Should "real" history be taught to younger students?

[ohgodalex]

Search bar brings up similar topics but without this pressing question that I'd like to see discussed, so I'ma go ahead and post this.

If my personal experience is any indicator, we are lied to from a young age. Important facts were omitted from every history lesson we received until the school system deemed us old enough to cope with the knowledge that maybe our respective countries weren't always the wonderful, 100% patriotic places they are today. I know for a fact that if I hadn't begun reading Jonathan Kozol, I would have thought Christopher Columbus was a pretty alright guy until I was 15. I never, despite many, many years spent learning about her, was told Helen Keller was a feminist activist, nor was the women's suffrage movement ever spoken of until I was a sophomore in high school, when I was old enough to know that the glorious US had, within the last 100 years, denied women the vote. While I learned that the Nazis were bad for putting the Jews in concentration camps, never were the Japanese-American interment camps spoken of.

And so, I pose the following questions to my fellow Escapists.
Are we right to hide these things from our children for so long? Is it right to shelter children in this way, or should we start telling them the truth earlier? And, if so, how early? How much of the truth?
or
If this was not the case for you, I'd like to hear about where you attended school and what and when your teachers taught you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[Arehexes]

Search bar brings up similar topics but without this pressing question that I'd like to see discussed, so I'ma go ahead and post this.

From a young age, we are lied to. Important facts are omitted from every history lesson we received until the school system deemed us old enough to cope with the knowledge that maybe our respective countries weren't always the wonderful, 100% patriotic places they are today. I know for a fact that if I hadn't begun reading Jonathan Kozol, I would have thought Christopher Columbus was a pretty alright guy until I was 15. I never, despite many, many years spent learning about her, was told Helen Keller was a feminist activist, nor was the women's suffrage movement ever spoken of until I was a sophomore in high school, when I was old enough to know that the glorious US had, within the last 100 years, denied women the vote. While I learned that the Nazis were bad for putting the Jews in concentration camps, never were the Japanese-American interment camps spoken of.

And so, I pose the following questions to my fellow Escapists.
Are we right to hide these things from our children for so long? Is it right to shelter children in this way, or should we start telling them the truth earlier? And, if so, how early? How much of the truth?

Parents want to shelter kids from the "truth" but in fact it's just keeping us from knowing what is important. And yes I think real history should be taught, stop sugar coating US history so we look good.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

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.

 

[SharPhoe]

You know, maybe it's because they're only children, and either not capable of understanding touchier subjects like that, or would become very scared of the world at too young an age.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Real history should be taught to all.
All ignorance will do is create a new generation of needlessly proud idiots.

Kind of like the BNP...

 

[Rathy]

Search bar brings up similar topics but without this pressing question that I'd like to see discussed, so I'ma go ahead and post this.

If my personal experience is any indicator, we are lied to from a young age. Important facts were omitted from every history lesson we received until the school system deemed us old enough to cope with the knowledge that maybe our respective countries weren't always the wonderful, 100% patriotic places they are today. I know for a fact that if I hadn't begun reading Jonathan Kozol, I would have thought Christopher Columbus was a pretty alright guy until I was 15. I never, despite many, many years spent learning about her, was told Helen Keller was a feminist activist, nor was the women's suffrage movement ever spoken of until I was a sophomore in high school, when I was old enough to know that the glorious US had, within the last 100 years, denied women the vote. While I learned that the Nazis were bad for putting the Jews in concentration camps, never were the Japanese-American interment camps spoken of.

And so, I pose the following questions to my fellow Escapists.
Are we right to hide these things from our children for so long? Is it right to shelter children in this way, or should we start telling them the truth earlier? And, if so, how early? How much of the truth?
or
If this was not the case for you, I'd like to hear about where you attended school and what and when your teachers taught you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I find this a bit ironic. I learned about a lot of this stuff early on. May just be the areas class plan.
I do believe this stuff should be brought up though, and relatively early. Its pretty bad when you only hear half the story of WW2, because all that does sound like is trying for blind patriots to me.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Really is a child going to understand some things though? Just because they are young you have to leave a lot out, they are still learning Columbus discovered the americas do they need to delve into his ruling of some island as a dictator and being sent back in chains(which they won't understand likely)? Kinda like in science you leave out a lot because kids cant grasp it all.

 

[Jonatron]

I haven't noticed this in Scotland... History wasn't on the primary (5-12) (With the exception of a look at WW2 at the end) school curriculum in any meaningful form, and in any point in high school (12-18) it's completely plain fact.

 

[Woodsey]

Smaller children would find it harder to understand. You can't just tell someone history. They have to understand the motivations, social etiquettes, economies, beliefs, etc. of the time.

By the time you're my age (15) most have the understanding of these things within current society, so it's easier to relate back to the past. There aren't many 10 year olds you can talk about the suffragettes and suffragists with and have them understand the numerous factors that relate to the happenings of the time.

As they become more aware of what current society is built upon, then you can explain how it has evolved over time.

If not you have to feed them all these ideas (in quite a bit of detail if they're going to properly comprehend it) at once. Which is a lot harder.

 

[Satin6T]

yup we should only tell our kids the nice things that happen in history

 

[Sovvolf]

We had to learn the real gritty history over here when we were kids, so I don't see why you shouldn't over there.

 

[Kimarous]

I fail to see the reason for forcing that stuff at kids. They either won't understand it, start distrusting/disrespecting authority, or view humanity as innately assholish. How are ANY of these a positive improvement?

 

[Drakmeire]

Well if we taught "True" history to young students, every kindergarten play of "The first Thanksgiving" would be very, very bloody.

 

[THAC0]

I think they should, that way the gap between popular history and real history wouldn't be so big, and people who like to revise history for their own gains, might have a harder time doing it.

 

[thepj]

I haven't noticed this in Scotland... History wasn't on the primary (5-12) (With the exception of a look at WW2 at the end) school curriculum in any meaningful form, and in any point in high school (12-18) it's completely plain fact.

this for me, i'm in a grammer school and we've just started looking at british conquests in india and the americas so the education itself is good. but they topic of the british slaghtering many of the natives of these places has been carefully sidestepped

 

[Arrogancy]

I impart to you this knowledge: History belongs to the victor. Whoever is on the side of whatever issue that prevailed owns the rights to the account of it. This happens constantly and will, in all likelihood, continue to happen. Yet I digress, in my opinion children are entitled to know about their history, will they, I doubt it.

 

[thepj]

I fail to see the reason for forcing that stuff at kids. They either won't understand it, start distrusting/disrespecting authority, or view humanity as innately assholish. How are ANY of these a positive improvement?

they might acctually understand how the world is run and works... failing that they'll come to terms with it and accept the fact that america and the western world in general (note i'm not hating on the west here) was bulit to where it was today on the blood sweat and broken backs of the rest of the earth

 

[JuniorXL]

Personnaly i think that it's logical for a country to "forget" some less good things they have done. I mean it's a better story to tell if you didn't slaughter children and kittens needlessly.

Is it a good thing? Thats another question and I don't think it really is a good thing. I don't really know how to develop on that. (Damn language barrier (i'm french))