Nothing to see here, move along

[guncrasher]

history is just like math.  you wont want to teach calculus to a bunch of elementary kids because they wont be able to understand it same as for history.  the history of history is so big that you cant spent your entire life learning about it and not finish.  so you learn the condensed parts based on whoever writes the book.

I seriously think the history that we learn/teach is mostly based on a true story as it mostly reflects 1 or perhaps 2 points of view, but not the point of view of everybody involved.  for example the civil war it shows the north against the south.  but it is hard to find the point of view of the average people who didnt care either way as most people lived and died within a few miles of were they were born and things that happened 100s of miles away woudnt affect them.

semp

[B-17]

history is just like math.  you wont want to teach calculus to a bunch of elementary kids because they wont be able to understand it same as for history.  the history of history is so big that you cant spent your entire life learning about it and not finish.  so you learn the condensed parts based on whoever writes the book.

I seriously think the history that we learn/teach is mostly based on a true story as it mostly reflects 1 or perhaps 2 points of view, but not the point of view of everybody involved.  for example the civil war it shows the north against the south.  but it is hard to find the point of view of the average people who didnt care either way as most people lived and died within a few miles of were they were born and things that happened 100s of miles away woudnt affect them.

semp

Two things: I don't think it's as much whether they teach them the workings of it all, they just aren't even INTRODUCED to the concept of any of this stuff.

Second thing: Winners write the history books.

[Rino]

Hmm, perhaps what I proposed is a bit heavy, but even without that, I think there is a way to teach man's descent from the trees (Paleolithic) , his domestication of animals (Neolithic), and the development of thought throughout the ages (across the world, of course).  I think a history of math and philosophy would be a good start, and eliminating the rather one-sided Revolution reenactments would help to give kids the global perspective they are well capable of taking.  A good example of such a global perspective would be teaching how China became the most advanced civilisation of the 15th century, and how the Gupta's and Arabs advanved mathematics significantly.

Did I say that white people were evil?

-Penguin

     I'm sorry, maybe I was absent the day that genocide, slavery and conquest was performed by the US minorities.  Free feel to
second guess and denigrate your forebears as we all know that history is just events of the past viewed through the lens of the
present.  Which makes me grateful that political correctness is a recent invention.

[TheAssi]

Indoctrination is the coolest. 

Accept what you're told and you'll be fine.

[TheAssi]

See Rule #14

[mensa180]

You can't. That's the real world and at some point those "little kids" must face it.

Cue Catcher in the Rye.

[SmokinLoon]

     Have fun learning about the evil white man 

Yeap.  Prepare to learn about crap that has NOTHING to do with history, but because it is politically correct you will hear about it.  Oh, and yeah the white man and the US government will be the two most evil entities in the world.  That is precisely part of the reason I chose not to continue on in teaching history in high school.  I was so disgusted white student teaching I actually defied the teacher and principle and taught a number of things without a liberal slant on the topic and spoke of the facts and presented both sides of the story.  The BS that is spewed in schools these days is horrid.   

[titanic3]

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

And history is written by the victor. Only recently have we actually tried to find out the missing voices (slaves, women, children)

[Guppy35]

OK before too many of ya blow a gasket.  A good rule of thumb in learning history is to have at least three sources independent of each other.  Even then you will be taking in their biases and yours as you interpret the information.   What I love about history is the more I learn, the more I find I need to learn beyond where I started.

The beauty of it is you never reach the end of the story as it constantly evolves.  What was 'truth' 20 years ago, may not be 'truth' today because more information will have turned up.

If you stop with the first source it's your own damn fault as is taking any one source as "truth".

[Melvin]

Make sure you listen to someone who calls them self a moderate as well.  It means they are always right.

Surely you can do better.

[Melvin]

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

Yes, read this book.


If you have a fondness for anthropological fiction.

EDIT: I'm holding this book in my hand, and I still can't remember any redeeming details.

[PFactorDave]

A good rule of thumb in learning history is to have at least three sources independent of each other.  Even then you will be taking in their biases and yours as you interpret the information.   

Amen...

Written history is all about the biases and agendas.  If you approach history with that understanding, do your utmost to separate your own biases, and seek out facts first...  Facts first...  Facts first...  Facts first...

Then do your best to evaluate those facts, without your own biases coloring them...

Then you might begin to understand what has happened and why...

The moment you start to evaluate history with an opinion or agenda as the primary concern, you are simply contributing to the problem.

[titanic3]

Yes, read this book.


If you have a fondness for anthropological fiction.

EDIT: I'm holding this book in my hand, and I still can't remember any redeeming details.

I thought it was pretty spot on why some civilizations were more advanced than others. Paraphrasing here, but, "All humans have the same capability to invent and think, so how come we didn't see the rise of the Aztecs conquering Europe or the tribes of Africa conquering the Mediterranean? Because the Aztecs and tribes of Africa did not have the need for advance technology, they were mostly hunter gatherers that never settled due to their geography and climate, and without a food surplus/population growth, these civilizations did not grow in power/technology."

Necessity is the mother of inventions. Europeans, the Middle East and China were the major powers thousands of years ago because they all developed cities, empires and kingdoms. They learned to farm while the rest of the world were still hunting as nomads. Population growth means people could specialize in a skill (blacksmith, crafting, pottery, etc) and over time, develop new technologies. Nomads/hunter gatherers could not afford to specialize in a skill because everyone had to hunt or gather so the tribe could survive, and the tribes had to be small so they could move easily during season changes.

[Penguin]

     I'm sorry, maybe I was absent the day that genocide, slavery and conquest was performed by the US minorities.  Free feel to
second guess and denigrate your forebears as we all know that history is just events of the past viewed through the lens of the
present.  Which makes me grateful that political correctness is a recent invention.

Genocide in America is a fact, just try to find a Native American nowadays- it's nearly impossible.  Before we came along, there were at least 1,000,000 if not more.  The founding fathers were every bit as human as we are today, and second guessing them is well within reason- the amendment system is there for a reason.  Though they were right on some things, such as representative government, the Three-Fifths rule was not a good idea.  As for political correctness, calling a Japanese person 'orangutan' or 'shrimpfarmer' is akin to calling a Vietnam veteran 'babykiller' and I'm sure that the latter idea disgusts you personally.  That's all it is, there's no agenda, just people not wanting to be, as you said, denigerated.

History is the facts viewed through a lens, but adopting, as you have, a Whig lens, is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

-Penguin

[Melvin]

I thought it was pretty spot on why some civilizations were more advanced than others. Paraphrasing here, but, "All humans have the same capability to invent and think, so how come we didn't see the rise of the Aztecs conquering Europe or the tribes of Africa conquering the Mediterranean? Because the Aztecs and tribes of Africa did not have the need for advance technology, they were mostly hunter gatherers that never settled due to their geography and climate, and without a food surplus/population growth, these civilizations did not grow in power/technology."

Necessity is the mother of inventions. Europeans, the Middle East and China were the major powers thousands of years ago because they all developed cities, empires and kingdoms. They learned to farm while the rest of the world were still hunting as nomads. Population growth means people could specialize in a skill (blacksmith, crafting, pottery, etc) and over time, develop new technologies. Nomads/hunter gatherers could not afford to specialize in a skill because everyone had to hunt or gather so the tribe could survive, and the tribes had to be small so they could move easily during season changes.

The missing link in your post, and the book for that matter, is why.

Of course Diamond made a feeble attempt at asking the question, but in his mind he already knew the answer.

These so called "hunter gatherers" ruled vast tract of lands and vast amounts of humans.

Their war making capabilities were second to none.

Why are some humans good hunters and other good farmers and others good businessmen and others good thieves and others good killers and others good citizens and others good liars and others good gardeners and others good manipulators and others good Samaritans and others good knobgobblers and others good skinflints and others good natured humans that treat their neighbors as their equals, and only hold contempt for their enemies?


I don't know, neither do you and neither does Jared Diamond