Originally Posted By utahjosh <You are approaching history as if it's a series of disconnected events that we can just kinda talk about and jump from one to the next.> Isn't that exactly what happens in a History class? Of course some things are positive, and others are negative. The point of view is as a citizen of the United States of America. Since that's who the people we are talking about are, and that's the people they are teaching. Slavery was a negative. I think we can all agree there. The freedoms guaranteed in the constitution are positives. It obviously wasn't carried out perfectly, but I'd focus on the good and positive things it produced. I'd slightly emphasize the good done in American history. "Good" as in good for humanity.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Isn't that exactly what happens in a History class?>> Perhaps, but it shouldn’t be. History is fluid, and need to be taught as such. You mentioned slavery which is a great example. But slavery is only one aspect of interracial relationships. Why were Africans deemed lesser then European white folk insomuch that it allowed Europeans to justify enslaving them? Where is the origin for these sorts of reasoning (and there are many answers to this question)? That is also history, and to separate that question from the evolving story of interracial relationships from slavery to freedom gives students a disjointed view of reality. The same reasoning must be applied through Reconstruction, through the Jim Crow era, through the Civil Rights period, and eventually to Ferguson and beyond. Ultimately, if the phrase 'those who fail to learn from history and doomed to repeat it', then we need to educate future generations to avoid the mistakes of our past to ensure to prosperity of the future (I think that was Edmund Burke). Another example would be the Indian Wars. We learn as kids about the Custer and the slaughter of the 7th cavalry by those horrible Indians at the Little Big Horn River. But tell that SAME story with Sand Creek in mind, the picture becomes quite different.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Isn't that exactly what happens in a History class?<< I seriously hope not. It's a series of complex, interconnected events that creates a chain of other events. I suppose one could talk about the Constitution without mentioning the three-fifths compromise, then jump to the Missouri Compromise and pretend they aren't connected, but that would be some bloody awful teaching. >>The point of view is as a citizen of the United States of America.<< Which citizens? Black, white, male, female, Jewish, Muslim, who? So when the history class gets to the Declaration, is that a positive thing? What if I'm an American Indian and we get to the part that says, "the merciless Indian Savages..." Is that positive? What about if I'm a woman and the Declaration talks about how "all men are created equal?" Is women's suffrage a good thing? If so, do we talk about the lack of suffrage and the treatment of women as property in the 19th century? Is that a positive thing? >>but I'd focus on the good and positive things it produced.<< Which are what? You are assuming the way America is today is the way it has always been, or was always destined to be. You are working backwards and assuming the way history unfolds is inevitable. You have to start at the beginning and work forward. And for the *vast* majority of our history, millions of people in our country were not beneficiaries of the "good and positive things" that you keep talking about. Slavery is just not a negative thing that happened one time in our country; it is part of a chain of events that continues to this day that fails to grant the very things you say make America great to our citizens.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan To encourage more critical thinking, which should be the goal of most educational subjects, all the facts must be put on the table. What Oklahoma wants to do is shift from teaching history into an indoctrination into a certain way to think about this country. It's funny, I'd bet a large sum that many of the folks pushing hardest for this change to "yay America!" AP history are vehemently disrespectful to the current administration on a daily basis. They're patriotic and pro-America on their own terms only.
Originally Posted By ecdc Just using the official dates and not even the more de facto realities, here's a quick breakdown: African Americans did not legally have the same rights as white Americans from 1776–1965...nearly 200 years. So the argument is that nearly 200 years of prejudice and institutional racism is a mistake that we shouldn't focus too much on, but the 50 years since is what really matters? If I rob banks for twenty years then stop for the last five years of my life...I'm pretty sure my biography is going to spend some significant time talking about how I was a bank robber, even if it isn't all that positive.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'd slightly emphasize the good done in American history. "Good" as in good for humanity.<< On the whole, and though it is painfully slow in coming and usually not without violence, this country does tend to move in the general direction of doing the right thing much of the time. In telling the whole story, I think that constant hope -- that things will get better if we keep fighting for it -- comes through in telling the whole story of America, warts and all. The whole story also shows how quickly we can be misled, how easy it is to fall back to old patterns and racist traditions, if we don't stay mindful of it. Doing what Oklahoma asks would make it very easy to gloss over that hard fact.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I suppose if everything was going great in modern America, emphasizing the positive would not be so bad. But the fact is, things are evolving constantly, and there is plenty still wrong. We need the raw honesty of the past in order to fully comprehend the present. Without it, there is ignorance, which is the catalyst of injustice.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Without it, there is ignorance...>> And Oklahoma is attempting to display "ignorance" in its worst and literal form, i.e., to ignore, or willful disregard of information.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, explaining the reasoning behind this, in "1984."
