Is that Kate McKinnon?Beginning to think he's a Bieber fan.
How should history be taught in high school?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
Wow. Not a fan of Geddy Lee's voice? Won't even ask you if you enjoy any of the triumph albums.
Correct. I’d rather listen to Baby Shark. Over and over and over.
I like the drummer.
History should be a core curriculum class. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
I thought we all learned that...in history class.
Interesting topic, the original post. Perspectives certainly matters and so does building the ability to think for one's self. The only real danger in learning perspectives is running out of time to cover massive parts of history.
Possibly the other danger is potentially failing to define "the American national perspective", which is probably where any controversy would come in.
Possibly the other danger is potentially failing to define "the American national perspective", which is probably where any controversy would come in.
Sounds great. Now all you need to do is buy a few million square miles of land that is "for sale by natives" and you can build up this new government you speak of!
The concepts of abdicating oppression cannot be taught without also learning the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" founding principle of America. People enslave and take advantage of other people. It's a fundamental psychological trait of humans. And an obvious tenant of World history.
Sounds like consent of the governed is being closely adhered to.
The last remnants of slavery has been gone from the US for more than 160 years. Emancipation began decades before that.
Those Western concepts/ ideals you mention have their place in World History curriculum, and as far as I know still do. They are even accounted for in mini-Brad's syllabus -- see Enlightenment and Revolution. but suggesting that should be the focus of World History over imperialism, colonization, de-colonization is crazy talk. isn't our very system of govt a reaction to those systems? you can't tell our story -- significant as it is -- without putting it in context of a much bigger story.
considering the world as it is, shouldn't we be teaching kids this kind of critical thinking? that a country born of human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism and all kinds of other awesomeness, that was and is still is a shining example of what a liberal democracy can be, that still keeps the peace in much of the world, could itself also be new kind of empire that often imposes its will on other countries in brutal, imperialistic ways?
what you call "negative atmosphere" is actually reality. I mean, if we are talking World History and not history through the eyes of US politics and culture wars circa 2024.
critical thinkers, let's make more of them.
The danger is in trying to define a singular "American national perspective" and imposing it on everyone.
well, that's not a very full picture of it all.
one might say last true remnants of slavery existed until Blacks finally got equal legal standing in the 1960s and 1970s(?). or one could say the remnants still exist today because Blacks in America are so far behind socio-economically after not getting a seat at the table for 300 some odd years.
we can explore all these ideas if we think critically.
For me history is largely a study of causes and effects. History is about people and events, they have effects that might be short, long, or perpetual. Slavery is certainly such an event/ cause. But it is by no means the only one, or maybe not the most important one in some areas.
How is defining and presumably studying the American national perspective a danger?
There isn't a single national perspective.
I’ve been watching Succession
Paraphrasing Logan Roy
“The future is real. The past is fiction.”
Paraphrasing Logan Roy
“The future is real. The past is fiction.”
Hard pass on reading anything more from Buchanan after his book "Churchill and Hitler and the unnecessary war"there should be
His heroes are Charles Lindbergh and Father Caughlin. Of course Lindbergh said this marvelous bit wisdom:
"Aviation is a tool especially shaped for Western hands, a scientific art which others only copy in a mediocre fashion; another barrier between the teeming millions of Asia and the Grecian inheritance of Europe -- one of the priceless possessions which permit the White race to live at all in a pressing sea of Yellow, Black and Brown ... We can have peace and security only as long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races."
Right. But I think we can come up with one that the vast majority could agree with. I think an education curriculum that supports that is a good thing. You said it was dangerous. How so?
What do you do with the minority who don't buy your idea of a "national perspective"? That's the dangerous part.
Shop Praeger U online courses of "slavery was a positive for many blacks" and "the election was rigged"
Is that the national perspective?
Praeger was on local radio for a time. He's one scary dude.
I don’t think disagreement is dangerous.
This thread is about education. Part of the reason we have a free public education is to build a society/ nation based on some common ideals. The material posted to start this thread is deliberately counterproductive to that.
I may have fallen behind on this conversation, but I would argue that it's not really a "view" of world history in question here, but basic reality. It's true that Western (Eurocentric) society has played an outsized role in world events for the past 500 years. Any honest recitation of history will heavily focus on European events. But it's also a fact that this is only true because of colonialism. That's inescapable. European history and events can't be more important for any other reason than colonialism. Trying to argue some other reason for it is patently nonsensical. So I would suggest that our history should, in fact, be biased toward European (or Eurocentric) history, but also that shying away from colonialism when doing so would be horribly dishonest.
Patty B. didn't trifle with coded language. He'd just tell you outright that Jews were subverting our democracy. lol. gone are the days....
to think, he published that book about a Third World invasion of the US just a few years after we invaded two Third World countries.
mind of mush, but, jeebus, nerves of steel
you made me scroll up for this gem?
"I don’t think there is an educational purpose to dwelling on our history of failing short."
so, you'd prefer whitewashing history so we can unite behind lies and half-truths? again, why?
Studying history shouldn't feed the minds of those with such chronic negativity they need a Xanax to make it to Happy Hour.
Last edited:
Ole Pat is/was very inconsistent in his application of imperialism-- switching from manifest destiny to support actions he deems appropriate, to "American Imperialism" to chastise other American actions, when the actions are near identical.
He all too frequently fails to catch his inconsistencies. For example, in the unnecessary war he asserts that England and US need not have been in WW2, but instead wait for Hitler and the Russians to go to war and then take on the winner. So basically a world war....
Last edited:
buck up. life includes negativity. I think a nation that sends young people to war so often can handle some tough truths in HS history class.
and still don't get it. from one side of your mouth you speak (often, so very often) about diversity of thought, individualism, and the horrors of groupthink. now, from the other side of your mouth, you're pitching a singular national view of World History stripped of negativity. which is it?
I don’t see your binary framing as mutually exclusive. I am not pitching a singular national view, quite the opposite. I’m pitching for a balanced one. Take the OP. Omitting any reference to the uniqueness of our system and the fundamental concepts of consent of the governed, due process of law, presumption of innocence, etc. strips history of our fundamental goodness. But if you wanna talk about slavery and how it trumps everything fine. All I can say is slavery has been gone for 160 + years and the good stuff endures. Even Kamala often speaks of unburdening ourselves from the past. As far as I am concerned, whomever came up with that world history outline perpetuates the burden. .
Negativity about life is what grad school is all about. We've got all our life to be pissed off about things.
It doesn't have a place in curriculum for 14 year olds. That's just projecting.
don't totally disagree but I think the alternative is letting kids learn f*cked up history online as curated by someone like DBM.
More about this point. While not directly related to the OP, I think this reflects a broader view of life in general.
You say “buck up”. My response is that is exactly what I have done in this thread. I don’t accept the negative bias in the OP as persuasive. Life indeed includes negativity. But life doesn’t include negativity that is created through cherry picking negative aspects of history.
Statistics are pretty clear that liberals see life more negatively than conservatives. The OP is an example of that.
Why Being Conservative is Correlated with Higher Happiness - Equity in America
How bothered have you been witnessing someone in a public place being treated unfairly because of their race? How has the pandemic impacted your mental health? Thinking about climate change makes me feel anxious. [Agree/disagree] Someone [I] know has been unfairly stopped, searched, questioned...
equityresearch.tufts.edu
Similar threads
