Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just saw this article, and thought it'd be a decent enough topic for debate here:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-republicans-throw-a-conniption-20140819-column.html#page=1



Basically... some former history teacher from New Jersey is getting a bit upset because his personal hero (some bloke even I've never heard of) isn't featured in the new AP curriculum, and others have been raising a fuss over teaching students how things actually were in the US, as opposed to a glittery, super scrubbed version of PC history.

Well well well what do we have here. Oh, look another Republican trying to pass off a completely unimportant historical figure (who happens to be a personal hero) as somehow being relevant to students today. Who the hell teaches High School students about John Winthrop? I mean yeah he's interesting, and if you really want to dig into the meat and potatoes really important, but unless the class is "Pre-Revolutionary America" or "American Political Thought" naming him isn't really that important.

You sure this ain't from Texas cause they tried doing something like this a few years ago

Oh and this line;

Kreiger comments, "That’s historically true but note that progressives are going to be the heroes in this narrative."

Oh man. This just has me chuckling. "It's true but that's not what's important!" Feth the facts I've got an opinion incarnate

I read some other articles (on the Blaze, and Fox News... so say what you will) wherein there may be some tiny grain of "importance" here... I haven't found the new framework online yet, but according to those two websites, the new framework makes no mention of Thomas Jefferson, or MLK and a few others outright, as well as skirting, or severely downplaying the role/involvement of the US in WW2.

If there's one thing I've found to be true in my fledgling time as a historian (Im heading back to school in order to be a HS history teacher in a couple weeks), it's that history is rarely pretty. We humans are truly capable of some fethed up stuff. And while I don't think that kids need to be shown the full scale of that fethed-ness, they need to have some idea that things weren't always pretty "back in the day"

John Winthrop....John Winthrop......nope..cannot recall any John Winthrop. Invented slice bread?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I haven't found the new framework online yet, but according to those two websites, the new framework makes no mention of Thomas Jefferson, or MLK and a few others outright, as well as skirting, or severely downplaying the role/involvement of the US in WW2.

That's not what a framework is for. A framework is simply a "these are the things that a class needs to cover because these are the things that will be on the test." It's a broad outline, not a specific outline. If the framework says "cover the founding fathers, how they devised the Constitution, and their roles in Revolutionary and post Revolutionary America" you really think Thomas Jefferson isn't going to get mentioned? Like anyone is going to be able to talk about the Civil Right's movement without mentioning MLK.

Specific historical figures aren't that important in a history class imo. The broader historical events are what matters. Those names are going to come up because there is 0 way to avoid them, but expecting them to get some kind of special treatment reeks more of special interests than giving kids a good education.

Frankly. kids, even high school students, have sufficient basic knowledge of WWII, I see virtually no reason to test it at all. US culture is overrun with information of WWII. Yeah, most of it is wrong when you get into the knit and gritty, but what floats about out there is accurate enough for a entry level college course on US history. That the war gets a tiny mention in the framework doesn't surprise me or upset me.

 LordofHats wrote:


Frankly. kids, even high school students, have sufficient basic knowledge of WWII, I see virtually no reason to test it at all. US culture is overrun with information of WWII. Yeah, most of it is wrong when you get into the knit and gritty, but what floats about out there is accurate enough for a entry level college course on US history. That the war gets a tiny mention in the framework doesn't surprise me or upset me.

Agreed... As I said earlier, I'm working toward becoming a teacher in my current state, so I've actually printed off the "standard" framework for the state of Washington. They also don't cover explicitly certain individuals, but by grade 12, students are expected to be having some fairly deep conversations about morals on an international/national level (there is actually a blurb in there about discussing the use of atomic/nuclear weapons)

 Jihadin wrote:
John Winthrop....John Winthrop......nope..cannot recall any John Winthrop. Invented slice bread?

John Winthrop is one of the founders of the... Actually hold on I need to check...

Massachusetts Bay Colony. Glad I checked that almost said something totally different XD He's a leading figure in early colonial America, and a very prolific writer who would be often quoted by the later Founding Fathers (he's still quoted, his Model of Christian charity speech is quite popular among Political Science types). Historically you can see in his works and actions many of the things that would define early America. Independence, slavery, Christianness, freedom, kill all the Indians. You know the good stuff

Issue is though that most US History classes don't spend very much time on 17th Century Colonial America. They tend to skip straight to Revolutionary America and go from there. And that works. At the end of the day he's an interesting guy, and if you want to delve into the period in which he lived and see how and why things happened he can be important, but in the grand scheme of American History...

It's like demanding that a class covering the American Revolution mention George Wythe. Yeah, the dudes important, but more important than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Henry Clay, and John Marshall? Don't make me laugh

 LordofHats wrote:

Issue is though that most US History classes don't spend very much time on 17th Century Colonial America. They tend to skip straight to Revolutionary America and go from there. And that works. At the end of the day he's an interesting guy, and if you want to delve into the period in which he lived and see how and why things happened he can be important, but in the grand scheme of American History...

IIRC, the bulk of my High School time spent in "pre-war America" was spent "learning" learning about the Witch Trials The timeline of the last US history course that I took went something like this: Mayflower/pilgrims, Witches, making worlds largest pot of tea, nah nah nah you cant touch me!; 1812...ACW/slavery is bad mkay; Lusitania!!!!. Pearl Harbor, stuff stuff stuff... D-Day, A-bombs, post WW2.... Ohh would you look at the time, have fun in your next class!! (yes, that was VERY simplified, but should give you an idea the time spent on things)

Mind you, I was in AP courses, so more relevant topics would have included industrialization, WW1 and the ramifications of it, as well as post-WW2/Cold War era stuff.

Man my history classes were the same stuff over and over from sixth grade to freshman year college. America is discovered, Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, Revolutionary War, Antebellum period, Civil War, slavery is over no more racism until Brown v Board of Education, WWII (we never mentioned WWI), Cold War for like, a hour and then the final exam made up of almost nothing but Revolution and Civil War.

Not to mention none of my teachers seemed to be able to explain the origins of the Revolution beyond "Britain was bad." @_@

We need to go care bear on the education of our kids.....Gawd forbid we let them find out about slavery, The Revolution, Civil War, Indian Wars, Holocaust of WWII, etc etc etc etc events

Actually no, given that the 'Check your Privilege' clip from Hellsing Ultimate Abridged is floating around this is probably very post worthy for this subject;




This is American history people, and it's all about war Class wars, race wars, you name it I mean, heaven forbid we sit down and discuss daily life in 19th century America. Nah we gotta talk about the cool stuff


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
We need to go care bear on the education of our kids.....Gawd forbid we let them find out about slavery, The Revolution, Civil War, Indian Wars, Holocaust of WWII, etc etc etc etc events

Hey man, you haven't had fun till you've debated the wartime decision of not blowing up the tracks to Auschwitz. I mean it wasn't that educational of a discussion, mostly screaming, the cries of anti-semitism, and the like, but it was pretty damn interesting to watch. I half expected some of the students to start eating each other

The RNC want it "rewritten...to accurately reflect U.S. history without a political bias."

It's funny how they then peruse doing it with political bias.

 Jihadin wrote:
We need to go care bear on the education of our kids.....Gawd forbid we let them find out about slavery, The Revolution, Civil War, Indian Wars, Holocaust of WWII, etc etc etc etc events

The problem isn't "going carebear", the problem is that different people have different ideas on what it means to learn about those different subjects and few can find consensus.

The founding were men with strengths as well weaknesses and flaws = Bleeding heart liberal who hates America
The founding fathers were strong Christians that gave us freedom = Pro-theocracy, backward anti-intellectual conservative.

Throw in the Texas Board of Education and you're off to the races.

SO much jealousy for Texas' greatness. Its not my fault you weren't born in the deathworld that is Texas.

I read the article. I don't think I understand the problem. Someone is angry that AP history classes don't reflect patriotism as much as he would like? Is that correct?

 daedalus wrote:
I read the article. I don't think I understand the problem. Someone is angry that AP history classes don't reflect patriotism as much as he would like? Is that correct?

more or less

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

more or less

In that case, I propose an easy solution to the problem: We should offer a AP jingoism class.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just saw this article, and thought it'd be a decent enough topic for debate here:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-republicans-throw-a-conniption-20140819-column.html#page=1



Basically... some former history teacher from New Jersey is getting a bit upset because his personal hero (some bloke even I've never heard of) isn't featured in the new AP curriculum, and others have been raising a fuss over teaching students how things actually were in the US, as opposed to a glittery, super scrubbed version of PC history.

I learned all I needed to know of United States history by watching "Birth of a Nation".

Any classes that are not about whitey are classes that are about liberalizing the edumacation system.
This pretty much sums the article. How do people like this get this far in the board of education?