or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Is it important to learn history?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it important to learn history? - Page 9

post #161 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by mz_libbie22 View Post
And call me a conspiracy nut, but I do think there is a political reason behind our kids in public schools being (mis)taught history.
I don't think you are a nut. One of my favourite college classes was called "the making of American society" and it talked about the indocrination role of the public schools, particuarly the hidden curriculum of social order, a lot. The government supports public education because it gains from an "educated citizentry" economically. Period. When education become subversive, the public stops supporting it with tax dollars.

Or maybe I'm just still bitter that they closed my charter school last year. :
post #162 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
Well, any of you are free to come up with your own definitions of "history," but what I had in mind when I started this thread did not include the history of the earth's geographical features, the evolution of humans, individual or family history, or science. What I had in mind was the kind of subject matter you'd expect to see in a history class.
As someone who TEACHES a history class (well, several) on a daily basis, I can say that ALL of those things are taught in history classes. My World history class has a strong geography bent, and we start with "prehistory" before we move to recorded history, which means we deal with a lot of anthropology (one of my minors is in anthropology ). When we explore the idea of culture, we look at individual and family histories. In US history, we look at individual and family histories, too, but to a lesser extent-- I'd guess my US history class looks more like what you are thinking when you say a history class.
post #163 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
That's interesting! I guess my high school was part of that trend, because I remember learning that the civil war was about states' rights. I was left with the impression that it wasn't that the southern states wanted to keep slaves so much that they were willing to go to war over it - it was that they wanted more autonomy than the federal government was willing to give them, and they were willing to go to war over THAT. And that slavery was just the main issue that highlighted their lack of autonomy.
Well, yes, slavery was the main issue in states rights. It was all about the right of states to decide--about slavery! Racial inequality was a primary value, not a secondary, coincidental issue.

Check out this nifty website, which has reproductions of all of the primary source documents relating to the causes of the US Civil War:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

In particular, look at the documents of secession of the southern states, here: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi's document of secession
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Yes? The primary source documents do not suggest that slavery is an incidental interest. They were going to war in order to maintain the institution of slavery.

There may have been other causes as well, like trade and tariffs, but the secession documents actually take up the inequality of black people as their reason.
post #164 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by malibusunny View Post
As someone who TEACHES a history class (well, several) on a daily basis, I can say that ALL of those things are taught in history classes. My World history class has a strong geography bent, and we start with "prehistory" before we move to recorded history, which means we deal with a lot of anthropology (one of my minors is in anthropology ). When we explore the idea of culture, we look at individual and family histories. In US history, we look at individual and family histories, too, but to a lesser extent-- I'd guess my US history class looks more like what you are thinking when you say a history class.
Well, and anyone who's read Jared Diamond's Collapse understands the relationship of geography to history and the success (or failure) of civilizations.
post #165 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain optimism View Post
Yes? The primary source documents do not suggest that slavery is an incidental interest. They were going to war in order to maintain the institution of slavery.
Yep, that's sure what it looks like from those documents. That was interesting - thanks! It was also interesting to me to read in the Georgia secession document that "The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution." If I ever learned that slavery was a controversial issue even back then, I had forgotten it.

This turned out to be a really interesting and informative thread. I almost didn't start it because I was afraid no one would be interested enough to reply!
post #166 of 170
while this discussion is older, I just got this sent to me today and thought I would share, it is blog I read from curriculum connection and this topic was on whether or not studying hisotry was important.

opps forgot to include the link http://curriculumconnection.net/blog...study-history/
post #167 of 170
Not that the Miss Teen answer about Iraq and no books isn't a classic and stands alone in the annuls of ignorance, but this one is fun/sad, too.

Of course, lack of historical knowledge doesn't prevent one from making a really good living:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=psGLXqW1kUs
post #168 of 170
Oh, my... wasn't she the same person who thought the world was flat? It was someone on that show, I think.

dar
post #169 of 170
Oh, dear - here's the rest of it - "Is the world flat?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNC117UYsHs&NR=1

Edit: For whatever it's worth, Sherry later said she was nervous and wasn't thinking when she said she didn't know if the earth is round or flat....

Lillian

post #170 of 170
A really good , if critical, book on history as taught in public schools is Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. 1995, Simon & Schuster Inc., ISBN 0-684-81886-8

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teache...2017128&sr=8-2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at Home and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Is it important to learn history?