Languish.org

Moving to its own thread as this isn't really about Trump's presidency.

Quote from: viper37 on February 01, 2025, 10:51:09 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2025, 03:27:47 AMDo you have proof of these assertions? The people you talk about in your 2nd paragraph can't have been adversely affected by the 1619 project as it only launched in 2019.

For some people, any critical view of their country is seen as Raz describes it.

Racism is still well alive in this country and never far from the political mainstream.

The 1619 Project had flaws in how it told history, centering everything on slavery was certainly wrong, but we can't ignore that it played a large role in shaping the United States of today.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/inclusive-case-1776-not-1619/604435/
https://byebyepaywall.com/en/

I don't know if you and Raz know this but in the 1619 Project book (I've just started reading it), Nikole Hannah-Jones (the author) has a preface where she explains what she was attempting to do.

As a bit of early background prior to being an adult and creating the 1619 project:

QuoteMy favorite subjects in school were English and social studies, and I peppered my teachers with questions. History revealed the building blocks of the world I now inhabited, explaining how communities, institutions, relationships came to be. Learning history made the world make sense. It provided the key to decode all that I saw around me.

Black people, however, were largely absent from the histories I read. The vision of the past I absorbed from school textbooks, television, and the local history museum depicted a world, perhaps a wishful one, where Black people did not really exist. This history rendered Black Americans, Black people on all the earth, inconsequential at best, invisible at worst. We appeared only where unavoidable: slavery was mentioned briefly in the chapter on this nation's most deadly war, and then Black people disappeared again for a full century, until magically reappearing as Martin Luther King, Jr., gave a speech about a dream. This quantum leap served to wrap the Black experience up in a few paragraphs and a tidy bow, never really explaining why, one hundred years after the abolition of slavery, King had to lead the March on Washington in the first place.

We were not actors but acted upon. We were not contributors, just recipients. White people enslaved us, and white people freed us. Black people could choose either to take advantage of that freedom or to squander it, as our depictions in the media seemed to suggest so many of us were doing.

Then she establishes some background to our ignorance:

QuoteA 2018 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) called Teaching Hard History found that in 2017 just 8 percent of U.S. high school seniors named slavery as the central cause of the Civil War, and less than one-third knew that it had taken a constitutional amendment to abolish it. The majority of high school students can't tell you that the famous abolitionist Frederick Douglass had once been enslaved; nor can they define the Middle Passage, which led to the forced migration of nearly 13 million people across the Atlantic and transformed—or, arguably, enabled—the existence of the United States.

Considering the confusing and obfuscatory way school curricula tend to address the institution of slavery, this is unsurprising. Myriad examples exist. As recently as six years ago, a McGraw-Hill world geography textbook referred to African people brought to the Americas in the bowels of slave ships not as the victims of a forced migration who were violently coerced into labor but as "workers," a word that implies consensual and paid labor.

Within the last decade, Alabama social studies courses for second graders listed Harriet Tubman, the woman who became famous for escaping slavery and then helping others do the same, as an "exemplary" American without ever mentioning the words "slave" or "slavery." In Texas, which, because of its large population, plays an outsized role in shaping the content of national textbooks, the Republican-led state board of education approved curriculum standards that equated the Confederate general Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who fought against the United States government, with Douglass as examples of "the importance of effective leadership in a constitutional republic."

School curricula generally treat slavery as an aberration in a free society, and textbooks largely ignore the way that many prominent men, women, industries, and institutions profited from and protected slavery. Individual enslaved people, as full humans, with feelings, thoughts, and agency, remain largely invisible, but for the occasional brief mention of Douglass or Tubman or George Washington Carver.

One of the reasons American children so poorly understand the history and legacy of slavery is because the adults charged with teaching them don't know it very well, either. A 2019 Washington Post–SSRS poll found that only about half of American adults realize that all thirteen colonies engaged in slavery. Even educators struggle with basic facts of history, the SPLC report found: only about half of U.S. teachers understand that enslavers dominated the presidency in the decades after the founding and would dominate the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate until the Civil War.

She then quotes a scholar as to why this is a problem:

Quote"We are committing educational malpractice," says Hasan Kwame Jeffries, a historian at Ohio State University. Jeffries served as chair of the advisory board that produced the Southern Poverty Law Center's Teaching Hard History report. "Our preference for nostalgia and for a history that never happened is not without consequence," Jeffries writes. "Although we teach [students] that slavery happened ... in some cases, we minimize slavery's significance so much that we render its impact—on people and on the nation—inconsequential." This, Jeffries continues, "is profoundly troubling" because it leaves Americans ill-equipped to understand racial inequality today, and that, in turn, leads to intolerance, opposition to efforts to address racial injustice, and the enacting of laws and policies detrimental to Black communities and America writ large. "Our narrow understanding of the institution ... prevents us from seeing this long legacy and leads policymakers to try to fix people instead of addressing the historically rooted causes of their problems," he notes.

And then precisely what she hoped to do with the project:

QuoteI made a simple pitch to my editors: The New York Times Magazine should create a special issue that would mark the four-hundredth anniversary by exploring the unparalleled impact of African slavery on the development of our country and its continuing impact on our society. The issue would bring slavery and the contributions of Black Americans from the margins of the American story to the center, where they belong, by arguing that slavery and its legacy have profoundly shaped modern American life, even as that influence had been shrouded or discounted. The issue would pose and answer these questions: What would it mean to reframe our understanding of U.S. history by considering 1619 as our country's origin point, the birth of our defining contradictions, the seed of so much of what has made us unique? How might that reframing change how we understand the unique problems of the nation today—its stark economic inequality, its violence, its world-leading incarceration rates, its shocking segregation, its political divisions, its stingy social safety net? How might it help us understand the country's best qualities, developed over a centuries-long struggle for freedom, equality, and pluralism, a struggle whose DNA could also be traced to 1619? How would looking at contemporary American life through this lens help us better appreciate the contributions of Black Americans—not only to our culture but also to our democracy itself?

Far from becoming nihilists who hate America, she recalls this reception from students:

QuoteBlack students, especially, told me that for the first time in their lives, they'd experienced a feeling usually reserved for white Americans: a sense of ownership of, belonging in, and influence over the American story. Arterah Griggs, who attended a public high school in Chicago, the first district in the country to make the project part of its curriculum, told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times what the project helped her realize: "We were the founding fathers. We put so much into the U.S. and we made the foundation." Another student, Brenton Sykes, said, "Now that I'm aware of the full history of America without it being whitewashed or anything, it kind of makes me see things in a different light. I feel like I have to carry myself better because I have what my ancestors went through."

She also deals with the backlash as accepted ideas in academia met the world. I'll just post a little bit:

QuoteThe linking of slavery and the American Revolution directly challenged the cornerstone of national identity embedded in our public history, the narratives taught to us in elementary schools, museums and memorials, Hollywood movies, and in many scholarly works as well.

The linking of slavery and the American Revolution directly challenged the cornerstone of national identity embedded in our public history, the narratives taught to us in elementary schools, museums and memorials, Hollywood movies, and in many scholarly works as well.

...

But some who opposed the 1619 Project treated a few scholars' disagreements with certain claims and arguments as justification to dismiss the entire work as factually inaccurate, even as other equally prominent scholars defended and confirmed our facts and interpretations.

In truth, most of the fights over the 1619 Project were never really about the facts. The Princeton historian Allen C. Guelzo, a particularly acerbic critic, published several articles that denounced the 1619 Project for treating "slavery not as a blemish that the Founders grudgingly tolerated ... not as a regrettable chapter in the distant past, but as a living, breathing pattern upon which all American social life is based." Guelzo then made clear that the source of his antipathy was not just what the project was saying but who was saying it: "It is the bitterest of ironies that the 1619 Project dispenses this malediction from the chair of ultimate cultural privilege in America, because in no human society has an enslaved people suddenly found itself vaulted into positions of such privilege, and with the consent—even the approbation—of those who were once the enslavers."

...

The legacy of 1619 surrounds us, whether we acknowledge it or not. This is why, in assembling this book, we have described the history it offers as an origin story. Like all origin stories, this one seeks to explain our society to itself, to give some order to the series of dates, actions, and individuals that created a nation and a people. In doing so, we argue that much about American identity, so many of our nation's most vexing problems, our basest inclinations, and its celebrated and unique cultural contributions spring not from the ideals of 1776 but from the realities of 1619, from the contradictions and the ideological struggles of a nation founded on both slavery and freedom. The story of Black America cannot be disentangled from the story of America, and our attempts to do so have forced us to tell ourselves a tale full of absences, evasions, and lies, one that fails to satisfactorily explain the society we live in and leaves us unable to become the society we want to be.

I'll let you know what I think about it as I read on - but from the preface, it all sounds a lot more complex and nuanced than the caricature I've seen lambasted here.

Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2025, 01:01:46 PMI'll let you know what I think about it as I read on - but from the preface, it all sounds a lot more complex and nuanced than the caricature I've seen lambasted here.

I've read part of the NY Times piece when it was published.

I don't have a problem with a literary essay who takes liberties with history.  Any great author who has written an historical novel has taken liberties with history.  I am fond of many historical movies and they all take liberties, some more than others, with history.

But what would you say if Ridley Scott's Gladiator was used as the basis for a class on the mid Roman Empire, the gladiatorial life, or simply a biographical account of the Emperor Commodus?

There arise the problem with the 1619 project, imho, when it is used as the basis of a school project despite its many historical mistakes.

Read The Atlantic piece, with the proxy I provided, it alludes to this problem very perfectly, without going all in on the conservative bashing like Raz.  It explains why some historians refused to sign on the project.  I don't agree with everything in it, some things are very silly, but there's a part that is interesting.

Slavery as THE cause of the 1776 rebellion, we've discussed it before.  It was one of the reason, but not the sole factor.

thanks G :)

Quote from: viper37 on February 01, 2025, 05:42:15 PMI've read part of the NY Times piece when it was published.

I don't have a problem with a literary essay who takes liberties with history.  Any great author who has written an historical novel has taken liberties with history.  I am fond of many historical movies and they all take liberties, some more than others, with history.

But what would you say if Ridley Scott's Gladiator was used as the basis for a class on the mid Roman Empire, the gladiatorial life, or simply a biographical account of the Emperor Commodus?

I'm not sure that is warranted. I think she was aiming for something more noble that the director when questionned about historical accuracy in Napoleon said: "Were you there? Oh you weren't there." :P

So far I'm not sure if the literary pieces in the book are my favourite but I can understand how different styles of content can be helpful for capturing attention/imagination.

Quote from: viper37 on February 01, 2025, 05:42:15 PMThere arise the problem with the 1619 project, imho, when it is used as the basis of a school project despite its many historical mistakes.

Read The Atlantic piece, with the proxy I provided, it alludes to this problem very perfectly, without going all in on the conservative bashing like Raz.  It explains why some historians refused to sign on the project.  I don't agree with everything in it, some things are very silly, but there's a part that is interesting.

Slavery as THE cause of the 1776 rebellion, we've discussed it before.  It was one of the reason, but not the sole factor.

But isn't that throwing the baby out the bath water?

Yes it is unfortunate that she has persisted with that particular claim (which she also mentions in her preface, I just didn't copy fully - I'm also interested to see what her 'toned down' version of the claim is in the book) but I don't think that means it serves no purpose at all. There is still value in broadening/complicating how we think about our history and at a glance it feels like the 1619 project helps with that even if we shouldn't uncritically accept all of its claims.

It isn't like schools that don't use things from the 1619 project are instructing students in the unvarnished truth. As far as I know the vaunting up of the pilgrims and the omissions/obsfucations of America's sins are ongoing.

Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2025, 05:19:58 AMBut isn't that throwing the baby out the bath water?

I never said the entire project should be discarded! :)

I applaud the effort, like many others.

Without looking at the stats the author provided, you can simply take a look at popular culture to see how the Secession war is portrayed in American minds.  Black people were conspicuously absent until most recently.  Glory must be the only movie where Black Men fight for their freedom.  Otherwise, it's always White men vs White Men fighting to free the Black Men (while it wasn't the case at all).

I've never heard of the Tulsa riots until very recently.  Never heard of many such things, actually.

I think she had a very good idea, a good concept, but she failed in the execution and she should have corrected herself, at least admitted her errors.

I understand the passion, I understand the aims of the work, but it is no excuse to rewrite the history.  As Malthus would often say, two wrongs do not make a right.

Posting this here as probably makes more sense there than in the Britain thread (:blush:).

I found this graph interesting as it appears to highlight the importance of intersectionality:

(https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/12/breadwinners-fig-3-web-1041.png)

Quote from: viper37 on February 02, 2025, 02:19:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2025, 05:19:58 AMBut isn't that throwing the baby out the bath water?

I never said the entire project should be discarded! :)

I applaud the effort, like many others.

Without looking at the stats the author provided, you can simply take a look at popular culture to see how the Secession war is portrayed in American minds.  Black people were conspicuously absent until most recently.  Glory must be the only movie where Black Men fight for their freedom.  Otherwise, it's always White men vs White Men fighting to free the Black Men (while it wasn't the case at all).

I've never heard of the Tulsa riots until very recently.  Never heard of many such things, actually.

I think she had a very good idea, a good concept, but she failed in the execution and she should have corrected herself, at least admitted her errors.

I understand the passion, I understand the aims of the work, but it is no excuse to rewrite the history.  As Malthus would often say, two wrongs do not make a right.

So I finished her essay and yeah unfortunately she doesn't really own up to her error. Most she did was say 'some' rather than her original statement that made it appear fear that slavery would go away was driving issue for colonist writ large.

Still I did think raises some interesting points with say use of 'forced labor camp' vs 'plantation'. Also interesting was the portrayal of Lincoln. I was definitely never taught that Frederick Douglass had this to say - where he can complicate our mythologizing of Abraham Lincoln and yet still celebrate him and his accomplishments.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/

QuoteDelivered at the Unveiling of The Freedmen's Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.

Friends and Fellow-citizens:

I warmly congratulate you upon the highly interesting object which has caused you to assemble in such numbers and spirit as you have today. This occasion is in some respects remarkable. Wise and thoughtful men of our race, who shall come after us, and study the lesson of our history in the United States; who shall survey the long and dreary spaces over which we have traveled; who shall count the links in the great chain of events by which we have reached our present position, will make a note of this occasion; they will think of it and speak of it with a sense of manly pride and complacency.

I congratulate you, also, upon the very favorable circumstances in which we meet today. They are high, inspiring, and uncommon. They lend grace, glory, and significance to the object for which we have met. Nowhere else in this great country, with its uncounted towns and cities, unlimited wealth, and immeasurable territory extending from sea to sea, could conditions be found more favorable to the success of this occasion than here.

We stand today at the national center to perform something like a national act—an act which is to go into history; and we are here where every pulsation of the national heart can be heard, felt, and reciprocated. A thousand wires, fed with thought and winged with lightning, put us in instantaneous communication with the loyal and true men all over the country.

Few facts could better illustrate the vast and wonderful change which has taken place in our condition as a people than the fact of our assembling here for the purpose we have today. Harmless, beautiful, proper, and praiseworthy as this demonstration is, I cannot forget that no such demonstration would have been tolerated here twenty years ago. The spirit of slavery and barbarism, which still lingers to blight and destroy in some dark and distant parts of our country, would have made our assembling here the signal and excuse for opening upon us all the flood-gates of wrath and violence. That we are here in peace today is a compliment and a credit to American civilization, and a prophecy of still greater national enlightenment and progress in the future. I refer to the past not in malice, for this is no day for malice; but simply to place more distinctly in front the gratifying and glorious change which has come both to our white fellow-citizens and ourselves, and to congratulate all upon the contrast between now and then; the new dispensation of freedom with its thousand blessings to both races, and the old dispensation of slavery with its ten thousand evils to both races—white and black. In view, then, of the past, the present, and the future, with the long and dark history of our bondage behind us, and with liberty, progress, and enlightenment before us, I again congratulate you upon this auspicious day and hour.

Friends and fellow-citizens, the story of our presence here is soon and easily told. We are here in the District of Columbia, here in the city of Washington, the most luminous point of American territory; a city recently transformed and made beautiful in its body and in its spirit; we are here in the place where the ablest and best men of the country are sent to devise the policy, enact the laws, and shape the destiny of the Republic; we are here, with the stately pillars and majestic dome of the Capitol of the nation looking down upon us; we are here, with the broad earth freshly adorned with the foliage and flowers of spring for our church, and all races, colors, and conditions of men for our congregation—in a word, we are here to express, as best we may, by appropriate forms and ceremonies, our grateful sense of the vast, high, and preëminent services rendered to ourselves, to our race, to our country, and to the whole world by Abraham Lincoln.

The sentiment that brings us here to-day is one of the noblest that can stir and thrill the human heart. It has crowned and made glorious the high places of all civilized nations with the grandest and most enduring works of art, designed to illustrate the characters and perpetuate the memories of great public men. It is the sentiment which from year to year adorns with fragrant and beautiful flowers the graves of our loyal, brave, and patriotic soldiers who fell in defence [sic] of the Union and liberty. It is the sentiment of gratitude and appreciation, which often, in the presence of many who hear me, has filled yonder heights of Arlington with the eloquence of eulogy and the sublime enthusiasm of poetry and song; a sentiment which can never die while the Republic lives.

For the first time in the history of our people, and in the history of the whole American people, we join in this high worship, and march conspicuously in the line of this time-honored custom. First things are always interesting, and this is one of our first things. It is the first time that, in this form and manner, we have sought to do honor to an American great man, however deserving and illustrious. I commend the fact to notice; let it be told in every part of the Republic; let men of all parties and opinions hear it; let those who despise us, not less than those who respect us, know that now and here, in the spirit of liberty, loyalty, and gratitude, let it be known everywhere, and by everybody who takes an interest in human progress and in the amelioration of the condition of mankind, that, in the presence and with the approval of the members of the American House of Representatives, reflecting the general sentiment of the country; that in the presence of that august body, the American Senate, representing the highest intelligence and the calmest judgment of the country; in the presence of the Supreme Court and Chief-Justice of the United States, to whose decisions we all patriotically bow; in the presence and under the steady eye of the honored and trusted President of the United States, with the members of his wise and patriotic Cabinet, we, the colored people, newly emancipated and rejoicing in our blood-bought freedom, near the close of the first century in the life of this Republic, have now and here unveiled, set apart, and dedicated a monument of enduring granite and bronze, in every line, feature, and figure of which the men of this generation may read, and those of after-coming generations may read, something of the exalted character and great works of Abraham Lincoln, the first martyr President of the United States.

Fellow-citizens, in what we have said and done today, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. We claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated today. We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States. Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was preëminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a preëminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.

Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion—merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defence [sic] of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.

...

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 06:01:08 AMPosting this here as probably makes more sense there than in the Britain thread (:blush:).

I found this graph interesting as it appears to highlight the importance of intersectionality:

Yeah and to add the compulsory British angle I suspect there'd be similar differences if you looked at it from a class perspective (especially over a longer period).

Working class women were very often workers too - even after marriage and once they'd become mothers. It may have been different types of work - more fragmented, casual, less secure - which I think, to the 70s conversation, is one of the reasons unions failed to organise.

Very interesting speech by Frederick Douglass.

Also, does that chart include single parent households in the bread winner category?

*edit* that's not to say that the prevalence of single parent homes isn't an important matter to consider, just that I think it's a different topic.

Quote from: HVC on February 13, 2025, 08:13:16 AMVery interesting speech by Frederick Douglass.

I definitely would have found repeated years of American history more interesting in school if they could have provided us a more complex picture.

Quote from: HVC on February 13, 2025, 08:13:16 AMAlso, does that chart include single parent households in the bread winner category?

*edit* that's not to say that the prevalence of single parent homes isn't an important matter to consider, just that I think it's a different topic.

So it is from here:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/breadwinning-mothers-are-increasingly-the-u-s-norm/

Bit of text near it says:

QuoteBlack mothers are by far the most likely to be the primary economic support for their families, both because they are more likely to be single mothers and because they are more likely—when part of a married couple—to earn as much as or more than their husbands. The vast majority of black mothers contribute significantly to their families' bottom lines, with only 14.6 percent of black mothers bringing home less than one-quarter of their family's earnings.
...

At least some of the differences in respect to breadwinning rates between different racial and ethnic groups are likely due to the fact that black women and Latinas are more likely than white women to be single mothers.18 Slightly more than half, or 55.8 percent, of white breadwinning mothers are married and earn as much as or more than their husbands.19 However, only 40.4 percent of Latina breadwinning mothers are married, as are only 25.3 percent of black breadwinning mothers. (see Table 1) The majority of black and Latina breadwinning mothers are single parents providing for their families.

Which suggests it is counting single mother households.

This other table suggests that too.

(https://americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/12/breadwinners-tbl-1-web-348.png)

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 08:59:38 AMI definitely would have found repeated years of American history more interesting in school if they could have provided us a more complex picture.

There were then, and are now even more, so many barriers between research at university and textbooks in the classroom. The interface between academic history, popular history, mythology (which informs so many parents who push back hard), and state programs was never the best (the AP programmes were an attempt to remedy that) but attempting to paint a more complex picture is basically a sisyphean task.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 06:10:20 AMAlso interesting was the portrayal of Lincoln. I was definitely never taught that Frederick Douglass had this to say - where he can complicate our mythologizing of Abraham Lincoln and yet still celebrate him and his accomplishments.

All of this about Abraham Lincoln can be explained once you get out of the myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery, from the North's point of view.  The South fought slavery on which depended their economy and future, the North fought to protect the Union, on which depended their economy and future.

Lincoln engaged in a war to protect the Union.  Everything he did, even abolishing slavery in the end was to protect the Union, in his mind.

Lincoln still believed, before his election, that the Black man was inferior to the White man.  He was but a product of his time.

He said so himself at the beginning of the war that if he could end the war by freeing no slaves, freeing some or freeing them all he would do it.

It is no surprise that Douglass would celebrate his accomplishment, while criticizing the man.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 08:59:38 AMI definitely would have found repeated years of American history more interesting in school if they could have provided us a more complex picture.

At what sort of level and how was it taught?

I don't remember having a "British history" class or learning it chronologically at school here. I was in Scotland and remember a whistlestop tour of Picts, Mary, Queen of Scots, Jacobites, Highland Clearances etc but it was very jumping through time - and basically until 14 (when it becomes optional). Obviously there is an angle in that narrative (:lol:).

But for 14-18 it's modular rather than chronological - and the whole point was really about making arguments. That speech I think would have been loved in a course (I didn't do the American Civil War at school) because my memory was that it was all about learning about different sources, thinking about how to balance them (who's writing, when, for what purpose etc) and basically building an argument using sources. So I think two of the most popular modules (I did both at my school) are the origins of the First World War and the rise of the Nazis - in part because there's loads of good primary and secondary sources and there's a live historiographical argument that essay questions will be based on. Is it a similar approach in the US? Because I feel like that speech would be really helpful in that sort of class?

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 09:48:46 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 08:59:38 AMI definitely would have found repeated years of American history more interesting in school if they could have provided us a more complex picture.

There were then, and are now even more, so many barriers between research at university and textbooks in the classroom. The interface between academic history, popular history, mythology (which informs so many parents who push back hard), and state programs was never the best (the AP programmes were an attempt to remedy that) but attempting to paint a more complex picture is basically a sisyphean task.

For certain was not blaming teachers for what they were mandated to teach. Although by my last couple years of high school, we were engaging with texts like the Autobiography of Malcolm X (and having discussions where white classmates said they thought racism was over...) which suggests to me there would have been some leeway to look at myths with a more critical lens had they been so inclined.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2025, 10:26:21 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 08:59:38 AMI definitely would have found repeated years of American history more interesting in school if they could have provided us a more complex picture.

At what sort of level and how was it taught?

I don't remember having a "British history" class or learning it chronologically at school here. I was in Scotland and remember a whistlestop tour of Picts, Mary, Queen of Scots, Jacobites, Highland Clearances etc but it was very jumping through time - and basically until 14 (when it becomes optional). Obviously there is an angle in that narrative (:lol:).

But for 14-18 it's modular rather than chronological - and the whole point was really about making arguments. That speech I think would have been loved in a course (I didn't do the American Civil War at school) because my memory was that it was all about learning about different sources, thinking about how to balance them (who's writing, when, for what purpose etc) and basically building an argument using sources. So I think two of the most popular modules (I did both at my school) are the origins of the First World War and the rise of the Nazis - in part because there's loads of good primary and secondary sources and there's a live historiographical argument that essay questions will be based on. Is it a similar approach in the US? Because I feel like that speech would be really helpful in that sort of class?

So things are hazy at this point, but I feel like until UK equivalent of Year 6 - we mostly did state focused history (so Oregon Trail, Gold Rush, Donner Party, the cozy side of the Mission system in California and Pilgrims, Revolutionary War in MA) over and over again. There was also light dusting of broader American history as I can remember worksheets about Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln and MLK Jr (which I think was always part of Black History month/his recognised birthday) in elementary school.

Then we started expanding more into broader American history and World history but never more modern than WWII. As I mentioned to Oex, by year 12 I was in a class that engaged with more complicated history (plus combined with literature) where there would have been room to look at that Douglass speech.

Quote from: viper37 on February 13, 2025, 09:50:55 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 06:10:20 AMAlso interesting was the portrayal of Lincoln. I was definitely never taught that Frederick Douglass had this to say - where he can complicate our mythologizing of Abraham Lincoln and yet still celebrate him and his accomplishments.

All of this about Abraham Lincoln can be explained once you get out of the myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery, from the North's point of view.  The South fought slavery on which depended their economy and future, the North fought to protect the Union, on which depended their economy and future.

Lincoln engaged in a war to protect the Union.  Everything he did, even abolishing slavery in the end was to protect the Union, in his mind.

Lincoln still believed, before his election, that the Black man was inferior to the White man.  He was but a product of his time.

He said so himself at the beginning of the war that if he could end the war by freeing no slaves, freeing some or freeing them all he would do it.

It is no surprise that Douglass would celebrate his accomplishment, while criticizing the man.

Oh it completely makes sense it is just that it is completely swept under the rug.

In fact, one thing that was pointed out in 1619 was how the initial draft of the Emancipation Proclamation spoke of compensation for those losing property as well that black people should be encouraged to go back and colonize Africa. While I know we were taught about Liberia and incidentally the American Colonization Society, I recall that presented as solely a pre-war thing and not something advocated by the great Lincoln.

The model you describe, Sheilbh, is the sort of model many historians have suggested over the years - basically something about "developping critical thinking skills".

I think it is laudable. It was mostly developped as an answer to strong mythical/national history narratives, and it has largely developped out of the rise of social history.

However, in the recent years, I think we have seen that it also runs the risk of leaving aside some basic building blocks of institutional history - esp., i.e., trying to understand how our societies "work". I remember David Hall, the great historian of the Puritans, having this sort of epiphany in a conference, that our critical narratives were continuously revising a baseline that was less and less understood.

It can also tend to leave unattended another purpose of history-as-civics, which is to provide the context for some shared cultural landmarks. At some point, for instance, you kinda have to learn some elements of, say, Catholicism, to make sense of the Reformation and its impact on British history.

The challenge, therefore, are to provide both a moment for history-as-narrative, and a moment for history-as-critique. In North America, at least, the old consensus was to (mostly) keep history-as-narrative for primary and secondary education, and leave history-as-critique for college. That broke down somewhat. I couldn't assume my American students had a firm grasp on the events of colonial America - even as they knew the beats of revisionist history, while the many of the more passionate history students had to turn to popular history (the bloody Presidents...) to provide them with more complex (but oh so problematic) narratives.

Of course, history-as-critique was always subjected to criticism, either because what was taught didn't fit well the old narrative model ("they don't know the names of our Prime Ministers!") or because it directly attacked the more mythical parts of national history (which is what Trumpians are targetting now, with their version of official, authorized history).

A few semi-related thoughts:

Critiquing skills may be applicable if there's a narrative to critique.

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

Also, IMO, peoples and societies need common narratives to function

Yes, on all three. The devil is very much in the details - about how to achieve that balancing act, which is harder and harder as the politics of history become more and more rigid and intolerant.

Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2025, 11:27:13 AMA few semi-related thoughts:

Critiquing skills may be applicable if there's a narrative to critique.

Teaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

Also, IMO, peoples and societies need common narratives to function

To some extent we did it. Early on we learned about the Pilgrims but only later in school learned it wasn't all love, light and harmony. Similarly we learned about MLK Jr but only learned more about why he was needed.

Slavery was easier as when introduced could just blame the South.:lmfao:

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 09:48:46 AMThere were then, and are now even more, so many barriers between research at university and textbooks in the classroom. The interface between academic history, popular history, mythology (which informs so many parents who push back hard), and state programs was never the best (the AP programmes were an attempt to remedy that) but attempting to paint a more complex picture is basically a sisyphean task.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2025, 10:26:21 AMI don't remember having a "British history" class or learning it chronologically at school here. I was in Scotland and remember a whistlestop tour of Picts, Mary, Queen of Scots, Jacobites, Highland Clearances etc but it was very jumping through time - and basically until 14 (when it becomes optional). Obviously there is an angle in that narrative (:lol:).

But for 14-18 it's modular rather than chronological - and the whole point was really about making arguments. That speech I think would have been loved in a course (I didn't do the American Civil War at school) because my memory was that it was all about learning about different sources, thinking about how to balance them (who's writing, when, for what purpose etc) and basically building an argument using sources. So I think two of the most popular modules (I did both at my school) are the origins of the First World War and the rise of the Nazis - in part because there's loads of good primary and secondary sources and there's a live historiographical argument that essay questions will be based on. Is it a similar approach in the US? Because I feel like that speech would be really helpful in that sort of class?

History is tough because you have to have a certain grounding in exactly what happened, and in what sequence, before you can delve more deeply.

I'm glad we've moved beyond just rote memorization of the Kings of England, or US President, that I understand was common in my parents generation.  But "academic history" isn't appropriate for grade school, or probably even high school, students.  You need to know about the civil rights movement before you can delve into the Autobiography of Malcolm X.  You need to know the general scope of history of Scotland and the UK before exploring the Highland Clearances.

I'm a little bit puzzled by Sheilbh's insistence that his history was about "making arguments", as that seems like you're trying to use history to in fact teach rhetoric, or first year law school.  Law school was like a revelation for me because it was almost never about getting to the right answer - it was about asking the right questions.  But if you're dealing with high school students (or even 1st or 2nd year undergrads) learning history it should be about the right answers.

Studying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

Oex brings up "academic history".  I remember doing a 1st year-level university course on Canadian history in my final year of undergrad as a "fun" filler.  I had to do a final paper.  Partly looking for brownie points, but partly to cover the fact that 90% of my paper was a summarization of a proper book on the topic, I was trying to find academic articles to reference.  It was really hard to find anything that would be relevant to a 1st year level paper though, and would be even more so in high school.  (It worked for brownie points, I think I got an A+ and an invitation to study history honours.  I went to tell the professor thanks, but I had been accepted to law school.  He didn't seem impressed)

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 10:46:44 AMFor certain was not blaming teachers for what they were mandated to teach. Although by my last couple years of high school, we were engaging with texts like the Autobiography of Malcolm X (and having discussions where white classmates said they thought racism was over...) which suggests to me there would have been some leeway to look at myths with a more critical lens had they been so inclined.

The above being said though by no means is trying to say you should stay away from controversial topics.  And that students can be engaged by controversial topics, certainly in a way that learning about the Oregon Trail yet again might not.  And yes, teachers have to deal with their stated curriculum so very hard to blame them for doing so.

Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2025, 11:27:13 AMTeaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Thanks for the Extra leg work, garbon. Man, 25% rate for married black mothers is shockingly low.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:19:03 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2025, 11:27:13 AMTeaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Well history is tricky that way. Just because of its limitations it is difficult to get at "truth". But that doesn't apply to fields outside of history.

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 09:48:46 AMthe AP programmes were an attempt to remedy that

I guess this is what it was like when I took Chemistry and Physics in high school and then took AP Chemistry and AP Physics. I remember in AP (and it was the same teachers who taught me first year in both cases), it was like okay throw out all the formulas we taught you last year as those don't accurately describe any of the phenomena but were useful to get you thinking as training exercises.

I remember being so angry to have wasted so much time learning foundations than then we turned around and smashed. :lol: :blush:

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2025, 12:20:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:19:03 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2025, 11:27:13 AMTeaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Well history is tricky that way. Just because of its limitations it is difficult to get at "truth". But that doesn't apply to fields outside of history.

The despair of postmodernism. :cry:

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 12:24:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2025, 12:20:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:19:03 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2025, 11:27:13 AMTeaching a narrative just to immediately tear into it with critiquing skills could very easily come across as attacking and or disingenuous.

It also risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments.

Which can lead to the problem we see today in politics of just picking the argument that you like - whether it is "global warming isn't true" or "modern monetary theory".

Well history is tricky that way. Just because of its limitations it is difficult to get at "truth". But that doesn't apply to fields outside of history.

The despair of postmodernism. :cry:

But there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

Now you might have an experience like you did with AP Physics - that the facts you learned initially are more nuanced (a lot of what we know about Julius Caesar was from biased sources) , but you have to have the starting point.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:31:51 PMBut there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

Now you might have an experience like you did with AP Physics - that the facts you learned initially are more nuanced (a lot of what we know about Julius Caesar was from biased sources) , but you have to have the starting point.

Sure but the Hows and Whys, and the facts surrounding those, is where the history is. It is kind of hard to teach about the Boston Tea Party and try to communicate why that event happened. Even when they nicely provide a slogan like "no taxation without representation" it gets a tad dicey. They weren't really demanding representation in the British Parliament...

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:31:51 PMbut not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

That's quite the handwave. There are so many events where we don't know exactly what happened or the sequence of the events that took place.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:03:52 PMI'm a little bit puzzled by Sheilbh's insistence that his history was about "making arguments", as that seems like you're trying to use history to in fact teach rhetoric, or first year law school.  Law school was like a revelation for me because it was almost never about getting to the right answer - it was about asking the right questions.  But if you're dealing with high school students (or even 1st or 2nd year undergrads) learning history it should be about the right answers.

That's because there seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of what a historical argument is - or what the "right" answer is.

The problem with teaching history as a series of "right answers" - is that it creates a profound misunderstanding about the nature of the historian's work. People can, at least, get a vague sense of science evolving because of "new discoveries" - even if that's a reductive view of what scientific work. That form of popular explanation doesn't work for history - hence the insistence on "new documents" being found often in the media. If no new documents are found, why is history changing? It *must* be because of woke professors brainwashing our kids...

The other element is the conflation between "cause" and "fault", which, because of history-as-civics, is often portrayed as indictment. A historical argument is basically arguing about causes and linkages. Because of the nature of historical knowledge, it is really quite rare that arguments are polar opposites of one another, or about finding the "true" culprit for something. Indeed, most of the time, it isn't about finding culprits at all. While there are disagreements about what constitutes a robust historical explanation, most historians try to produce forms of relative explanations that are liable to be argued: can one read the document this way? Is that the best proxy for the explanation? Is this the best scale? There are no simple answers to those questions, but I would argue you can produce appropriate narratives for primary and secondary school kids that, at least, provide an introduction to these questions without flirting with utter disregard for the truth, absolute relativism, or messes of conflicting stories. 

For instance:

QuoteStudying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

No, you don't. The unfolding of WWI has little bearing about its beginning, and one can really study diplomatic history without knowing the details of the Somme. It really depends on what you want to teach about WWI. Maybe the details of the Somme become relevant once you want to describe interwar politics. You may not even want to make it a national blame game - maybe you want to ascribe its cause to European imperialism, or to an arms race, or the nature of the international diplomatic scene. But it may also be interesting to understand *why* it often was turned into a blame game.

QuoteI was trying to find academic articles to reference.  It was really hard to find anything that would be relevant to a 1st year level paper though, and would be even more so in high school.

Times have changed. Now there is google scholar. Thousands of articles are available at the tip of the student's finger.
So is ChatGPT.

In any case, first year of college is all about acquiring the skills to let go of the training wheels (the textbook-style narratives, the reassuring topics) and get your hand in the details of how an argument is made. It's harder to do when students are here for brownie points, but also, when students come in with a passion for history - but for history-as-details-oriented - because their idea of a better argument is one where you get all the uniforms and weapons right...

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:03:52 PMI'm a little bit puzzled by Sheilbh's insistence that his history was about "making arguments", as that seems like you're trying to use history to in fact teach rhetoric, or first year law school.  Law school was like a revelation for me because it was almost never about getting to the right answer - it was about asking the right questions.  But if you're dealing with high school students (or even 1st or 2nd year undergrads) learning history it should be about the right answers.

That's because there seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of what a historical argument is - or what the "right" answer is.

The problem with teaching history as a series of "right answers" - is that it creates a profound misunderstanding about the nature of the historian's work. People can, at least, get a vague sense of science evolving because of "new discoveries" - even if that's a reductive view of what scientific work is. That form of popular explanation doesn't work for history - hence the insistence on "new documents" being found often in the media. If no new documents are found, why is history changing? It *must* be because of woke professors brainwashing our kids...

The other element is the conflation between "cause" and "fault", which, because of history-as-civics, is often portrayed as indictment. A historical argument is basically arguing about causes and linkages. Because of the nature of historical knowledge, it is really quite rare that arguments are polar opposites of one another, or about finding the "true" culprit for something. Indeed, most of the time, it isn't about finding culprits at all. While there are disagreements about what constitutes a robust historical explanation, most historians try to produce forms of relative explanations that are liable to be argued: can one read the document this way? Is that the best proxy for the explanation? Is this the best scale? There are no simple answers to those questions, but I would argue you can produce appropriate narratives for primary and secondary school kids that, at least, provide an introduction to these questions without flirting with utter disregard for the truth, absolute relativism, or messes of conflicting stories. 

For instance:

QuoteStudying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

No, you don't. The unfolding of WWI has little bearing about its beginning, and one can really study diplomatic history without knowing the details of the Somme. It really depends on what you want to teach about WWI. Maybe the details of the Somme become relevant once you want to describe interwar politics. You may not even want to make it a national blame game - maybe you want to ascribe its cause to European imperialism, or to an arms race, or the nature of the international diplomatic scene. But it may also be interesting to understand *why* it often was turned into a blame game.

QuoteI was trying to find academic articles to reference.  It was really hard to find anything that would be relevant to a 1st year level paper though, and would be even more so in high school.

Times have changed. Now there is google scholar. Thousands of articles are available at the tip of the student's finger.
So is ChatGPT.

In any case, first year of college is all about acquiring the skills to let go of the training wheels (the textbook-style narratives, the reassuring topics) and get your hand in the details of how an argument is made. It's harder to do when students are here for brownie points, but also, when students come in with a passion for history - but for history-as-details-oriented - because their idea of a better argument is one where you get all the uniforms and weapons right...

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 12:41:33 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:31:51 PMbut not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

That's quite the handwave. There are so many events where we don't know exactly what happened or the sequence of the events that took place.

How much of a handwave do you want for a forum post?

I mean sure.  And there's "historical events" that are almost entirely known from archaeology rather than primary sources.

I went through Tim Snyder's excellent History of Ukraine podcast last year.  When you're talking about the ancient Scythians - they left no written records themselves.  We know some things from the archaeology, the neighbouring greeks have a few comments (I think our friend Herodotus comes up here), but that's about it.

But still - the fact the Scythians existed is a fact.  If we want to tell middle schoolers or high schoolers our "best guess" about what the Scythians were like, and wait until post-secondary to get into the "well these are the limitations on what we know" I don't think that's a terrible outcome.

(I picked the scythians because they're fairly neutral, but you can think of all sorts of other topics that are more controversial).

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 12:55:08 PMThere are no simple answers to those questions, but I would argue you can produce appropriate narratives for primary and secondary school kids that, at least, provide an introduction to these questions without flirting with utter disregard for the truth, absolute relativism, or messes of conflicting stories. 

Now I'm confused, because I agree with this statement.

QuoteFor instance:

QuoteStudying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

No, you don't. The unfolding of WWI has little bearing about its beginning, and one can really study diplomatic history without knowing the details of the Somme. It really depends on what you want to teach about WWI. Maybe the details of the Somme become relevant once you want to describe interwar politics. You may not even want to make it a national blame game - maybe you want to ascribe its cause to European imperialism, or to an arms race, or the nature of the international diplomatic scene. But it may also be interesting to understand *why* it often was turned into a blame game.

But why study the causes of WWI, why even care about it, if you don't know what it was?  You understand "why it is a blame game" only with knowing what the Somme was.

Quote

QuoteI was trying to find academic articles to reference.  It was really hard to find anything that would be relevant to a 1st year level paper though, and would be even more so in high school.

Times have changed. Now there is google scholar. Thousands of articles are available at the tip of the student's finger.
So is ChatGPT.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

It wasn't entirely that it was hard to find academic articles, but rather that what I could find were on such specific or nuanced points it was hard to find any relevant to a more general 1st year paper.

But yeah, the whole nature of research is totally changed now.

I'm one of the last generations (if not the last generation) of lawyers that was trained in researching caselaw from books and papers.  Sure we had the first generation of online caselaw but most of the time it was from hitting the library.  You'd start with a general textbook, find the case or cases it relied upon, then hit up the Case Citators to see if other cases have noted it up, then individually find those cases.  On the negative side it was all very laborious, but on the positive side it was all curated - in order for a case to be reported someone had to decide it was significant enough to be reported.

Nowadays it's almost all online.  Finding a case can be as simple as following a link.  The problem is the curation is almost entirely gone.  If someone orders a transcript of a case it goes online.  So now you can find a case that will say almost anything - but it's a low-level case that doesn't cite any of the proper authorities...

Anyways that's all a disgression.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 01:13:53 PMNow I'm confused, because I agree with this statement.

See, we can build on an argument without it being utterly opposed.  ;)

QuoteBut why study the causes of WWI, why even care about it, if you don't know what it was?  You understand "why it is a blame game" only with knowing what the Somme was.

Yes. But knowing about the Somme, or about the blame game, or about the place of WWI makes sense only if you know what end point (telos) you are trying to reach. What you say about WWI really depends on the narrative you want to use it for - which means you can have multiple WWIs being presented - one where the details of the Somme matter a great deal, one where it doesn't. The problem is that people will claim that if you don't know the details of the Somme, you don't know WWI at all. It doesn't work that way.

QuotePerhaps I wasn't clear.

It wasn't entirely that it was hard to find academic articles, but rather that what I could find were on such specific or nuanced points it was hard to find any relevant to a more general 1st year paper.

I got it. This is what I meant by leaving the training wheels: that general 1st year paper is often understood precisely as what you did - summarizing the argument given in a single book. The main mistake 1st year students do is to cast much too broad a topic, without a clearly defined argument of their own. Learning how to do that is what you'd expect students to do. Unfortunately, a lot of first year courses have a lot of students, and you can't always spend the time necessary to bring everyone up to speed.

(And there are some professors out there who care little for 1st year classes and are rather more committed to students they get in specialized seminars)

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 01:31:18 PMYes. But knowing about the Somme, or about the blame game, or about the place of WWI makes sense only if you know what end point (telos) you are trying to reach. What you say about WWI really depends on the narrative you want to use it for - which means you can have multiple WWIs being presented - one where the details of the Somme matter a great deal, one where it doesn't. The problem is that people will claim that if you don't know the details of the Somme, you don't know WWI at all. It doesn't work that way.

I have certainly seen my share of histories of World War I, sometimes very voluminous ones, where entire fronts and belligerent nations are not mentioned at all. They are just not relevant to the story of World War I that history is trying to tell.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:31:51 PMBut there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

Now you might have an experience like you did with AP Physics - that the facts you learned initially are more nuanced (a lot of what we know about Julius Caesar was from biased sources) , but you have to have the starting point.

You seem to be confusing facts with "truths."  The study of history does concern itself with facts, but it doesn't teach that there are Capital-T-Truths, because there is only one:  that we will never know all of the facts, and so all of our conclusions are provisional. We can't know all of the facts, because attempting to learn them would take up 100 percent of our time for the rest of our lives.  So all narratives are at least somewhat "squishy."

One of the things that is taught in critical thinking skills is that every interpretation of the facts is created by a person, who includes only the facts that they think are important or which support their case. Evaluating the source of an interpretation (who wrote it?  for what purpose?  in what context?  who was the audience?  how might it be shaped by the author's POV?) As a history teacher, I use the AP evaluation criteria, but I do the same in my non-AP courses (just not nearly as often in non-AP).

Does this teach the student that "risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments?"  Yes.  And that is the point. Someone with the awareness that one needs to evaluate the sources on one's information, and to be aware that the best-reasoned and best-supported arguments may be rendered moot by new information, is much more likely to be a good citizen than one locked into the belief that they possess "the truth."

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2025, 10:51:48 AMSo things are hazy at this point, but I feel like until UK equivalent of Year 6 - we mostly did state focused history (so Oregon Trail, Gold Rush, Donner Party, the cozy side of the Mission system in California and Pilgrims, Revolutionary War in MA) over and over again. There was also light dusting of broader American history as I can remember worksheets about Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln and MLK Jr (which I think was always part of Black History month/his recognised birthday) in elementary school.

Then we started expanding more into broader American history and World history but never more modern than WWII. As I mentioned to Oex, by year 12 I was in a class that engaged with more complicated history (plus combined with literature) where there would have been room to look at that Douglass speech.

That makes sense and sounds relatively similar. I think in primary school we did big picture world stuff too - I definitely remember having a school inspired obsession with the Egyptians for a while :lol:

Then moving into more detailed - I think the first few years of high school were more narrative before shifting to the "skills focused" approach. Although that did go modern - I did a unit on the Troubles, plus there was a long period and local study components. Mine was "medicine through time" and I think the local study was basically like doing a coursework project on the history of a local building. That's both GCSE (14-16) and A-Level (16-18).

Looking at new GCSE specs because I know they get changed and there are options covering Mao's China, the USA 1954-75 ("conflict at home and abroad"), the Cold War, post-war Germany, apartheid South Africa - and "British thematic studies" (e.g. migration, power or war) which all go up to the 2010s.

QuoteThe model you describe, Sheilbh, is the sort of model many historians have suggested over the years - basically something about "developping critical thinking skills".

I think it is laudable. It was mostly developped as an answer to strong mythical/national history narratives, and it has largely developped out of the rise of social history.

However, in the recent years, I think we have seen that it also runs the risk of leaving aside some basic building blocks of institutional history - esp., i.e., trying to understand how our societies "work". I remember David Hall, the great historian of the Puritans, having this sort of epiphany in a conference, that our critical narratives were continuously revising a baseline that was less and less understood.

It can also tend to leave unattended another purpose of history-as-civics, which is to provide the context for some shared cultural landmarks. At some point, for instance, you kinda have to learn some elements of, say, Catholicism, to make sense of the Reformation and its impact on British history.

The challenge, therefore, are to provide both a moment for history-as-narrative, and a moment for history-as-critique. In North America, at least, the old consensus was to (mostly) keep history-as-narrative for primary and secondary education, and leave history-as-critique for college. That broke down somewhat. I couldn't assume my American students had a firm grasp on the events of colonial America - even as they knew the beats of revisionist history, while the many of the more passionate history students had to turn to popular history (the bloody Presidents...) to provide them with more complex (but oh so problematic) narratives.

Of course, history-as-critique was always subjected to criticism, either because what was taught didn't fit well the old narrative model ("they don't know the names of our Prime Ministers!") or because it directly attacked the more mythical parts of national history (which is what Trumpians are targetting now, with their version of official, authorized history).

This is interesting as this is exactly what's happened here to an extent.

When I was growing up we were at the peak of "skills-based learning" and over the last 25 years Labour and Tory governments have significantly reformed education, including the curriculum to make it more "knowledge-rich". Partly for the arguments you make - that we were learning skills and issues in the abstract without the knowledge of facts to really exercise them. Also it's been argued that a "knowledge-rich" curriculum helps level the playing field for kids whose parents aren't or can't engage in the same way with these subjects - there's less place for background ambient knowledge to show off. This goes beyond history - for example I never learned English grammar in a systematic way and it's now taught very systematically. I think the evidence from international comparisons and other results is that it has been very successful and effective (in particular at improving the results of minority and working class kids) - but it's quite unpopular with teachers and some of the reforms are also unpopular with local government. Worryingly some key elements of those cross-party reforms are now being picked apart by the current government which is a little bit of a concern for me.

I'd add the other problem in the UK has been Britain and the world - and I don't what the right answer is (I don't think there is one) of the balance of a national story, a Britain in the world story and just straight up world history. I had a mix but it was still very Eurocentric. I'm just looking at the possible options for 16-18 year olds now and there's a free choice essay, one unit on British history, one unit on non-British history and one on "continuity and change over a substantial period" which could be British or non-British. And some of the options sound fantastic and stuff at 17 I'd have loved to study: rise of Islam, African kingdoms 1400-1800, rise and decline of the Moguls, Japan from Meiji to 1937. But I think there is a balancing act that I don't envy writers of curricula or teachers in pulling off.

The big challenge with all of this is that history (in the UK) is optional from 14. There's very limited time on curriculum each week and there's a lot you could study so there are always choices and things will always be cut. I believe the only 100% mandatory (so pre-14) things students must learn about are the Holocaust and trans-Atlantic slavery, which I can understand but also feels like it might create a particular sense of history as a subject.

I do always get annoyed when some historic injustice or crime gets into the news and you have people saying they've never heard of it and don't know why they weren't taught it at school. Because there is limited times and we don't have to stop learning or reading at the age of 18 <_< I do think some people view education as basically being about giving the knowledge you "should" know as an adult rather than trying to spark an interest that can continue as long as you want it.

Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2025, 02:56:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:31:51 PMBut there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

Sure, things get iffier the further back we go.  We have far fewer primary sources, and the sources we do have were not reling on eyewitnesses or primary sources.  But even then we know certain events - like the Roman Empire existed, that they and Carthage had a war.

Now you might have an experience like you did with AP Physics - that the facts you learned initially are more nuanced (a lot of what we know about Julius Caesar was from biased sources) , but you have to have the starting point.

You seem to be confusing facts with "truths."  The study of history does concern itself with facts, but it doesn't teach that there are Capital-T-Truths, because there is only one:  that we will never know all of the facts, and so all of our conclusions are provisional. We can't know all of the facts, because attempting to learn them would take up 100 percent of our time for the rest of our lives.  So all narratives are at least somewhat "squishy."

One of the things that is taught in critical thinking skills is that every interpretation of the facts is created by a person, who includes only the facts that they think are important or which support their case. Evaluating the source of an interpretation (who wrote it?  for what purpose?  in what context?  who was the audience?  how might it be shaped by the author's POV?) As a history teacher, I use the AP evaluation criteria, but I do the same in my non-AP courses (just not nearly as often in non-AP).

Does this teach the student that "risks teaching students that there is no "truth", just arguments?"  Yes.  And that is the point. Someone with the awareness that one needs to evaluate the sources on one's information, and to be aware that the best-reasoned and best-supported arguments may be rendered moot by new information, is much more likely to be a good citizen than one locked into the belief that they possess "the truth."

Yeah, well said.

Whenever this topic comes up, I think back to the first time I had to advise a decision making body of academics.  They recoiled in horror when I told them it was their job to make findings of fact because they interpreted that as me telling them they had to determine what was "true".  When I explained they were not determining "truth" but rather making a finding of whether something was more likely than not to have happened, they felt a lot better.

After that initial experience I have chosen my words with more care when advising those sorts of decision making bodies.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2025, 03:02:15 PMI do always get annoyed when some historic injustice or crime gets into the news and you have people saying they've never heard of it and don't know why they weren't taught it at school. Because there is limited times and we don't have to stop learning or reading at the age of 18 <_< I do think some people view education as basically being about giving the knowledge you "should" know as an adult rather than trying to spark an interest that can continue as long as you want it.

This is such a pet peeve of mine. And often, yes - they *did* learn it in school. They just weren't paying attention then.

Quote from: Oexmelin on February 13, 2025, 03:54:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2025, 03:02:15 PMI do always get annoyed when some historic injustice or crime gets into the news and you have people saying they've never heard of it and don't know why they weren't taught it at school. Because there is limited times and we don't have to stop learning or reading at the age of 18 <_< I do think some people view education as basically being about giving the knowledge you "should" know as an adult rather than trying to spark an interest that can continue as long as you want it.

This is such a pet peeve of mine. And often, yes - they *did* learn it in school. They just weren't paying attention then.

The first time I learned about Viola Desmond is when I went to the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg.

Quote from: Barrister on February 13, 2025, 12:03:52 PMI'm a little bit puzzled by Sheilbh's insistence that his history was about "making arguments", as that seems like you're trying to use history to in fact teach rhetoric, or first year law school.  Law school was like a revelation for me because it was almost never about getting to the right answer - it was about asking the right questions.  But if you're dealing with high school students (or even 1st or 2nd year undergrads) learning history it should be about the right answers.

So argument is maybe framing it wrongly (but it was always how it was described to me). Here at least, it's an essay subject and the point that was hammered home into us (at least that I remember) was you need to have an argument. You can't just go "on the one hand...on the other" for the entire essay - you need to have a conclusion that answers the question and that you've tried to support with evidence, while acknowledging alternative views. It was the same point for English too (and I was part of a tutoring scheme and this was the big wisdom I imparted to kids, to great exam success :goodboy:).

But in both history and English it was normally framed there's no such thing as a right or wrong answer - it's what can you show evidence for, what can you demonstrate.

QuoteStudying the causes of WWI is very interesting.  There have been debates blaming the Austrians, the Serbians, the Germans, the British as being the ultimate cause of the war.  But before you get there you need a firm grounding on what the war was, who fought it, and what happened during it.

Yeah it was a standalone unit - as I say I think because there's loads of competing primary and secondary sources and it's a really contested area. So back then we definitely had the alliance, naval arms race, mobilisation timetables and railway schedules - and it was less who caused it than ultimately was it avoidable?

But that - from my school experience - that sort of question that's basically about the level of contingency is the classic sort of history exam question, like "continuity or change": balance lots of factors and come to a conclusion. All of that works with the origins of WW1, in a way it wouldn't with the origins of WW2 - where you'd have a pretty short, simple answer. That's possibly why the big unit there is the rise of the Nazis.

Don't think I learned about WW1 (or any "war" in the sense of how it went, battles, fronts etc) in history at school. The only battle I definitely remember studying was Hastings because we did the school trip to Normandy and look at the Bayeux tapestry. Did the WW1 war poets in English though.

QuoteBut there is truth in history.

The US exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.  Millions were killed in German concentration camps.

The "whys" and Hows" can be up for debate - but not the events that happened.

I'd put it a different way - those are facts.

I think I'd say more the truth is inaccessible (and wasn't even accessible by participants). History is in the how and why - and the argument around those.

FWIW I think by A-level (16-18) we did also have to have at least a very, very glancing awareness of "theory" as well - so a little bit of Marxism. Same in English when it was very shallow but you'd have to be aware of, say, feminist criticism when looking at Macbeth. Again in English you will not get a good grade if you can't cite other critics or interpretations of a text (eg film or famous performances).

Edit: Reading responses it sounds a lot like basically it's the same until 14 - at that point history becomes optional in the UK curriculum and then it sounds a bit like AP. Not sure if it stays compulsory in the US but that sounds about right - once it becomes optional and you have to have an interest the sophistication steps up.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2025, 04:08:07 PMI'd put it a different way - those are facts.

I think I'd say more the truth is inaccessible (and wasn't even accessible by participants). History is in the how and why - and the argument around those.

So I feel like this is a very Languish answer (in all the best and worst possible meanings) - turning into a debate over the definition of words. :hug:

Fine - if you want to say there's a distinction between "truth" and "fact" - go ahead (although I would say that in order for something to be a fact it needs to be true).  But yeah in my line of work we talk about facts not truths because I guess there is a bit of a metaphysical element to the word "truth".

"making arguments" - that was a very "english class" type of assignment.  Yes the whole thesis sentence, argument, conclusion...  But then that was the lesson they were trying to teach you - at that point in english you're no longer learning spelling and sentence structure.

My recollection was history was still much more about, well, history.  While you might have to do a written assignment, you still needed to get your facts right - or at least be able to source them to reputable sources.

I think that's probably right especially at the 14-16 stage. Which would be a bit like what does this source mean, how do you know that etc.

By the 16-18 you do need facts (in the same way as in English you need quotations) but it's framed to get an interpretation, like the famous [striking quote] "Discuss" :lol:

For reference I looked up a paper for that age group on the American civil war given the Douglass quote - and the questions in a recent exam were either (1) or (2) here. That's what I mean by in both cases you're being asked to make an argument with reference to facts and evidence and sources - and I was always told the easiest way to lose marks is to not answer the question and just cite a list of facts:

Quote1 (a) Which of the following was the greater threat to the Union in the years 1850–1861?
(i) The Kansas Nebraska Act
(ii) The Dred Scott decision
Explain your answer with reference to both (i) and (ii).
1 (b)* How important were improved communications for the opening up of the West?

2 (a) Which had the greater consequences for Native Americans in the years 1861–1890?
(i) The 'Indian Wars'
(ii) The Dawes Act
Explain your answer with reference to both (i) and (ii).
2 (b)* 'The leadership of Lincoln was the main reason for Union victory in the Civil War.' How far do you agree?