Gripe about US history myths taught early on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not limited to private school. AP US History book is more sociology than history. Every chapter talks about the role of women and minorities to the point where important events are left out.

History is not just a list of events. History is also what people did and how they lived. And most of humanity consists of women and minorities..

Over-exaggerating accomplishments to be "diverse" and ignoring major historical accomplishments because they were accomplished by old white guys isn't teaching history. It is skewing facts to make a statement and does a disservice to everyone.

Could you point out some of these overexaggerations? And specify these major acts performed by white men that go overlooked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not limited to private school. AP US History book is more sociology than history. Every chapter talks about the role of women and minorities to the point where important events are left out.

History is not just a list of events. History is also what people did and how they lived. And most of humanity consists of women and minorities..

Over-exaggerating accomplishments to be "diverse" and ignoring major historical accomplishments because they were accomplished by old white guys isn't teaching history. It is skewing facts to make a statement and does a disservice to everyone.

Please give a specific example from the AP US History curriculum that overexaggerates accomplishments to be diverse and ignores major historical accomplishments because they were accomplished by old white guys. Actually two specific examples would be great, but one will suffice.

As an aside, it always bugged me that we spent so much time on the beginning of US history and never got around to modern history because the school year ended.

[Anonymous]

I understand that was intentional to avoid talking about the Vietnam war-- history ended at WWII.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that was intentional to avoid talking about the Vietnam war-- history ended at WWII.

An additional benefit of ending history at World War II is that you also don't have to talk about the Korean War.

[Anonymous]

I understand that was intentional to avoid talking about the Vietnam war-- history ended at WWII.


An additional benefit of ending history at World War II is that you also don't have to talk about the Korean War.

It has always been that way. Not intentional. Time driven.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in the south.....where history classes ended at the civil war. Do with that what you will...

[Anonymous]

I grew up in the south.....where history classes ended at the civil war. Do with that what you will...

Myth. Mine ended somewhere around the end of WWII...............

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what Christopher Columbus did, it was his exploration which opened up the New World. Sure, it would have happened anyway, but this is when it really started.

Fine. Great explorer, terrible person. Why only mention the first fact?

so you think third graders should be told his men all raped the Indian women?

NP - I think the point is you can't "pick and choose" history.

such a thing as time and place appropriateness though for teaching the facts

You can still teach in an age appropriate way. Not teaching or hiding the facts is not acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I understand that was intentional to avoid talking about the Vietnam war-- history ended at WWII.


An additional benefit of ending history at World War II is that you also don't have to talk about the Korean War.

It has always been that way. Not intentional. Time driven.

One of my favorite history classes was a high school class titled "US History After 1945". We learned about Vietnam, Korea, the civil rights movement, Watergate. It felt so much more relevant than learning about the details of the Revolution. It was an elective, though, not required.

Of course my mom (born in 1950) was horrified that those events were considered "history".

[Anonymous]

Many things are not taught correctly. They teach that Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation. The first actual Protestant Church was the Moravian Church started in Moravia (now part of the Czech Republic) 60 years before Martin Luther. Jon Huss, the founder of the Moravian Church, was burned at the stake in 1415 as a heretic.

[Anonymous]

And they still use the name "Christopher Columbus" for Cristoforo Colombo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I understand that was intentional to avoid talking about the Vietnam war-- history ended at WWII.


An additional benefit of ending history at World War II is that you also don't have to talk about the Korean War.

It has always been that way. Not intentional. Time driven.

One of my favorite history classes was a high school class titled "US History After 1945". We learned about Vietnam, Korea, the civil rights movement, Watergate. It felt so much more relevant than learning about the details of the Revolution. It was an elective, though, not required.

Of course my mom (born in 1950) was horrified that those events were considered "history".

How odd. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not limited to private school. AP US History book is more sociology than history. Every chapter talks about the role of women and minorities to the point where important events are left out.

History is not just a list of events. History is also what people did and how they lived. And most of humanity consists of women and minorities..

Over-exaggerating accomplishments to be "diverse" and ignoring major historical accomplishments because they were accomplished by old white guys isn't teaching history. It is skewing facts to make a statement and does a disservice to everyone.

Please give a specific example from the AP US History curriculum that overexaggerates accomplishments to be diverse and ignores major historical accomplishments because they were accomplished by old white guys. Actually two specific examples would be great, but one will suffice.

It's too true. I don't know the AP history curriculum, but 2nd graders used to spend an entire year studying Mali. That's right. Mali. Not Greece or Italy or anywhere anything important ever happened, not the beginnings of civilization, not the origin of our own culture or language, not anyplace important today, but Mali. It's just historical affirmative action. Poor disadvantaged Mali is just as worthy of our attention as the great civilizations of the world. The kids didn't of course learn about the problems of poverty and lack of education there, or about religious and ethnic conflict, but rather had to learn about traditional clothing and food and musical instruments, as though Mali is some center of culture and art. Gag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what Christopher Columbus did, it was his exploration which opened up the New World. Sure, it would have happened anyway, but this is when it really started.

Fine. Great explorer, terrible person. Why only mention the first fact?

so you think third graders should be told his men all raped the Indian women?

NP - I think the point is you can't "pick and choose" history.

such a thing as time and place appropriateness though for teaching the facts

You can still teach in an age appropriate way. Not teaching or hiding the facts is not acceptable.

I spent an entire college semester studying how bad Columbus was along with all the other sailors who came to the new world. At the end I walked away with the knowledge that raping and pillaging was typical of many conquests of that age including those of Indians to each other. Columbus didn't stand out to me as worse than any other explorer or war hero of the time. I still celebrate the discovery of the new world whether he realized it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's too true. I don't know the AP history curriculum, but 2nd graders used to spend an entire year studying Mali. That's right. Mali. Not Greece or Italy or anywhere anything important ever happened, not the beginnings of civilization, not the origin of our own culture or language, not anyplace important today, but Mali. It's just historical affirmative action. Poor disadvantaged Mali is just as worthy of our attention as the great civilizations of the world. The kids didn't of course learn about the problems of poverty and lack of education there, or about religious and ethnic conflict, but rather had to learn about traditional clothing and food and musical instruments, as though Mali is some center of culture and art. Gag.

I think that you would benefit from that second-grade curriculum. Mali actually was a center of culture and art, just like ancient Greece and ancient Rome were: http://africa.si.edu/exhibits/resources/mali/