California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[Ideologue]

Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.

Bowie is married.  To a model.  And he has kids.

Duh.

Not gay by a long shot, but a famed bisexual.  I guess it's technically an incorrect answer.  I am prepared to change my response to "Greeks, Romans, and Jimmy McShane.

[Barrister]

You know what, I couldn't tell you who was president in the 1820s.  I can make some educated guesses (Jefferson? Jackson?), but I don't know for sure.

I think there's more to being informed than giving out rote information of names and dates.

And I googled it, and was wrong.  Jefferson was a decade before, Jackson only the last two years.  The 1820s saw the memorable presidencies of Munro and John Quincy Adams.

It differs from place to place, but I think the general rule is for Americans to have 3-4 years of American history from middle school on. If after that much focus on American history you were putting the presidencies of Jefferson and Jackson in the same decade, there would be a major problem.

A few of the pivotal moments of American political history were the Missouri Compromise, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Tariff of Abominations. Arguably you could be knowledgable about the Missouri Compromise without knowing who was president, but the Monroe Doctrine and the tariff you could not. The basic background of the Monroe Doctrine was the post napoleonic fragmentation of the spanish empire, so any student should know both the president and the approximate dates. That Quincy Adams (and the tariff) followed Monroe and that Jackson followed Quincy Adams is really fundamental to the period.

I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans.  And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.

[Valmy]

No, but I'd rather replace it with sports history.  Kids these days don't know any sports history

I talked to a kid the other day and he had NEVER heard of Pepper Martin



I mean what has America come to?

[alfred russel]

I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans.  And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.

I'm guessing you didn't spend multiple years studying US history in school, either. The tariff was a very big deal at the time--and was a major factor in the election of Jackson and the major issue behind the eventual secession crisis of the early 1830s. I would be disappointed if college bound students were unaware of the tariff. It was not only a pivotal economic event but also a critical moment in the increasing sectionalism of American politics.

[Malthus]

Yes, you've already said that much. Though how we are supposed to evaluate failure - or dismal failure - remains a mystery.

It isn't really all that mysterious - when an entire generation grows up convinced that there is no subject on earth more boring than the history of your country, and simultaneously knows next to nothing about it, I think a diagnosis of "dismal failure" can be applied.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/canadaday/

I think you had a better point when you diagnosed the problem as the providing of a corrective narrative without the original one having been presented.

I bow before your superior knowledge of human psychology, but I still have high doubts about the mind-riveting power of political skullduggery amongst the general crowd of early teens - when one excepts young boys - boys, mind you - who come from already highly politicized families. In any case, it would be much better to know *what* history we are talking about, and for whom. History for Carl running around in a museum? For 7 y.o. kids? For teenagers?

Grumbler already made the better point, I think, and it accords with my experience as a museum educator: kids (and people in general) crave stories.

It's the same point. History should be taught as an engaging narrative.

It is of course possible to create engaging narratives concerning the lives of minorities, workers and women. But not if the "plot" is always the same - where they are portrayed in the way noble savages were portrayed by the more florid of Rousseau's followers.

It isn't the inclusion of minorities, women etc. that is the problem - it is the ideological inclusion, the intent of which being self-conciously to support the includers' ideological purposes. That is just deadly in terms of narrative - the villians and heros are all one-dimentional, the plots totally predicatable.

The stories of war have been an easy answer to such a craving, because it contains high level drama, usually had clear-cut good guys and bad guys, or, more politically correct, winners and losers, and a more easily identified beginning, middle, or end.

But when one wants to move away from great men theories of history, or individual actions, it is not that stories become impossible to tell. It is just that such stories either become much more anonymous, and that their subsequent strength lies in numbers ; or they become much more abstract.

Still, it is highly possible to find such stories to tell. People are fascinated by the daily lives of their ancestors - and this has very little to do with great men and what not. They find good stories there. Kids also like to think about the various ways people lived, what they ate, how they made clothes - so it is not like this is hugely boring. It might be to a crowd which craves blood and war, but that is not the only kind of student there is.

Underscoring the importance of political or military history on Languish is playing to the crowd, and emphasizing social history attracts mockery, so let's consider instead economic history. Is it not important? Should it be left out of curriculum? It is not like economic history lends itself well to any sort of highly personalized story with heroes, villains, clear beginings, high-level drama... It has to be constructed that way, tied with all sorts of other concepts which we consider have relevance to our daily lives, whether we want to emphasize the rise of liberalism or denounce its side-effects. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with social history - nothing, that is, short of our own biases.

I'm not claiming that guts or glory is necessary. Nor am I aware that social history is subject to "mockery"(?).  I'm saying that the ideologically motivated "corrective" to the "great person"/patriotic narrative of history, in the form taught in Ontario, has been in the past boring and a failure in terms of education, because:

1. It "corrects" something which kids are not aware of in the first place;

2. It does not make for good story-telling, being totally predictable and stereotyped (White Males are invariably the villians);

3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and

4. It leaves kids entirely ignorant of events that establish the benchmarks for all that good social and economic progress in the first place.

The problem is akin to putting the cart before the horse. First have the kids interested in history, then educate 'em with some basic narrative structure while they are interested; once hooked, you can start to get them interested in processes-over-time, the history of comparative economics, the anthropological influences of changing kinship systems, how the role of women has varied over time, changing attitudes towards gays and minorities, etc. etc. 

[katmai]

No, but I'd rather replace it with sports history.  Kids these days don't know any sports history

I talked to a kid the other day and he had NEVER heard of Pepper Martin



I mean what has America come to?

Was he named after Dr. pepper? 

[Oexmelin]

It isn't really all that mysterious - when an entire generation grows up convinced that there is no subject on earth more boring than the history of your country, and simultaneously knows next to nothing about it, I think a diagnosis of "dismal failure" can be applied.

and

The problem is akin to putting the cart before the horse. First have the kids interested in history, then educate 'em with some basic narrative structure while they are interested; once hooked, you can start to get them interested in processes-over-time, the history of comparative economics, the anthropological influences of changing kinship systems, how the role of women has varied over time, changing attitudes towards gays and minorities, etc. etc.

I have no problem as using *that* as a measure of success or failure. But then we must recognize that we are back to some form of patriotism - using mandatory programmes of national history to foster a sense of community (because, why should we care if Canadian history is more boring than, say, American history?). And then it becomes difficult to reject out of hand the notion that we need - as a moral and political choice - to engage with that idea.

But it is, for obvious reasons, a difficult path - and regardless of the quality of either "black" or "worker" or "women" history that was produced. National histories are always battlegrounds. Historians - who produce many of those textbooks - will have a hard time fostering the idea of "progress" (but strangely enough, will be less ambivalent when it is "social progress"), while conservatives resent the "liberal agenda" but will celebrate economic progress.

It is of course possible to create engaging narratives concerning the lives of minorities, workers and women. But not if the "plot" is always the same - where they are portrayed in the way noble savages were portrayed by the more florid of Rousseau's followers.

In all fairness, it is not the case, because I just haven't seen the kind of idealized moral portrayal, the fortitude, etc. applied to whole groups. The basic story is usually "they were mistreated, they were proud, they fought back". I would certainly agree that part of the plot is always the same - namely, the inclusion of said category in the group and the story of the rejection, struggle, and triumph. But these are timeless plots. I simply think historians as a whole have declined as writers.

That is just deadly in terms of narrative - the villians and heros are all one-dimentional, the plots totally predicatable. (...) 3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and

I disagree strongly. One simply needs to have a look at mainstream cultural products to see that *everyone* gulps down one-dimensional heroes and villains, and that children's books are all based on this very simple canvas. If there are problems, I do not think it is because history is too manichean. I actually think part of the problem is because of the way we want to create nuanced narratives. In the end, it is so nuanced that the original colour is lost, and there is no thread to follow. 

[Ideologue]

1. It "corrects" something which kids are not aware of in the first place;

2. It does not make for good story-telling, being totally predictable and stereotyped (White Males are invariably the villians);

3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and

4. It leaves kids entirely ignorant of events that establish the benchmarks for all that good social and economic progress in the first place.

I dunno, lots of kids liked Captain Planet.

[The Brain]

A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.

[citizen k]

A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.

Would psychology be another science that isn't mature?

[The Brain]

A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.

Would psychology be another science that isn't mature?

I don't know much about psychology.

[Ideologue]

A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.

Perhaps once our scattered photons circumnavigate the collapsing universe and we can see our own past light cone?

[HVC]

1. It "corrects" something which kids are not aware of in the first place;

2. It does not make for good story-telling, being totally predictable and stereotyped (White Males are invariably the villians);

3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and

4. It leaves kids entirely ignorant of events that establish the benchmarks for all that good social and economic progress in the first place.

I dunno, lots of kids liked Captain Planet.

it was because of the russian chick

[The Brain]

A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.

Perhaps once our scattered photons circumnavigate the collapsing universe and we can see our own past light cone?

Get a Master's and we'll talk.

[Ideologue]

A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.

Perhaps once our scattered photons circumnavigate the collapsing universe and we can see our own past light cone?

Get a Master's and we'll talk.