Teachers sign pledge not to lie to students.

[esmith]

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?

yeah, I do...teacher was the school coach and all he required was remembering places and dates.
didn't really start studing history until I joind the service

 

[ecco]

For instance would there be any value for a high school class studing world history to get into a discussion, for instance, about the use of atomic weapons during WWII?

Yes. Both sides of the question should be addressed. The atom bombs dropped on Japan killed many civilians. The atom bombs dropped on Japan effectively ended the war and saved the lives of many American soldiers.

Why hide an important part of history from 16-18-year-olds?..





In the grand scheme of things, most of this discussion is moot. Teachers are required to teach what is in the textbooks. Things in textbooks in Texas and in textbooks in California are probably not the same.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Your far left ideology and activism does not belong in the classroom, and if you break the law, you deserve whatever comes your way.

What far left ideology is being pushed in classrooms? I've heard of some fringe cases but nothing along the lines of the host of mistruths that come out of conservative focused education.

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

There has been a disillusionment in the last decade on what "facts" are. That has been intentional and with malicious intent no less.

What is a good example of a false fact that is being taught to kids? I can think of some for sure and I would like them corrected.

 

[esmith]

Yes. Both sides of the question should be addressed. The atom bombs dropped on Japan killed many civilians. The atom bombs dropped on Japan effectively ended the war and saved the lives of many American soldiers.

Why hide an important part of history from 16-18-year-olds?..





In the grand scheme of things, most of this discussion is moot. Teachers are required to teach what is in the textbooks. Things in textbooks in Texas and in textbooks in California are probably not the same.

The only problem is to truly discuss this quandary it would be required to study the history leading up to this decision, and that would require studing the history of Japan starting with their first emperor in 660 BCE or cut the study short and only look starting with Japan's invasion of China in 1931. Do you really think high school students have the time for this? I think not.

 

[Friend of Mara]

The only problem is to truly discuss this quandary it would be required to study the history leading up to this decision, and that would require studing the history of Japan starting with their first emperor in 660 BCE or cut the study short and only look starting with Japan's invasion of China in 1931. Do you really think high school students have the time for this? I think not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also don't forget indigenous history. That's important as well.

American history when it was just the Natives has been something that has seen a push.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Well, some of the topics brought up in the referenced 99.9% happened in the past 60 years:

Indian wars. Slavery. Indian Removal Act -- and motivations. Mexican-American war. Spanish American war. Annexation of Hawaii, Chinese exclusion act. Palmer raids. Bananna wars. American nation-builing in Latin American and the Middle East. Motivations for same. Motivations for WWI, Japan's offer of surrender -- before atomic bombings. Motivations for the Vietnam war. Nixon's interference with Paris Peace Talks, Middle East wars, and motivations. Taliban offer to surrender Bin-Laden, and American refusal,

Such as the Vietnam War, Middle East wars, and other events which happened since 1960.

Admittedly, there were a lot of things that I didn't get in high school either, and I only graduated a mere 40 years ago. Sometimes it depended on the teacher and how willing he/she was to go outside the standard curriculum.

Certainly, Slavery and Abolition, the Indian Wars, and the Civil War were covered extensively, along with the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

The Indian Removal Act was covered, as I recall, although it would generally be included as part of the overall topic which (in my school) was called "Westward Expansion." That would also include the Mexican-American War. The Spanish-American War and the Annexation of Hawaii were given light treatment, but those events were covered. Same for the Chinese Exclusion Act.

In addition, there was next to nothing discussed about the processes involved in the transfer of the Philippines to US control after Spain ceded that territory after the war in 1898. I do recall a brief mention in one of my textbooks that, when the US took over the Philippines, we told them we would grant them independence as soon as we could teach them how to govern themselves. And we did grant them independence after WW2, so yay for us!

We never went over the Palmer Raids - or even McCarthyism for that matter. Although I do remember in one of my high school classes, our teacher was friends with a retired Army general. He came to visit us to talk about MacArthur's liberation of the Philippines from the Japanese, as he served under MacArthur and participated in that campaign. On another occasion, he visited us to show us a video from the American Conservative Union, which focused on the dangers of the Soviet Union. The Reagan Administration at the time was very much distressed and frightened of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and this video talked about how they were planning to spread throughout Central America, into Mexico, and then the United States. (I think the writers of the movie Red Dawn must have watched the same video, as the movie portrays the exact same scenario.)

So, the status of the US and our history, at least as it was late 70s/early 80s, when I was in school, was "we are the greatest nation on Earth, but we were still threatened by "evil forces." There was certainly a noticeable level of national regret and sorrow over some of the darker pages in our history, but the emphasis was on the idea that "those days are over" and "we're not like that anymore."

 

[esmith]

I don't need a 9min YouTube attempt to tell me about the history of Japan, especially the period from 1936 to 1945. I have read and studied it quite substantially

 

[Shaul]

A truly professional teacher doesn’t need to sign such a pledge and an unprofessional teacher’s pledge is worthless.

 

[fantome profane]

A truly professional teacher doesn’t need to sign such a pledge and an unprofessional teacher’s pledge is worthless.

It is not just a “pledge”, it is a “petition”.

 

[Shaul]

It is not just a “pledge”, it is a “petition”.

Who cares? It is an act of political impotence.

 

[fantome profane]

Who cares? It is an act of political impotence.

Remains to be seen.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I don't need a 9min YouTube attempt to tell me about the history of Japan, especially the period from 1936 to 1945. I have read and studied it quite substantially

It was a mostly tongue in cheek response to your claim that we didn't have enough time to teach a more comprehensive framework to kids. As with all things the more in depth we wish to teach children about things the more time it will be required. But there is a huge difference between omitting information and teaching it at a surface level. Especially with history it is important that children are taught things with as much context as possible. America already has a skewed patriotic tilt in its education. We should be making it more nuanced not less nuanced. CRT no longer really means CRT anymore. I've already almost accepted that people just use it to broadly encompass any racially involved bits of history.

The founding of the US is always sensitive in classrooms because we, like many other nations, want to glorify our country. George Washington and the cherry tree is an obvious fabrication meant to deify our founding fathers. The pilgrims didn't come over to seek religious freedom and break bread with native tribes. We were a slave nation that carved its resources from native blood and built on the backs of African slaves. It is in the governments best interest to instill patriotism to children and make them believe that America is the greatest nation on earth. Its not enough that we are simply a nation. One with a complicated past that still resonates in directly linked issues in the present.

The fact that people believe our conflict with the USSR was a "good" vs "evil" dichotomy is a great example of what I would even go so far as to call brainwashing. Same with the civil war. Or that the US and allies were the "good guys" in WWI. At the very least I don't think we've been able to spin Vietnam in the same way but that is probably because it isn't that far removed from those living today as well as being the first televised and well recorded war. At some point it stops being education and becomes indoctrination. The very thing that conservatives claim to be fighting against.

 

[Heyo]

Pledge to Teach the Truth: Despite New State Bills Against It | Zinn Education Project

We, the undersigned educators, refuse to lie to young people about U.S. history and current events — regardless of the law.

Comments? Thoughts?

Should teachers lie to students? Should teachers who refuse to lie to students be fired? Do you support legislation that requires teachers to lie to students?

Yes, teachers should lie to students if it's the law.
Yes, county clerks should commission marriage licenses to gay people if it's the law.

It is not in the class room where this fight should be fought, but congress or the ballot box or at court if applicable.

As a teacher you have to fulfil your contractual obligations or quit. (I'd quit in an instance and move from a state where lies are propagated per law.)

 

[esmith]

It was a mostly tongue in cheek response to your claim that we didn't have enough time to teach a more comprehensive framework to kids. As with all things the more in depth we wish to teach children about things the more time it will be required. But there is a huge difference between omitting information and teaching it at a surface level. Especially with history it is important that children are taught things with as much context as possible. America already has a skewed patriotic tilt in its education. We should be making it more nuanced not less nuanced. CRT no longer really means CRT anymore. I've already almost accepted that people just use it to broadly encompass any racially involved bits of history.
.

You do realize don't you that my comment was directed toward the following post by @ecco, indicating that for one to discuss the use of the atomic bombs against Japan could not be understood until one understands all of the factors leading up to the decision.
You must realize that some subjects are beyond the scope of high school history due to time constraints and other factors; one of which would be the lack ofi n depth knowledge of the subject by the teacher. Therefore only the fact that it did happen can be presented, not the idea of should have or have not been used.

Yes. Both sides of the question should be addressed. The atom bombs dropped on Japan killed many civilians. The atom bombs dropped on Japan effectively ended the war and saved the lives of many American soldiers. Why hide an important part of history from 16-18-year-olds?..

 

[Valjean]

Yes. Both sides of the question should be addressed. The atom bombs dropped on Japan killed many civilians. The atom bombs dropped on Japan effectively ended the war and saved the lives of many American soldiers.

Why hide an important part of history from 16-18-year-olds?..

So why are American students not taught about Japan's several offers of surrender before the bombing?

Why are they not taught that, once the Nazi threat was eliminated, the USSR had turned it's entire attention to Japan -- whom they were already pi**ed off at from their defeat by the Japanese in 1905?

Soviet forces were massing in the East. A major strike was only weeks or days away. A Japanese defeat was imminent.

The "saving American lives" claim was a ruse. It was propaganda.The atomic bombings were aimed as much at at the Soviets, as a demonstration of military superiority, as they were at the Japanese.

 

[Jose Fly]

So why are American students not taught about Japan's several offers of surrender before the bombing?

Why are they not taught that, once the Nazi threat was eliminated, the USSR had turned it's entire attention to Japan -- whom they were already pi**ed off at from their defeat by the Japanese in 1905?

Soviet forces were massing in the East. A major strike was only weeks or days away. A Japanese defeat was imminent.

The "saving American lives" claim was a ruse. It was propaganda.The atomic bombings were aimed as much at at the Soviets, as a demonstration of military superiority, as they were at the Japanese.

From what I saw with my kids' education, that level of detail and discussion does occur, but only in the AP US history classes. In the general US history classes they just cover the basics.

 

[Friend of Mara]

You do realize don't you that my comment was directed toward the following post by @ecco, indicating that for one to discuss the use of the atomic bombs against Japan could not be understood until one understands all of the factors leading up to the decision.
You must realize that some subjects are beyond the scope of high school history due to time constraints and other factors; one of which would be the lack ofi n depth knowledge of the subject by the teacher. Therefore only the fact that it did happen can be presented, not the idea of should have or have not been used.

And I personally disagree. Currently the explanation is that the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible to save as many lives as possible. This is the official story released but is hardly accurate to the reasons why it was used. It was complicated but it would literally take 5 minutes to explain that it was also a show of force to our ally but rival the USSR. Or at least notice that other than a few warhawks close to the president that the majority of his advisors were against it. That it was a choice.

I guess the major thing I would want to convey to students is that there really hasn't ever been a righteous war. Sometimes we are fighting very bad people. Sometimes good comes out of it. But the reasons for going to war are usually never moral. The closest I guess we could argue is Japan as it was a war of retaliation. Though we certainly took advantage of removing the most powerful pacific power afterwards didn't we?

 

[esmith]

So why are American students not taught about Japan's several offers of surrender before the bombing?

Why are they not taught that, once the Nazi threat was eliminated, the USSR had turned it's entire attention to Japan -- whom they were already pi**ed off at from their defeat by the Japanese in 1905?

Soviet forces were massing in the East. A major strike was only weeks or days away. A Japanese defeat was imminent.

The "saving American lives" claim was a ruse. It was propaganda.The atomic bombings were aimed as much at at the Soviets, as a demonstration of military superiority, as they were at the Japanese.

Well let me just say this is your opinion.
Since you obviously was not present you do not have all of the information do you?

 

[esmith]

And I personally disagree. Currently the explanation is that the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible to save as many lives as possible. This is the official story released but is hardly accurate to the reasons why it was used. It was complicated but it would literally take 5 minutes to explain that it was also a show of force to our ally but rival the USSR. Or at least notice that other than a few warhawks close to the president that the majority of his advisors were against it. That it was a choice.

I guess the major thing I would want to convey to students is that there really hasn't ever been a righteous war. Sometimes we are fighting very bad people. Sometimes good comes out of it. But the reasons for going to war are usually never moral. The closest I guess we could argue is Japan as it was a war of retaliation. Though we certainly took advantage of removing the most powerful pacific power afterwards didn't we?

See above post.