Gosh, why would anyone think lefties are traitors?
- Thread starter Canceled.LTroll.29
- Start date
- Status
Annie
Not So Junior Member
I'm hardly to the left, I'd use that lesson plan in a heartbeat. I've written similar plans. On the other hand, I've often used supplemental lessons so the students can discover on their own the biases contained within our text, especially where 'America is bad' seems to be the theme.
I take your implication that the 'witch hunts' of the 50's should be ignored? That would be just as wrong as the revisionist textbooks I'm dealing with.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
But America is bad, isn't it?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4"]YouTube - Michelle Obama "Proud" vs "Really Proud"[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4"]YouTube - Michelle Obama "Proud" vs "Really Proud"[/ame]
Annie
Not So Junior Member
You are proving my point. Our kids need to be educated in civics and the philosophy that underlies our system of government. For the most part, the schools are failing in doing that. It's not easy and it's time consuming, which is why during summer I'm writing the unit lesson plans and time to be devoted.
The lesson plan you cited, directed both educator and students to archives for primary source documents, that is certainly a step in the right direction.
I use the "We the People" program put out by the Center for Civic Education. It is a big time user, but I have had past students returning when they are in college thanking me for giving them a basis they didn't get until college. That is wrong, what about those that go to a university that doesn't require American history? That list is growing.
If we do not teach our children the value of our system and how and why to participate, we will fall. Yes, that requires the students know some of the basics of philosophers that contributed to the education of the Founders.
The lesson plan you cited, directed both educator and students to archives for primary source documents, that is certainly a step in the right direction.
I use the "We the People" program put out by the Center for Civic Education. It is a big time user, but I have had past students returning when they are in college thanking me for giving them a basis they didn't get until college. That is wrong, what about those that go to a university that doesn't require American history? That list is growing.
If we do not teach our children the value of our system and how and why to participate, we will fall. Yes, that requires the students know some of the basics of philosophers that contributed to the education of the Founders.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You've made a good argument out of a non-argument. The question of what we teach our kids in school is a good argument .. that crap about the left is just theater.
My question to you is are you advocating that we teach our children truth in schools or are you advocating that we indoctrinate our children what we want them to believe. The textbooks America has grown up reading does not tell the truth.
Should textbooks continue to tell the fairy-tale about Christopher Columbus or should they tell the truth .. that any intelligent student can go on the internet to find.
Should textbooks tell the Hollywood version of the Alamo or should they tell the truth .. which any intelligent student can go on the internet to find.
American history is the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran and installing a brutal dictator because we wanted to control theoir oil resources. Should textbooks tell that truth?
Textbooks aren't the problem except that they fail to keep pace with the information age. History is not always defined by the writer.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
"Sometimes history needs a push."
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/sometimes-history-needs-a-push/1500717.html
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/sometimes-history-needs-a-push/1500717.html
Annie
Not So Junior Member
I'll do the best I can with limited time right now, I'm in the midst of talking back and forth with my relatives and cleaning my house. Beginning at the end, history is never written by the textbooks, when lucky they report what happened with minimum bias. Doesn't matter what the bias, it's there. To my way of thinking, it's important in the secondary years that students are able to discern some of it, easiest way is through primary sources.
If not for the implied biased, I'm taking the 'we' as 'you', meaning me -see bolded, I'd respond that they are not mutually exclusive.bac said:
First the assumption that indoctrinating kids is wrong, I'm using the wrong word, you're the writer, is it 'inculcate'? I think so. In order to raise a citizenry that can live up to the ideals, they must know what those ideals are. That does not imply unwavering stories of the unblemished past or people. Am I willing to make an assumption that our children should keep our system of government, yes. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but better than the alternatives at least thus far.
Certainly just like the present, there were those who did anything, stepped on anyone to get what they wanted. The wrongs must be addressed through education so they are not repeated, though the overwhelming story not only of the US, but of Western Civilization has been for the benefit of the world. Again, that does not imply that great wrongs were not done along the way over the past 1500 years.
I know you are old enough to have a daughter serving in the military, though I'm betting you are a few years younger than myself, can't be by much. Do you remember back in the late 70's, early 80's some black activists decided that it would be good to return to Africa, I think somewhat as a reaction to the story of Haley's "Roots"? I think their 'move' lasted a couple of months, if that. One of them wrote a story about it in I think the Chicago Tribune.
Bottom line, for the Triangular trade, establishment of slavery was the worst sin of our forefathers, yes 'our'. While my family did not land here til the late 19th C., and then to escape starvation, it was Europeans who participated in it, along with Africans who kidnapped and sold those from the interior, most for profit, some for tribalism.
If that was where the European/Western wrongs to Africa stopped, it would be bad enough. Unfortunately it would grow much worse throughout the 20th C. I'll stop with the lesson, as I've no doubt you know more than I on this subject. I just wanted you to know that I'm not ignorant to what has happened, besides I wanted you to understand where I'm coming from in my next point.
There was no justification to be made for slavery, however the descendants of those slaves, while discriminated against and many still suffer from past injustices; are now better off than if that had not happened to their forebears. One certainly could argue that Africa may have been better off if those people had remained there, but it's pretty hard to believe the average Black American would be.
With that complicated issue being given a minimum of attention, the point of complexity, depth and values of 'time and place' put some perspective of why it's so much easier for a team of textbook writers to develop a viewpoint and write from there. In the past the bias has been for the great accomplishments, today the emphasis has been on the sins of Europeans/West. Neither should be force fed to our children. If that was all that is necessary, why have teachers? We need some balance to the books. Most social studies books are not written by history majors, but by education majors, my personal bias is that explains a lot.
You brought up Christopher Columbus and texts. My current text is copyright 2003. I've been teaching since 1998. My own children have been in school since 1985. In every text I've seen, the wrongs done to the indigenous people by the Conquistadors and the English have been addressed. In fact, to a large degree, the improvements in science, technology and philosophy have been minimized. There is more space given to women, blacks, and Hispanics regarding the Revolutionary War, than to Washington or battles.
More space is given in both World History text and the sections on Exploration in American history texts to the indigenous people and what was lost, than on the benefits given to posterity.
While the West has given us many examples of wrongs, they also gave us the philosophers that would lead to a Jefferson, an imperfect person whose words made him immortal. In fact, his own words made him mock himself. Individuals may be flawed, but the ideas and their legacy can change a world down the line. I guess that is what I find intriguing and beautiful about our system.
You refer to the internet for truth, so did I in addressing the first post in this thread. Primary sources are the best way to actually get to 'truth.' Sometimes it's by recognizing how we as humans color our world, now and then. They also let us have a window into the souls of those that in their diaries or letters let us peak into their consciousness. It's not only fascinating, but humanizing. We are all products of our times, you and I, Columbus and King. Let's not forget Thoreau or Emerson, mentored and mentor. Yet the former came up with Civil Disobedience, where would any of us be without that? Did he borrow from others? No doubt. That's what it's all about, we're all we have on this bouncing ball so we need each other, though sometimes it seems we just can't get it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'll do the best I can with limited time right now, I'm in the midst of talking back and forth with my relatives and cleaning my house. Beginning at the end, history is never written by the textbooks, when lucky they report what happened with minimum bias. Doesn't matter what the bias, it's there. To my way of thinking, it's important in the secondary years that students are able to discern some of it, easiest way is through primary sources.
If not for the implied biased, I'm taking the 'we' as 'you', meaning me -see bolded, I'd respond that they are not mutually exclusive.
First the assumption that indoctrinating kids is wrong, I'm using the wrong word, you're the writer, is it 'inculcate'? I think so. In order to raise a citizenry that can live up to the ideals, they must know what those ideals are. That does not imply unwavering stories of the unblemished past or people. Am I willing to make an assumption that our children should keep our system of government, yes. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but better than the alternatives at least thus far.
Certainly just like the present, there were those who did anything, stepped on anyone to get what they wanted. The wrongs must be addressed through education so they are not repeated, though the overwhelming story not only of the US, but of Western Civilization has been for the benefit of the world. Again, that does not imply that great wrongs were not done along the way over the past 1500 years.
I know you are old enough to have a daughter serving in the military, though I'm betting you are a few years younger than myself, can't be by much. Do you remember back in the late 70's, early 80's some black activists decided that it would be good to return to Africa, I think somewhat as a reaction to the story of Haley's "Roots"? I think their 'move' lasted a couple of months, if that. One of them wrote a story about it in I think the Chicago Tribune.
Bottom line, for the Triangular trade, establishment of slavery was the worst sin of our forefathers, yes 'our'. While my family did not land here til the late 19th C., and then to escape starvation, it was Europeans who participated in it, along with Africans who kidnapped and sold those from the interior, most for profit, some for tribalism.
If that was where the European/Western wrongs to Africa stopped, it would be bad enough. Unfortunately it would grow much worse throughout the 20th C. I'll stop with the lesson, as I've no doubt you know more than I on this subject. I just wanted you to know that I'm not ignorant to what has happened, besides I wanted you to understand where I'm coming from in my next point.
There was no justification to be made for slavery, however the descendants of those slaves, while discriminated against and many still suffer from past injustices; are now better off than if that had not happened to their forebears. One certainly could argue that Africa may have been better off if those people had remained there, but it's pretty hard to believe the average Black American would be.
With that complicated issue being given a minimum of attention, the point of complexity, depth and values of 'time and place' put some perspective of why it's so much easier for a team of textbook writers to develop a viewpoint and write from there. In the past the bias has been for the great accomplishments, today the emphasis has been on the sins of Europeans/West. Neither should be force fed to our children. If that was all that is necessary, why have teachers? We need some balance to the books. Most social studies books are not written by history majors, but by education majors, my personal bias is that explains a lot.
You brought up Christopher Columbus and texts. My current text is copyright 2003. I've been teaching since 1998. My own children have been in school since 1985. In every text I've seen, the wrongs done to the indigenous people by the Conquistadors and the English have been addressed. In fact, to a large degree, the improvements in science, technology and philosophy have been minimized. There is more space given to women, blacks, and Hispanics regarding the Revolutionary War, than to Washington or battles.
More space is given in both World History text and the sections on Exploration in American history texts to the indigenous people and what was lost, than on the benefits given to posterity.
While the West has given us many examples of wrongs, they also gave us the philosophers that would lead to a Jefferson, an imperfect person whose words made him immortal. In fact, his own words made him mock himself. Individuals may be flawed, but the ideas and their legacy can change a world down the line. I guess that is what I find intriguing and beautiful about our system.
You refer to the internet for truth, so did I in addressing the first post in this thread. Primary sources are the best way to actually get to 'truth.' Sometimes it's by recognizing how we as humans color our world, now and then. They also let us have a window into the souls of those that in their diaries or letters let us peak into their consciousness. It's not only fascinating, but humanizing. We are all products of our times, you and I, Columbus and King. Let's not forget Thoreau or Emerson, mentored and mentor. Yet the former came up with Civil Disobedience, where would any of us be without that? Did he borrow from others? No doubt. That's what it's all about, we're all we have on this bouncing ball so we need each other, though sometimes it seems we just can't get it.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
I want to address this first .. I'm sure you are aware of the middle passages. Along the route of the middle passages lay up to 200 million innocent African people. Men, women, and children lost or thrown overboard as they died from a variety of ungodly acts in barbaric slave ships. One of the most ungodly acts in human history, not just American history.
Point being, there is no justification, coloration, or excuse for such horror. Although I take no offense from your thoughts, the notion that African-Americans are "better off" because we were brutally enslaved is offensive and is itself revisionist. Africa and Africans had a right to their own determination.
It does appear that you need to be better informed about African-American history .. which is in fact, American history. If you know the history of Marcus Garvey and Liberia, it would help you answer the misconceptions you have.
All "back to Africa" movements face the same challenges. Africans were stolen from their country, their language, their roots, their history. Most have no idea where in Africa they were even from. They no longer spoke the language or knew the culture The movements didn't fail because of a lack of desire, they failed because there was no longer any place to call home.
Now, we are vested in America and have every bit a stake in it as anyone else .. in fact, more than many. We are part of what made this country great and our journey here is one of the most fascinating in human history.
I agree that citizens should know the ideals the country was based on, but those citizens should also know where those ideals have lead to disasterous consequences, and where those ideals have conflicted with what we've done. I ask again, should textbooks tell the truth of how we overthrew the Iranian government for oil and power? Should we be educating children to be stupid and uniformed?
If you aren't teaching truth, then you're teaching perceptions. Whose perceptions should be taught?
Yes, the west has done much good, but "good" is not what should be taught. History should be taught, and society should adapt itself to the lessons of history, not the lessons of perception. Is that not what the framers had in mind in speaking of an informed public? Is that not what Jefferson and Madison had in mind when crafting the Declaration of Independence?
Even more importantly in my opinion, neither life nor society are static, they are indeed dynamic, ever-evolving. Is it more important that America remain in the ideals of a 200 year past, or is it better than America evolve into what's best for future Americans?
American children aren't failing because there isn't enough balance in textbooks .. they are failing because our society has failed them.
I've always enjoyed the great writers you speak of and I take inspiration from them .. but I also take great inspiration from a variety of writers who have stories to tell even more facinating than those you mentioned.
How do you teach world history without mention of the Moors? Fascinating history.
How do you teach world history without mention of Kemetic society which built the Pyramids and produced great dynastys and Kings like Tutankhamun. Science and information has conclusively determined that Tut was black as I am .. as was Nefertitti. Fascinating history.
I believe that children should be nurtured, not molded.. and there is never anything wrong with truth.
Last edited:
Annie
Not So Junior Member
First off you must understand secondary teachers are constrained by curriculum standards, I acknowledge that even in a 'black history' course, much will be omitted.
Second, I was in no way making excuses or justification for what happened during the Middle Passage, part and parcel of the Triangle of Trade. There is no way that anyone today could do so.
As for what I was trying to discuss, the relative betterment of circumstances for the descendants of slavery, well you answered that yourself, they have as much or more of a stake in the US today. I was never arguing that slavery was a bonus for those descendants of those that survived the voyages. In fact, I acknowledged that Africa may well have done better if it hadn't happened. I am saying that YOU or any black descendant, (if you are and I don't know that), has likely a better life here than there. Again, that does not mean that slavery was good, quite the opposite.
Getting back to the education discussion, what you are asking for certainly is available for study in post secondary, there is not the time to do so before that. Even honors classes can only address the basics, which is what I was doing in the previous post.
Let me ask you this. Do you think that the thrust of required social studies courses on the secondary level, (6-12), should deal with basic American history or rather the victims of Western Civilization? Within basic the wrongs should be addressed, but not the emphasis. Can one really understand the wrongs, without the former?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I was with you until I got to the boldened sentence. I am a descendant of slaves, but the relative freedom I enjoy pales in comparison to the vast majority of Africans who's lives were not made better. Would you have the same opinion of the American Indian? Would you have the same opinion of jews, who after all, without the holocaust there would be no Israel?
I believe you to be a good person and I appreciate your honesty, but the sentence before the boldened sentence conflicts with it. If indeed Africa would have been better, different without the plague of colonialism and slavery, then there is no evidence of what my life or the lives of others may have been.
Every single step gained here was fought and died for by a multitude of those who came before me. NOTHING was granted simple because we're American, including the right to vote .. the most basic of American ideals.
Consider this .. I've been alive longer than Africans have been relatively free in America and we've been here 400 years.
I know you didn't intend it this way, but that is the language of colonialism. Your life was made better by my evil. My God is real, yours was not. I respect your opinion my sister, but it's not one I share.
Good question .. but even basic American history is more than Thomas Jefferson, Patton, and FDR. Dr. King is basic American history, and if Dr. King is so must be Malcolm X. Secondary students are not little children and by the time they get to high school, they've become young adults, and information and how they interpret it becomes critical thinking .. and isn't that the goal .. to make them critical thinkers?
Women, blacks, and hispanics are included in some modern textbooks because previous ones excluded them. Secondary students in America today are exposed to other people and cultures than their parents may have been and they need to know everyone's role in the society they live in. That makes them smarter, makes them better. It prepares them for the evolving society they are going to live in.
To answer your question, I think both .. they should be taught basic American history AND how it has victimized a great many people .. especially by the time they get to high school. That doesn't make them enemies of America, it makes them smarter. Teaching the truth of the American Indian teaches the existence of inhumanity even amongst stellar ideas. It teaches them that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing.
In my opinion, teaching ideals is the teaching of words, but history is not words, it is the record of deeds. Shouldn't a history class be taeching the record of deeds, not just the words of ideals? What good are words when they don't match the deeds. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but many secondary students are often really smart people. They're smart enough to properly interpret Iraq. What words do we teach them about that?
When you teach of WWII, do you teach that we dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian population to test it .. then hurried up and dropped another for anaylsis?
Atomic bombs most certainly wasn't needed to end the war .. Japan is an island.
All I mentioned IS American history. Who determines what edited versions of history and truth should be taught? .. The answer is society determines. As society evolves, so does what is believed should be taught to students.
It's a great challenge for teachers .. which is why we need teachers who are thinkers .. and why we should invest more in education and teachers, less in fake and made-up wars.
Last edited:
Every single step gained here was fought and died for by a multitude of those who came before me. NOTHING was granted simple because we're American, including the right to vote .. the most basic of American ideals.
Consider this .. I've been alive longer than Africans have been relatively free in America and we've been here 400 years.
---------
Relatively ??? yes... maybe you'd like the freedom that most African countrys enjoy today better....see if those in the Sudan and elsewhere on the continent have it so much better than American blacks of 100 years ago.....
....
Consider this .. I've been alive longer than Africans have been relatively free in America and we've been here 400 years.
---------
Relatively ??? yes... maybe you'd like the freedom that most African countrys enjoy today better....see if those in the Sudan and elsewhere on the continent have it so much better than American blacks of 100 years ago.....
....
Annie
Not So Junior Member
So you are arguing that Africa would have been better off, if the people sold into slavery had not been. I can't argue that, doubt anyone could.
Certainly not, in the sense that they could have kept their way of life, not been corralled onto substandard land and be manning the roulette wheel. Of course many have successfully integrated into the larger American culture, but have had to give up their own to a great extent.
Agree with you on cause and effect, yes one could argue that the holocaust provided for a homeland, well for at least 60 years. Switch question, would Europe or Germany in particular been better off without the holocaust and having the Jews stay where they were, doing what they were doing? Einstein and bomb come to mind...
I purposely stopped at the end of slavery in US, not going into colonialism in Africa, again something studied on the university level, certainly not middle school. As for mixing that up with standard of living in US vs. standard of living in Africa today, while the later is related to colonialism; the former is not, it's related to the prejudiced found here in the US.
I agree that the struggle for 'equality' has been harder on minorities than other groups. I also believe that Blacks deserved special consideration because they were forced here. Same with Native Americans in the sense they really had no where to go and were invaded, though the Europeans thought to a large extent, they were 'saving' them.
Jim Crow and Chinese Exclusion Acts may sound similar, but while the Chinese Exclusion Act was wrong and many stood up to it then, the Chinese came voluntarily, many to get rich from the gold rush. When the Irish came in waves, they too faced the Know Nothings, difference was they didn't have different eyes, different skin. None of it was pleasant, but some was shorter lived.
Of course, the issue is to what degree, factoring in time available. In most secondary schools, there are 2 units, (years) of social studies-one being US, including the Constitution Test, (1/2 semester). That leaves one semester in US history to cover from the Washington administration to present.
The second year is usually World History, the emphasis being on modern world. Much of it is economics and geo-political.
Students may opt for a third year, some do and will of course have the opportunity to study more in depth as these are usually 'issue' orientated, such as 'Black History' or 'Women's studies'. However, these courses are competing against Psychology, Intro to Sociology, etc. I don't know if AP courses are available for the specialty courses, but rather doubt it, for the simple reason they are 200 or 300 level college courses on those subjects, while the intro course are 100, more likely to be AP.
I don't think I explained myself well here. I think the best example I can give that I personally find irritating: During the Age of Exploration women didn't have an opportunity to contribute. It was the times, they weren't educated, while all but rich women had very hard lives-they were considered too fair to be working on ships, much less traipsing off to unknown lands. Yet the text throws in a couple names and says to the effect, "Women participated in all time periods, just not given credit." That's false history. Were they 'there'? Certainly, so were the brown rats and fleas. The text tries so hard to be 'relatively equal' and show the 'usefullness' of women, it misses or ignores the truth, that women were related to the position of children and slaves; neither slaves nor women were or our children, (Look to the Middle East to find current examples of both, being treated in the same 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th C ways.)
I agree with all the above, it is necessary to teach the cause and effects, which is what is going on with the above. Also how taking ideals and justifying wrong behavior, is never right, (see Jefferson in the earlier post). The difficult part is having the student realize that it's easier to change thinking than actions, (we all want to 'do' the right things, but we often choose not to, for a myriad of reasons. Most of them selfish). But then again, I teach in a parochial school, it's easier to segue in this fashion. In public schools it should be addressed within the context of ethics, again keeping in mind the limited time given to the subject and the large amount of ground to be covered.
Not quite in that way.
Do I have the students find information on the Manhattan Project? Yes. Do I read them excerpts from CP Snow's, The New Men, reflections of one who worked on the bomb and his regrets? Yes. Do I have them look up and at diary/journals/letters from people that served in the Pacific? Yes. Do I have them look at pictures and letters, etc. from Japanese? Yes. I, as you, have my point of view. I try to the best of my ability not to let that lead what or how I teach. I find teaching a bit like journalism. To think any educated adult, btw, either formally educated or self, hasn't preconceptions would be wrong. However, it's the teacher or journalist job to make an attempt to give information that tells the truth to the best of their ability. The teacher has a slightly different task though, at least in my opinion. It's important to let the students discover as much on their own as possible, so that they are able to find out even more if and when they desire to. When students find something especially poignant or illuminating, I make a point of sharing that as a class.
For the most part, educators. Back when our parents were in school, Columbus got kudos and Blacks/Women/many others got the shaft, which did not hold up to the lightest scrutiny, once applied. For awhile it probably moved more towards a balance, now the texts have gone the other way-seriously rewriting history, which does not hold up to the lightest scrutiny.
I think too little time is given to the study of history, but then again, I would. I would like to see more integration of language arts, ie. literature such as Malcolm X with social studies. I suppose LA teachers would bemoan the loss of time of covering Dickens or poetry, but yeah, I'd like to see it.
LOL! Good move from philosophical to political.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Some women LIKE the shaft, kathianne!
Annie
Not So Junior Member
A bit off topic, but related:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121339775502373623.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
I've always thought content area teachers are the best way to go, something most schools do not provide until 5th or 6th grades.
The fact that they do without education courses is a big plus, that's where so much faulty thinking comes in.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
So you are arguing that Africa would have been better off, if the people sold into slavery had not been. I can't argue that, doubt anyone could. Certainly not, in the sense that they could have kept their way of life, not been corralled onto substandard land and be manning the roulette wheel. Of course many have successfully integrated into the larger American culture, but have had to give up their own to a great extent. Agree with you on cause and effect, yes one could argue that the holocaust provided for a homeland, well for at least 60 years. Switch question, would Europe or Germany in particular been better off without the holocaust and having the Jews stay where they were, doing what they were doing? Einstein and bomb come to mind...I purposely stopped at the end of slavery in US, not going into colonialism in Africa, again something studied on the university level, certainly not middle school. As for mixing that up with standard of living in US vs. standard of living in Africa today, while the later is related to colonialism; the former is not, it's related to the prejudiced found here in the US.
I agree that the struggle for 'equality' has been harder on minorities than other groups. I also believe that Blacks deserved special consideration because they were forced here. Same with Native Americans in the sense they really had no where to go and were invaded, though the Europeans thought to a large extent, they were 'saving' them.
Jim Crow and Chinese Exclusion Acts may sound similar, but while the Chinese Exclusion Act was wrong and many stood up to it then, the Chinese came voluntarily, many to get rich from the gold rush. When the Irish came in waves, they too faced the Know Nothings, difference was they didn't have different eyes, different skin. None of it was pleasant, but some was shorter lived.
Of course, the issue is to what degree, factoring in time available. In most secondary schools, there are 2 units, (years) of social studies-one being US, including the Constitution Test, (1/2 semester). That leaves one semester in US history to cover from the Washington administration to present.
The second year is usually World History, the emphasis being on modern world. Much of it is economics and geo-political.
Students may opt for a third year, some do and will of course have the opportunity to study more in depth as these are usually 'issue' orientated, such as 'Black History' or 'Women's studies'. However, these courses are competing against Psychology, Intro to Sociology, etc. I don't know if AP courses are available for the specialty courses, but rather doubt it, for the simple reason they are 200 or 300 level college courses on those subjects, while the intro course are 100, more likely to be AP. I don't think I explained myself well here. I think the best example I can give that I personally find irritating: During the Age of Exploration women didn't have an opportunity to contribute. It was the times, they weren't educated, while all but rich women had very hard lives-they were considered too fair to be working on ships, much less traipsing off to unknown lands. Yet the text throws in a couple names and says to the effect, "Women participated in all time periods, just not given credit." That's false history. Were they 'there'? Certainly, so were the brown rats and fleas. The text tries so hard to be 'relatively equal' and show the 'usefullness' of women, it misses or ignores the truth, that women were related to the position of children and slaves; neither slaves nor women were or our children, (Look to the Middle East to find current examples of both, being treated in the same 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th C ways.) I agree with all the above, it is necessary to teach the cause and effects, which is what is going on with the above. Also how taking ideals and justifying wrong behavior, is never right, (see Jefferson in the earlier post). The difficult part is having the student realize that it's easier to change thinking than actions, (we all want to 'do' the right things, but we often choose not to, for a myriad of reasons. Most of them selfish). But then again, I teach in a parochial school, it's easier to segue in this fashion. In public schools it should be addressed within the context of ethics, again keeping in mind the limited time given to the subject and the large amount of ground to be covered.
Not quite in that way.
I, as you, have my point of view. I try to the best of my ability not to let that lead what or how I teach. I find teaching a bit like journalism. To think any educated adult, btw, either formally educated or self, hasn't preconceptions would be wrong. However, it's the teacher or journalist job to make an attempt to give information that tells the truth to the best of their ability. The teacher has a slightly different task though, at least in my opinion. It's important to let the students discover as much on their own as possible, so that they are able to find out even more if and when they desire to. When students find something especially poignant or illuminating, I make a point of sharing that as a class. For the most part, educators. Back when our parents were in school, Columbus got kudos and Blacks/Women/many others got the shaft, which did not hold up to the lightest scrutiny, once applied. For awhile it probably moved more towards a balance, now the texts have gone the other way-seriously rewriting history, which does not hold up to the lightest scrutiny.
I think too little time is given to the study of history, but then again, I would. I would like to see more integration of language arts, ie. literature such as Malcolm X with social studies. I suppose LA teachers would bemoan the loss of time of covering Dickens or poetry, but yeah, I'd like to see it. LOL! Good move from philosophical to political.
Sounds to me like you're an excellent teacher who I would be pleased to have teaching my children. I can't overstate how vitally important I believe the role of teachers is in our society.
Your comparison of teachers to journalists was right on point .. although teachers play a more critcal role because they touch children, our most precious asset.
Great post sister.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Thank you.
I had a feeling we were closer than it looked on this topic. I can use help sometimes in how I explain somethings. 
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Not off-topic at all.
I'm all for pursuing more innovative ways to reach and teach American children. Often times, before you can teach them, you have to reach them .. and content area teachers may be best equipped to do that. I'll have to pay closer attention and study to programs such as these. They may be a better solution than vouchers.
I still support teachers unions and the NEA, but even they must be open to innovation and creative ways to properly educate American children to be more globally competitive in an evolving world.
Thanks for the info.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
LOL! We're going to beg to differ again. I think in most circumstances by teaching them, we reach them. It's up to the teacher to find meaningful lessons that help the students begin to understand what they need to know, than you 'got them.'
Once students trust that the teacher is there to do their job, then a more personal relationship may form. Kids are really a tough group of customers!blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Thank you.
Thank you .. we both can use the help.
You made a really interesting conversation and a good argument out of "Gosh, why would anyone think lefties are traitors"
It takes real talent to make good conversation out of that.
By the way, I got up looking forward to this conversation.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
LOL! We're going to beg to differ again. I think in most circumstances by teaching them, we reach them. It's up to the teacher to find meaningful lessons that help the students begin to understand what they need to know, than you 'got them.'
In Detroit, my partner and I created a program that stood as a buffer between hign school students and the police. Troubled students were assignerd to our program when they were on the verge of being kicked out of school or worse, going to jail. If they failed our program they weren't allowed back in school or the police would step in.
Sometimes it was hard being tough on these kids because you could see the pain in their eyes. Most came from broken homes and desperate environments.
An example was a 16 year-old girl who dressed, acted, and talked like a boy. She was as hard and macho as any boy in the program .. which led to her being constantly in trouble. But one day after our sessions, she asked me if I could take her home and I did. "Home" is far too generous for the environment she lived in. I realized that she was pretending to be a boy to keep others from taking advantage of her. She was hiding inside a character she felt she needed to play to survive.
Her teachers couldn't teach her because they couldn't reach her. She needed psychological help far beyond the scope of classroom teaching. We were able to get her that help and even able to convince her mother that having her daughter live with her aunt in a better neighborhood would be in the best interest of the child. The transformation was difficult, but at the same time incredible.
I believe she asked me to take her home so that I could better understand and I would do something about it. I will never forget her face, never forget her pain. I guess that even beneath my own tough exterior there is a wimpy living there .. because I cannot remember her without tears.
She and many others like her are why I strongly believe that sometimes teachers have to reach those children who come to class burdened by circumstance. I understand how difficult this is when you have a class of 40 students, but somehow we must find a way.
- Status