, how people responded to situations, which policies worked and which were disastrous, how are you going to make competent political decisions?

This explains why there have been so many incompetent political decisions, made both by leaders at the top and the voters at the bottom.

 

[Kooky]

Graduated from high school in 1960 so don't remember.

How can you make claims like "99.9% of those topics are not even addressed in high school", when you a) haven't seen the inside of an American high school history class for 60 years, and b) don't even remember what topics were taught when you were there to begin with?