Oh shut up. It's good for youPete said:
My interest of late
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Trunk Monkey
Defender of the Blonde
Do I need to do a recreation of Manila Bay with this guy?vraiblonde said:Oh shut up. It's good for you
Hessian
Well-Known Member
You Know,,,
For months out of every year...I feel that my attempts to teach history are a general waste of time.
Then,...I see people thinking, weighing...and considering (being civil too!)
THINGS THAT ARE HISTORICALLY RELEVANT.
I taught Span-Am war two weeks ago--hit Federal Reserve system today.
Dang...I actually feel relevant.
For months out of every year...I feel that my attempts to teach history are a general waste of time.
Then,...I see people thinking, weighing...and considering (being civil too!)
THINGS THAT ARE HISTORICALLY RELEVANT.
I taught Span-Am war two weeks ago--hit Federal Reserve system today.
Dang...I actually feel relevant.
Education is wasted on the young. I loved my history and Social Studies classes in high school, but I was probably the only one - everyone else was marking time. And it wasn't until I was well into adulthood that I started really being interested and understanding.Hessian said:
It must be hard to teach history because everything relates to something that happened before and it would be easy to start digressing back to the Stone Age.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I felt the same way. I think too many teachers make the mistake of teaching history as just dry facts, such as the succession of American presidents or English kings. That's the fastest way to kill students' interest.vraiblonde said:
I see history as about causes and motivations, not dry facts. Sort of the same reason I enjoy alternate histories. Were England's religious civil wars of the 1600s a huge influence on the First Amendment? Would slavery have died out if the cotton gin had been invented 20 or 30 years later? Would the American Civil War might have happened sooner without the Missouri Compromise, or later without the Dred Scott decision or John Brown's raid? Were the presidents of the 1840s and 1850s mediocre because they were second choices by parties trying desperately not to fracture over the slavery issue?
But I still have too many gaps in my historical knowledge. I don't know why white racism was so strong in the 1920s as to lead to violence in places like Tulsa and Rosewood.
Side note: Shortly before Monty Python, Michael Palin and Terry Jones did a humor series, "The Complete and Utter History of Britain." The basis for the humor was treating historical events as though television had been there. One of the Python specials has a clip of an interview with William the Conquerer (Palin) and his knights in the bath after the Battle of Hastings, almost like a football team in the locker room after winning a tough game against a bitter rival.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Yeah, the series I mentioned was an embryonic version of Python's historical humor. Palin and Jones were the history buffs. It was Jones' idea to make "Holy Grail" all medieval, instead of the original idea of King Arthur and the knights finding the Grail at Harrod's.SamSpade said:
George III: "Oh dear, I'm not supposed to go mad until 1800."
Beethoven, to mynah bird clacking its bill: "You're not fooling me, bird, I'm not deaf yet."
ython_geek:
Hessian
Well-Known Member
I'm Sorry
but my reenactments are likely less entertaining than old ladies wallopping each other with handbags in the mud.
On the other hand, Tonio...it is so hard to throw out the "What If" questions UNLESS...the listeners have a good grasp of all the ramifications. What if is GREAT when it is bounced around among those who have read and are interested---its horrible with a non-reading, simple minded audience.
The other irritation is amplifying the miniscule while ignoring the Great issues/events.
Why is it that my kids could go on & on discussing Malcolm X but are puzzled by Teddy Roosevelt?
We can sing the praises of Mary Bethune but be clueless about Alexander Graham Bell.
PC has done a lot to destroy the truly great moments in history and distorting others --all to "build up self esteem."--which actually only breeds contempt for the real leaders in history.
"Let's learn about the wind-talkers...instead of D-Day."
but my reenactments are likely less entertaining than old ladies wallopping each other with handbags in the mud.
On the other hand, Tonio...it is so hard to throw out the "What If" questions UNLESS...the listeners have a good grasp of all the ramifications. What if is GREAT when it is bounced around among those who have read and are interested---its horrible with a non-reading, simple minded audience.
The other irritation is amplifying the miniscule while ignoring the Great issues/events.
Why is it that my kids could go on & on discussing Malcolm X but are puzzled by Teddy Roosevelt?
We can sing the praises of Mary Bethune but be clueless about Alexander Graham Bell.
PC has done a lot to destroy the truly great moments in history and distorting others --all to "build up self esteem."--which actually only breeds contempt for the real leaders in history.
"Let's learn about the wind-talkers...instead of D-Day."
MMDad
Lem Putt
Do the kids actually understand Malcom X? Or do they only know what was in the movie? Most kids I've met who wear the X logo only do so because they think it looks cool. Ask them about what he did, what he was about, and you get a blank stare, followed by "he was killed."Hessian said:
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Valid point. I see that approach to history as overcompensating for the white-men-only approach that was used decades ago. Both approaches do a disservice to students. In my view, there's nothing wrong with teaching about both Bell and Bethune as long as it's done with a sense of proportion. Of course Bell made the greater contribution, and it's not racist to point that out to students.Hessian said:
Besides, the old approach to teaching history included figures like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, minor figures who acquired a folk-hero status that they probably didn't deserve. I think that's why so many black kids see Malcolm X as a hero--they're looking for their own folk heroes.
This reminds me of how the reading lists in my high school's English classes seemed ossified. It wasn't that almost all the authors were white men, it was that most of the books were from the '30s and '40s. Stuff from Hemingway and Steinbeck and Faulkner. The only two earlier books I remember were Crane's Red Badge of Courage and Twain's Huck Finn. It looked like the list hadn't been updated in 30 years. I'm no expert in American literature, but I found it hard to believe that no true classics had been written since the Depression. I haven't read Capote, so I don't know if his stuff would be appropriate for high-schoolers.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
As I see it, the PC approach to history replaces one bad agenda with another one.Hessian said:
The old approach glossed over the uncomfortable parts of American history such as Jim Crow, or else made slavery sound like a good life for slaves. It was a form of group denial. The objective was to teach kids to be proud of being Americans, but it backfired when the kids got to college and learned the uncomfortable parts of history that the K-12 schools left out.
The PC approach tries too hard to boost self-esteem among non-white kids, and has the effect of slamming kids (especially white kids) with guilt. Schools shouldn't replace feel-good history with feel-bad history. One reason (out of many) to be proud of being an American is that we outgrew slavery and legal segregation. We should be able to look at both the good and bad in our history without ignorance or shame.