Should "real" history be taught to younger students?

[Hexenwolf]

YES!

It is ridiculous, completely, to sugar coat your own history. Let us face it, that is really what is happening here. After all people learn, for example, how bad the genocide inspired conditions where in Japanese and German internment camps at a young age. Clearly this alone shows we are not trying to 'protect the children' from disturbing history.

The things we are not teaching our young teens are things that will paint our own countries in 'negative ways.' We seem to want to teach our teens that they live in a good and noble place, and likely the 'only' good and noble place on earth. They don't want our teens to realise the truth, that every single country out there has a shameful past it must strive to over come. Much easier to give them some fairy tale about how they live in the only 'free and pure' nation on earth....

This of course leads to the inclination to view every other nation as 'less then human,' in case your wondering where those brain dead war supporters are coming from... now you know.

As an Australian I never learned about the stolen generation in school, not even classes dedicated Australian history. Hell we never even touched on Aboriginal beliefs, history or anything else that wasn't some violent clashing between the native and the immigrants. Maybe we would have less anti-aboriginal sentiments if we actually taught our kids about their ways at a earlier age.

Well that blows. But I think you're projecting your anger of your own education system onto the American one.

Not just you, but fully half the people posting on this thread seem to be missing a very important part, and one that is clearly stated in the opening post. These things are still taught. It's not like the japanese-american internment camps are never mentioned. Same goes for native american and black prosecution, women's rights, etc.

All of these things are taught in school, they're just taught later. In high school mostly. And they all paint a pretty negative picture of America in general. I was certainly taught them, and think they're some of the most shameful things in American history.

The question is posed in this thread is not whether or not they should be taught. Everyone, including the current education administrators, agrees it is important to teach these things, the question being posed here is when it should happen. Because at young ages it's not even mentioned. Certainly there's nothing of the sort in elementary school.

So should it be taught at an earlier age? Personally, I'm of a split mind, because I do think that the facts should be taught as young as possible so that people can consider them and ponder them and learn from them, but I am also willing to accept that very young children genuinely are incapable of comprehending complex political theory without having more life experience.

 

[Epifols]

I think we should leave their minds neutral. Don't feed them blatant lies, but don't give the gory details either.

Although about the whole Columbus/Keller thing, when I was reading about how awful they were, the only thoughts going through my head were "I don't give a rats ass." At least we should be taught about relevant history, like why we have fought the wars in the last couple decades. If anyone wants to learn about irrelevant stuff like how the colonists screwed the natives over, well no one is stopping them.

 

[jboking]

Search bar brings up similar topics but without this pressing question that I'd like to see discussed, so I'ma go ahead and post this.

If my personal experience is any indicator, we are lied to from a young age. Important facts were omitted from every history lesson we received until the school system deemed us old enough to cope with the knowledge that maybe our respective countries weren't always the wonderful, 100% patriotic places they are today. I know for a fact that if I hadn't begun reading Jonathan Kozol, I would have thought Christopher Columbus was a pretty alright guy until I was 15. I never, despite many, many years spent learning about her, was told Helen Keller was a feminist activist, nor was the women's suffrage movement ever spoken of until I was a sophomore in high school, when I was old enough to know that the glorious US had, within the last 100 years, denied women the vote. While I learned that the Nazis were bad for putting the Jews in concentration camps, never were the Japanese-American interment camps spoken of.

And so, I pose the following questions to my fellow Escapists.
Are we right to hide these things from our children for so long? Is it right to shelter children in this way, or should we start telling them the truth earlier? And, if so, how early? How much of the truth?
or
If this was not the case for you, I'd like to hear about where you attended school and what and when your teachers taught you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I learned about everything you listed in the 7th grade. That seems like about the right time to me. Around 13 or 14 is when kids start developing a view of the world outside of themselves. before that, teaching them about Japanese internment would be extremely pointless. They wouldn't get it/wouldn't care and it would force them to try to comprehend something that they quite possibly don't have the capacity for yet.

Long story short, according to how I experienced the American schooling system, there were plenty of problems, the age at which I started learning about the darker side of history wasn't one of them.

 

[RoblinPrime]

There's no such thing as 'Real History'.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

No, without the truth the world is meaningless

Agreed.
I understand if ssomeone feels the need to dumb things down a little for ver young kids, but once they grow up a bit, they should have the cold, hard facts.
Everyone should be aware that their nation is not perfect, it will give them a more realistic view of life.
Everyone should be aware that holywood historical films tend to be about as honest as Geoffery Archer.

 

[Phenakist]

Keep it simple at a young age, and get them familiar with the figures, then when they are older fill them in on the details.

 

[VicunaBlue]

I fail to see the reason for forcing that stuff at kids. They either won't understand it, start distrusting/disrespecting authority, or view humanity as innately assholish. How are ANY of these a positive improvement?

They are positive because most authority figures NEED to be questioned, or government is corrupted. It is true that humanity is innately assholish. And children 6-7 are capable of understanding more then people give them credit for.

 

[RoblinPrime]

No, without the truth the world is meaningless

Agreed.

Everyone should be aware that their nation is not perfect, it will give them a more realistic view of life.

Everyone should be aware that holywood historical films tend to be about as honest as Geoffery Archer.

Most people are already aware of the above, truth be told. And it is possible to have a meaningful world without a single fixed truth (that aren't necessary truths like 2+2=4).

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

The early years of our education in History and Social Studies involves a lot of indoctrination... Teaching real history to them would make their young minds start working at too early an age, making it more difficult for them to be controlled.

[sup]thats excacly what they want you to think[/sup]

O.T. I don't think that school is to blame, more the shit head helicopter parents that go "Oh My God, my child learned that people die in war, DONT TELL HIM THAT, he will get scared", that shit just pisses me off. You have to expose your children to the real world or els they will grow up to be the same as their parents, pants on head retarted.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Search bar brings up similar topics but without this pressing question that I'd like to see discussed, so I'ma go ahead and post this.

...I know for a fact that if I hadn't begun reading Jonathan Kozol, I would have thought Christopher Columbus was a pretty alright guy until I was 15.

Well THERE'S 'yer problem! Kozol is basically crazy in his approach to the education system. I've read some of his stuff and from what I gather he despises a lot of top high schools for being "too good" and/or having too much money. In short, he sees EDUCATION as a resource that needs to be subject to broad redistribution. I'll admit to the necessity of a public education system to ensure everyone gets at least a basic education, but to be quite honest, I don't think that it's WRONG that I had the resources at my disposal to acquire a better education. If we redistributed education equally among all American's I'm not sure whether we'd be graduating from high school.

Are we right to hide these things from our children for so long? Is it right to shelter children in this way, or should we start telling them the truth earlier? And, if so, how early? How much of the truth?
or
If this was not the case for you, I'd like to hear about where you attended school and what and when your teachers taught you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Truth is relative. I'm taking two different classes right now about East Asia (not including Advanced Chinese), one of them basically said flat-out that Japan's past 60 years have been framed around Article 9 and the US post-war occupation (Democratic Japan), while the other says Japan is a "soft-authroitarian" nation (undemocratic Japan). To be fair, that's a mild exaggeration of the gap between the two schools of thought, but to have that much disagreement is crazy.

Just to posit one other point though: This is inherent. In one of my two East Asia classes, the point that South Korean and some Chinese textbooks essentially demonize Japan. Regardless of how much this trend exists, we did get to see some of the textbooks and it was pretty bad. The point is, the lesson depends on the teacher.

 

[AfterAscon]

Based on this thread I?ve come to the conclusion that history shouldn?t be taught, at all. How can we learn from past mistakes if we cannot accurately say what caused them and whether or not these events were actually mistakes. Each 'side' has twisted the facts to match their own ideology; it's now impossible to derive the absolute truth. No information is better than incorrect information.

Each country will have an entirely different way of teaching what World War 2 was like, and the non-Britains won't have heard of the destruction of Coventry and the work of Barnes Wallace, the non-Germans won't know of the crippling inflation that lead to the rise of the NASI party etc.

I'm British and I learnt all about the Weimar republic, inflation and the rise of the Nazi party in school. However, I know nothing about the work of Barnes Wallace.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Nothing should be left out, but most kids would not understand it.

 

[Arrers]

I'm not sure I get on the concept of "real history". both Columbus and Keller were just as real as each other. What I think is that you'd have to estabilsh a lot more for women's sufferage to make sense than you would columbus. What with the democracy and various other things ie. the first world war, and the feminist movement in general. Addmitedly, that's besaide the point as you could just tech them all about that stuff early on anyway.

I think what I'm trying to get at is that history is easier to explain in chronological order. If you didn't have Columbus you wouldn't have Keller. It just make more sense to me that. if they don't get that america was supposed to be founded as a democracy and that everyones is suppoused to be eqaul in it (even though when it was founded it really wasn't), they wouldn't understand why stuff like women's sufferage and the civil rights movement were so important.

In short, I guess I'm saying that to teach the more "real" history you have to learn the simplistic stuff you leaned in primary school anyway.

 

[Ultress]

At the younger grades i.e grade school excluding the last year or so, is really isn't necessary, they don't care. History is just another obstacle to recess, so why do it? wait till their about 10-12 years old or reach middle school before jump into the grittier side.

However if a younger kid wants to know more, by all means tell them in an unbiased manner as possible.

 

[stonethered]

Based on this thread I?ve come to the conclusion that history shouldn?t be taught, at all. How can we learn from past mistakes if we cannot accurately say what caused them and whether or not these events were actually mistakes. Each 'side' has twisted the facts to match their own ideology; it's now impossible to derive the absolute truth. No information is better than incorrect information.

Each country will have an entirely different way of teaching what World War 2 was like, and the non-Britains won't have heard of the destruction of Coventry and the work of Barnes Wallace, the non-Germans won't know of the crippling inflation that lead to the rise of the NASI party etc.

I'm British and I learnt all about the Weimar republic, inflation and the rise of the Nazi party in school. However, I know nothing about the work of Barnes Wallace.

i'm american and i also know of the rise of the nazi party, and the french occupation.

who is this barnes wallace guy? coventry i've heard of, bombed to the ground.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Agree 100%, I salute you.

We need to break down the ignorance like "Christopher Columbus sailed to PROVE the world was round" and such other crap.

And as a British student, I can say that we don't learn enough British history. The Tudors and the Princes in the Tower are taught to us in year 7 (so, being year 7, they basically just told us "it happened in the past, somewhere".

The problem most people have told me is that "it's shameful"...yes, but so's the Nazis, and I'm pretty sure Germany teaches about that. Plus...IT'S THE FREAKING BRITISH EMPIRE, It shaped history for the good latter half of the last mellennium! I don't read a book and cut out the entire middle!

Plus, so much intresting stuff happened. Who here knows about the disatrous Retreat from Kabul, where only one man on a dying donkey made it back alive? Or the Indian Mutiny, or the Peninsular and Waterloo campaigns? Or the Seven Years War? Or Jenkins's ear!

 

[RoblinPrime]

Nothing should be left out, but most kids would not understand it.

How many years are you proposing children be taught at school? Leaving nothing out would take quite some time, you know.

 

[silicon avatar]

Unfortunately many country's textbooks are like this. I have heard Japans textbooks are much the same way (if not worse) with their history textbooks on WWII.

 

[Obrien Xp]

I watched alot of documentaries when I was younger and still do. I knew alot of world history by the age of 10. I enjoyed reading that Horrible Histories book when I was 12, go and find it, its for kids but it has the facts. History isn't taught in Ontario until grade 7, and even then it is just the basics on how North America was "colonized" by the first Europeans in the now Canada. Important parts of North American history are ommited from the curriculum. My favourite part of Canadian history is the war of 1812 and the two world wars and the cold war. WWI is taught in English class with a Historical-Fiction novel. WWII isn't discussed until grade 10, and 1812 is only breifed upon for the length of one class. Most of it is simply fur traders and the 7 years war.

In summary, its not that history isn't taught with all the nasty-ness cut out, its that it lacks a range of topics, focusing more on the beginning and omitting many important things that happened after, it cuts out at the Riel Rebellion, skims WWI and only begins WWII in gr 10 and from what I'm hearing, its all games. (I'll see next semester for myself).