I am taught real history in Australia..
If you can calll it that.
Yeah, we don't sugar coat shit.
If you can calll it that.
Yeah, we don't sugar coat shit.
Should "real" history be taught to younger students?
- Thread starter ohgodalex
- Start date
Well... I see your point. But personally, I'm not a fan of the idea that we should just dump all knowledge on our kids from day 1. I mean, it's true that we learn a romanticized version of history when we're younger, but it's also true that there are some things we either wouldn't understand of just plan shouldn't know about until we're older. I see nothing wrong with maintaining a child's innocence until they have to learn about the real world: let them be a kid, because as soon as they become aware of real life, the fun ends.
as soon as I read the top of that page, my head exploded 'creation, evolution'... this is a bible museum, right? can they teach both creationism and evolution in the same space without creating a wormhole?piscian said:
Whilst in the USA recently I made a habit of speaking to people on AMTRAK trains. Since I'm British one of the conversation topics that would come up after a while was the Revolutionary War, or as I prefer to call it, the Colonial Scuffle.
Generally speaking the people I spoke to about it were both patriotic and willing to hear the deviant, British, king-loving version of events. Suffice to say there were people more patriotic than open minded.
I don't know if this is a good example, but what I'm trying to say is that people should be taught to appreciate all sides of history if possible. There was something that happened in the past, it does influence the way the world is today, and it can be useful in understanding cultural perspectives. It seems to me that not getting the fuller picture is like hamstringing yourself.
Generally speaking the people I spoke to about it were both patriotic and willing to hear the deviant, British, king-loving version of events. Suffice to say there were people more patriotic than open minded.
I don't know if this is a good example, but what I'm trying to say is that people should be taught to appreciate all sides of history if possible. There was something that happened in the past, it does influence the way the world is today, and it can be useful in understanding cultural perspectives. It seems to me that not getting the fuller picture is like hamstringing yourself.
Well, yeah.Drakmeire said:
I hate how teachers assume that kids are "too innocent" and can't be taught real history.
Imagine, if you will, the "first thanksgiving", only told from the native's side.
It would be (ahem) FREAKING AWESOME! (/ahem)
I just hope that schools begin, very soon, to teach the truth of history, or i'll strangle the next kid who says to me "Guess what I learned in school today? The Indians were friends with the pilgrims! they had a lot of food, the end."
On another note, why aren't the turkeys eaten sympathized with?
Turkeys are living things too!
Do you really want children to grow up hearing this stuff. They hear japanese internment camps and hate japanese. Do you think setting up a model teepee is as fun as making a model small pox blanket?
Kids need a good childhood to be good adults.
Kids need a good childhood to be good adults.
I impart to you the knowledge that that's entirely irrelevant in this discussion.Willj01776 said:
I think that children should learn the cold hard truth about the world when they hit about 10-15. The holocaust is really the extreme of all of this too. I'm sure a child's mind can process that bad things happen in the world. Any cencorship that would happen would usually be used to make children patriotic early on, patriotism is all good and well, but it shouldn't be forced. Either way, usually being general early on then progressing into greater detail is not really cencoring. Of course you shouldn't tell a child about HOW Hitler killed people in great detail, but giving them the information in a simpler mannor is fine in my opinion. For example, when the U.S. started, they expanded into indian lands and took it by force. If you tried to cencor that they wouldn't be able to grasp that we pretty much robbed the indian's of their land, cencoring it would give them the idea that we were allies or somthing...Monshroud said:
I'm going to have to disagree on americans not learning about nazis (though you might need to remind me what the scarlett letter is). We also went into great detail on the rise of the nazis. whether or not anyone payed attention is another question entirely. You are correct in saying though, that history books are often EXTREMELY biased or full of holes.piscian said:
World War II itself is pretty much limited to these basic points
-Nazis are bad
-Pearl Harbor was infamous and pulled us into the war (which is hardly mentioned had been going on for about three years prior, other than to say how awesome we were for the Lend-Lease act).
-We (as in allies in general) kicked ass on D-day
-Germany got owned
-Japanese internment camps
-Atomic bombs are bad (or are they?)
thats about it. Huge chunks of history are left out. American textbooks are pretty bad, even when it comes to our own history, But hey Its nothing compared to a Japanese textbook.
Japan is probably the most completely depressing example of not being taught "real" history. There is a lot of debate about japanese war-crimes. Ask any Japanese school child, and they will say that Pearl Harbor is the only horrible act they committed during the war, and that the Atomic bombs were totally unneccesary acts of barbarism.
They are not taught at all that their soldiers killed more chinese then all victims of the holocaust and Stalin's purges combined (this isn't counting Allied POWs or other nations occupied by japan). To them, they were Chinese insurgents (though there is no hiding how Nanking really went down). Things that are relatively well known and accepted like the Bataan Death March or sex slavery perpetrated by the japanese are glossed over or denied entirely. A Japanese student will tell you that you've been listening to propoganda, but there are veterans, both American and Japanese that say differently.
It is painful that if a japanese veteran ever admits his country may have done "wrong", that his own neighbors will spit on him for "selling out to the west". Its a frequent occurence.
In any event, real history should be taught. You don't have to go into the extreme details of anything when they are young, but there should not be any glossing over. the more you gloss, the more idiotic and out of touch people become.
Besides the fact that the government DOESNT want people to think for themselves, and thus edit the information outflow (not just in schools). However i think your looking at this the wrong way.
Go back in time, to when your were in school (for some of us that may be a while =P), did you actually pay attention? Would you really care wether they painted Colombus as a saint or sinner? or would you be to conserned on the ______________ (insert interst I.E.- sports, sex, drugs, RnR, or ANYTHING but school)??? The anser is NO! I was so preoccupied with the aforementioned list, i could give two shits about the "Truth". Besides, most people are tards and wouldnt understand it even if you spoon fed it to them.
bottom line. Should the truth be told? Sure. But it wont cause the masses of youth to rise up in arms against the oppressors. Chances are they are more interseted in the increase in cost of soda at the vending machine, or who to fuck at the prom.
Go back in time, to when your were in school (for some of us that may be a while =P), did you actually pay attention? Would you really care wether they painted Colombus as a saint or sinner? or would you be to conserned on the ______________ (insert interst I.E.- sports, sex, drugs, RnR, or ANYTHING but school)??? The anser is NO! I was so preoccupied with the aforementioned list, i could give two shits about the "Truth". Besides, most people are tards and wouldnt understand it even if you spoon fed it to them.
bottom line. Should the truth be told? Sure. But it wont cause the masses of youth to rise up in arms against the oppressors. Chances are they are more interseted in the increase in cost of soda at the vending machine, or who to fuck at the prom.
I think that children should learn the whole of a subject they are taught, no glossing over the uncomfortable bits. Now of course certain subjects shouldn't be broached until the right age is reached, such as sex ed or calculus, but if you are going to explain to kids about Columbus Day or Thanksgiving....let them know about Leif Ericson or the Pilgrim's exploitation of indians.
Oh yeah, and my contribution is when I was in elementary school I was taught that the president's house was burned in a fire, then was rebuilt into the White House. Wasn't until YEARS later that I learned the english torched it.
Oh yeah, and my contribution is when I was in elementary school I was taught that the president's house was burned in a fire, then was rebuilt into the White House. Wasn't until YEARS later that I learned the english torched it.
piscian said:
Actually, I can remember learning in middle/high school about the depression Germany suffered after WWI, the formation of the Nazi Party, the "Election" of Hitler, and all the events leading up to WWII. Not all schools' textbooks are the same.
Though I will ashamedly say that my highschool governement book ended right after watergate......and I graduated in 1999.
Ultimately what it's down to is: Children should be taght to be critical of sources, I think it would be a better world if people were taught not to completely trust the news or even ads. e.g saying how much children benefit from a breakfast and it just so happens we are selling it to you.
The problem is all that stuff is still taught in Australia too... just not to a later stage. By this time history, and I don't know about over there, becomes more of an optional class. Actually, remembering back I don't think not only was it offered as an optional class later in the year but also focused more on ancient civilisations, in preparation for archaeology and the likes. So maybe you are right, and it is more of a flaw of our system which I would be the first to stand up and say 'it sucks.'Hexenwolf said:
Still how early, and is it a mandatory class, is negative history taught over there?
Cause the feeling I get is your system is more like ours, where it is either only brushed on during later optional classes or not at all.