History wank!

[cynica]

Over in good ol' booju_newju, loomissimmons asks a question regarding the fact that the history dispensed to our schoolchildren is given in a way that makes history very different than what it truly was.

Which brings me to my question: what are your thoughts on history as how it is taught in the schools in your area?

Loomis summarizes better than I could with this:

Comments

[macabre]

I was just thinking about posting this.

*shakes fist*

[cynica]

YOU ALWAYS POST EXCELLENT STUPIDS!!

[macabre]

Sometimes I'm off. Heh.

[mistle_thrush]

I'll never forget when the 27 year old in my college English class learned Columbus was a bastard. Howard Zinn strikes again!

[tomecatti]

ZINN FOR THE WIN

[bastardinlove]

Howard Zinn <3

[mistle_thrush]

I have a crush on Howard Zinn. He reminds me of Alan Alda.

My favourite quote

[ex_thexphial147]

"I'd just like my child to grow up with an inherent belief that mankind is good. Teaching them all the evils that have been done in the past early on in their life may not bring about that idea."

LOLOLOLOLOL

Good luck with that one. Lying is really going to make them think people are AWESOME.

Re: My favourite quote

[vesleskjor]

Let them find out the hard way that people in the real world kind of...well, suck lol

Re: My favourite quote

[osnadurtha]

Exactly.

[vesleskjor]

I'm just surprised at how much in that little summary I didn't know. *Shakes fist at my high school*

[mercurystar]

I haven't even read through it all yet but augh!

this was a kindergarten class... a little whitewashing isn't going to get my dander up.

I HATE THAT ARGUMENT! Children are their most impressionable and form their deepest beliefs and heuristics about the world around them when they're toddler to elementary-school age. (Damn you, high school psychology class. I only remember half of anything you taught me.) It's the worst time for whitewashing, because it's where the whitewashing takes hold for chrissake.

Maybe I shouldn't read the rest of it, it's pissing me off. Too bad; It's a good post.

[ex_evil]

What would you teach a child of that age though? While they are their most impressionable then, they are also at their least-mentally-developed age, incapable of understanding complicated relationships and that fact that people can be both good and bad, or bad and do good things, etc.

I don't see anything really wrong with keeping it simple. Columbus borrowed money from Spain, got three ships, sailed across the Atlantic looking for India, and found the New World instead. That's why they called the inhabitants "Indians", even though we now call then "Native Americans" because they were here first.

Now if you're talking about High School History, then by all means they need to cover all the dirty ugly details.

[mercurystar]

Well, yeah I don't have a problem with that story, of course not. But people in that post are talking about lying to children, telling them that "we" shared "our food" with the "Indians" when in fact they were starving and got their asses saved by the "Indians."

That's the difference between "The Pilgrims needed help and the Natives helped them" and "The Pilgrims were kind and fed the heathans." Teaching children that the Pilgrims were at the advantage from the beginning is incorrect and irresponsible, and plays into the whole "white man good" mentality that is rampant in elementary school history.

(Before anyone jumps, I'm not saying they should be learning "white man bad" I'm saying they should be learning facts and not lies told to make the Pilgrims look better.)