Should "real" history be taught to younger students?

[Iron Mal]

I don't understand why we shelter kids from the darker and more ammoral aspects of our history, after all, unless we learn of (and thus from) our history then we will just end up repeating it inadvertantly.

Partly unrelated (I appologise) but I also found it weird that before they did Sex Education they had to consult our parents for permission, I'd figure that learning about how to look after yourself (sexually speaking) is too important for some over-protective parent to deny their child (sorry, little Timmy will have to learn why you should use a condom the hard way...also known as contracting STD's and teenage pregnency).

 

[Skeleon]

I think it would help the kids question the image of their nation some people try to create.
We learned about WW2 and the concentraion camps when I was, uhm, 13 or something? I think that's old enough to learn about this stuff and understand how important it is to question authority.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If my personal experience is any indicator, we are lied to from a young age.

Problem is, where do you define the truth?

To the Germans, World War 2 is the end to a rebellion against the Allies which brought them shamefully to the world's attention.
To the Russians, it's a failed attempt to expand their borders due to the German tanks getting stuck on the Steppes on their way to attack them.
To the British, it's a long haul that cost us dearly where we could be proud of fighting off the Evil invaders.
To the Americans, it's that war they helped the Europeans win.

Each country will have an entirely different way of teaching what World War 2 was like, and the non-Britains won't have heard of the destruction of Coventry and the work of Barnes Wallace, the non-Germans won't know of the crippling inflation that lead to the rise of the NASI party etc.

Take something as simple as the Boston Tea Party. Depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on, you'll hear WILDLY differing approaches of what happened.

Before you get onto the idea that the Moors (Arabs) developed medicine far before we did and the Chinese had gunpowder centuries before we put it into practice.

 

[AlphaOmega]

War doesnt decide who is right, only who is left.
History books are written by those victorious

That said, less friendly facts should not be covered by the "kids" excuse.

 

[Seldon2639]

Eh... It really depends on who gets to write what "real" history consists of. Remember, of course, that the bleeding-hearts on the other side of the debate over the awesomeness of American history are no more objectively right. To portray the internment of the Japanese as being in any way equivalent to the concentration camps (for instance) is just as manipulative of young minds as omitting it altogether.

Did the Muslim nations develop society, science, and culture, or were they simple placeholders of knowledge from the Greeks and Romans? Was the Renaissance European co-option of Moorish knowledge, or a rediscovery of writings from antiquity which the Moors had allowed to stagnate? Both conceptions are "true", based on subjective interpretation of objective facts.

Did colonization of North America bring technology and society to an otherwise wild and untamed part of the world? Or did we simply take land from an existing civilization? If we did take the land, was that a "bad" thing? Is it evil for a more powerful nation to take land from a weaker one? Is modern immigration equivalent to Europeans coming to America?

I have no problem with telling children the bare facts of what occurred, but that's largely impossible. No writer/historian (liberal, democrat, or independent) can write without injecting some measure of personal bias into it.

Side note: I read Jonathan Kozol, and I find him to be exceptionally biased and prejudiced in his reporting of facts. He begins with his conclusion, and then attempts to back-stop it with facts, rather than beginning with reality and forming a conclusion as a result. For instance, he accepts only one possible cause for the difference in test scores between suburban whites and urban blacks (that the urban schools suck), but that's bad science. There are so many confounding variables he ignores that I want to beat him over the head with a statistics textbook.

 

[Jonatron]

Each country will have an entirely different way of teaching what World War 2 was like, and the non-Britains won't have heard of the destruction of Coventry and the work of Barnes Wallace, the non-Germans won't know of the crippling inflation that lead to the rise of the NASI party etc.

Take something as simple as the Boston Tea Party. Depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on, you'll hear WILDLY differing approaches of what happened.

When I did History about 2 years ago (12, 13-ish) we actually did look at differing points of view.
Particular attention was brought to, in the SQA (Scottsh Qualification Authority) Standard Grade History, the causes of WW1 and how the aftermath of that's result on politics (Particularly Germany, and the failure of the League of Nations), which would then lead to WW2. Oh, and Sufferage. And, err, British Mining. Not a bad two years, I quite enjoyed that class.

 

[Squarez]

As long as they do learn about it, it's fine.

Because as, say, 10 year olds, history is more a chore than the search for truth and knowledge.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I get annoyed whenever the time period "the Dark Ages" is mentioned.

 

[Sethzard]

No, without the truth the world is meaningless

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

Well, it all depends on how you look at it.

On one hand, teaching young students the true history would allow them to know it and feel like they can be trusted, as well as a feeling of trust for the school system.

On the other hand, Teaching them about how much crap has gone bad could give them a preemptive feeling of resentment and hatred, something that may of been avoidable by waiting until the students are old and mature enough to understand that it was in the past and most (or at least some) of those things have been stopped.

Not really much Pro is there?
It's nice to know the truth, but to the eyes of the educational system, there is no good reason to tell the truth, course that's just my blunt look at it.

 

[Spitfire175]

History has always been used as a tool to mold the minds of the young.
However, I think the "reak history should be taught everywhere. All the horrid truths about how twisted and evil the race of man truly is.

 

[Xvito]

If my personal experience is any indicator, we are lied to from a young age.

Problem is, where do you define the truth?

To the Germans, World War 2 is the end to a rebellion against the Allies which brought them shamefully to the world's attention.
To the Russians, it's a failed attempt to expand their borders due to the German tanks getting stuck on the Steppes on their way to attack them.
To the British, it's a long haul that cost us dearly where we could be proud of fighting off the Evil invaders.
To the Americans, it's that war they helped the Europeans win.

Each country will have an entirely different way of teaching what World War 2 was like, and the non-Britains won't have heard of the destruction of Coventry and the work of Barnes Wallace, the non-Germans won't know of the crippling inflation that lead to the rise of the NASI party etc.

Take something as simple as the Boston Tea Party. Depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on, you'll hear WILDLY differing approaches of what happened.

Before you get onto the idea that the Moors (Arabs) developed medicine far before we did and the Chinese had gunpowder centuries before we put it into practice.

I take it you were born in both Germany and the United Kingdom then...?

Also, I think that if you don't look at different perspectives of history in history-class, then there's something that has gone awfully awry.

I myself come from Sweden, and we didn't learn anything (in school) about the fact that it was our work in race-biology that inspired the Nazis... And that most Swedish people were pro-Nazi during WWII.

We've done a lot of other awful stuff as well... But that's not was this thread was for...

 

[cleverlymadeup]

as it's been said the kids are too young to understand a lot of things, this is why things are held off till later. it's much like how kids can't understand homosexuality and things like that

 

[El Poncho]

Well we should teach them the cool stuff first like the Greeks, Romans stuff like that since imo had alot of good wars in them and kids like wars i'm sure maybe teach them how the greeks invented democracy and all that stuff. Tell them about all the assassinations of back then, because if they did that at my primary school I would of liked history a whole lot more than I do now.

 

[Monshroud]

I think this is more of a matter of comprehension. We shouldn't expect a 6 or 7 year old to understand the political structure of Europe during the time Columbus decided to fail at finding his way to India. We shouldn't expect a 8 or 9 year old to understand the political commentary of a book like Animal Farm. At that age, children don't have the life knowledge to put the information in any perspective.

 

[Crossborder]

I dont think young children will really understand the 'truth' and they could be scared of it, but if you teach them from a young age their country is a land of pure awesomeness there is a chance they might keep that image of it. So It's a matter of finding the right balance between the positive view and the negetive view. What that balance precisely is, well, it's a matter of opinion i think.

 

[Zildjin81]

The early years of our education in History and Social Studies involves a lot of indoctrination... Teaching real history to them would make their young minds start working at too early an age, making it more difficult for them to be controlled.

That was a joke, right? You don't believe that, do you?

OT:Well incorrect history shouldn't be taught but scary(real)shouldn't be taught until at earliest 4th 5th grade.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

with the knowledge that maybe our respective countries weren't always the wonderful, 100% patriotic places they are today.

I've never been told anything regarding being patriotic to my country. In fact, it is almost discouraged in case we anger someone.

 

[mayney93]

were u not also told that America slaughtered the natives?

 

[Lordmarkus]

You should always tell the truth, but hiding some of it isn't necessary lying. But hiding some of the truth and fill that empty space with indoctrination that makes it another story. Though I don't think you need get all that deep in history and social studies until you are like 12-14. At least untill they have constructed and abstract mind.