Should schools teach the dark side of American History to children?

[GypsyElder]

So, I have like 3 essays due in about a week and a half and the last topic I need to cover is if dark parts of history should be exposed to children. I've kind of gathered my thoughts already on it but I want to see if I can find something else to expand on or even if something can convince to go in the opposite direction.

I think maybe things like genocide of European settlers, slavery and Indian wars should probably be left out until about 5th or 6th grade. There's other points I plan to add in like the effects of not teaching factual history (or how some elementary schools completely rule it out). Also, how children probably can't process overwhelming amounts of information and all the gory details that go with.

The essay doesn't have to only revolve around elementary school either.

Thoughts? anything?

[Jin]

It depends how they'd teach it. Maybe it's different in the states, but I've found high school history to be worse than not learning history at all. High school history tends to ignore the interpretive part of history (its most important aspect in my opinion) and present it as a series of concrete facts. This would be fine if they were teaching chronicling, but the problem is that history asks not only what, but also why, and if the curriculum isn't prepared to dedicate the extensive time required to tackle such a question, students will be left learning only one side of a multifaceted situation which, in my opinion, is worse than not knowing the situation at all. At least in the latter situation, one's mind is open to interpretations rather than stuck in whatever the text book history happens to be.

In regards to "dark" sides of American history, they're usually taught in one of two ways. In the first way, the events' importance are mulled over and that which is dealt with refuses to engage the situation as a serious point of contention within America's history, essentially trying to white wash the country's past. In the second, the text books/teachers are more concerned with drilling in a moral condemnation of the events than they are in properly analyzing its facets and complexities and in doing so, they again fail to properly engage with the situation at hand, oversimplifying the situation into a useless statement of "it was bad/wrong".

I'm aware that high school kids can only take so much and only so much historical analysis is feasible for them, but it should at minimum be made clear that history is interpretive and not written in stone, even when it literally is.

/rant of the day

Edit: I just realized that very little of my post pertains to elementary students. Maybe you were looking for more of a "is it good for their psyche to learn this stuff" kind of answer? If that's the case, then my post was useless. Sorry!

[Andromeda]

I thought the "why" of something was part of the facts for talking about history. The why usually gets explained as the preface to the actual event. What were the factors that led to the event. It is certainly difficult to understand an event if you don't know the why. I would find it odd if they skipped over the why. As you said history lessons maybe different between the two of us, but my teachers made it a point to make sure we knew why something happened, the causes, the things that were in place to set it up.

I know I'm picking out words here, but the idea of teaching interpretative history sounds very worrisome to me. Because it sounds like its gone from being an objective telling of history to a subjective telling of history. And at least for me I don't want someone giving me a subjective history. Give me an objective history with the facts and let me make my own decision on the actual event.

As for the subject of the dark history of America, I'm not sure that it isn't already covered. At least when I went through school. What they teach in history class these days might be heavily white washed for all I know, another worrisome thought. We might not have gone into the explicit details and I don't think you're suggesting that, but I remember learning about the bad parts of history that people are not very proud of as well as the good parts. I am afraid I don't recall much about history until the 5th grade though, the last year of elementary for me. And even that is pretty hazy.

I don't think there is any problem telling children all of our history. So long as you're not trying to show them something explicit that they aren't prepared to see. Just providing verbal facts about events in history shouldn't really be a problem. There is probably a level to which they will and will not be able to comprehend what they are being told. I don't know what the level is, but late elementary school years they should start to learn about history. Specifics may not be entirely necessary since ideally a lot of the specifics will be covered in later years. But a cursory knowledge isn't a bad thing.

[Aerif]

Ugh, I just know that my posts are going to be dwarved, thanks Andro/Jin.

In my opinion there are parts of history that are inherently 'bad'. There are a lot of times history happens because of discrimination; racism, homosexuality and antisemitism are very involved in history.

Children develop their views of the world at a very young age, and they are really only influenced by school and home. At home, you may come from a harmful enviroment (such as being a Westboro Baptist, or having parents that are part of the British National Party or the KKK), however school is a big influencing point in a child's life.

This blog post which I discovered when the BBC ran a story on it nearly a month ago, shows that children are influenced by their parent's stereotypes. From the post, it's clear that children don't assume thier peers are homosexual for cross-dressing, that is brought on by the adult world.

Information opression may be seen as a bad thing, but what I'd suggest isn't strictly opression. More serious and darker sides of history, covering discrimination, should not be taught to children until they reach a mental stage where they aren't influenced by every single thing a teacher says.

There's not much we can do about the children of racists, homophobes et al., however I think that schools should leave lessons that involve discrimination until children are older, as it would probably mean less discrimatory people.

tl;dr - Don't teach kids about the KKK and Hitler until they're old enough to realise that behaviour is morally wrong, and have the capacity to do something about their own behaviour if they act like that.

[Josh_R]

Although middle school, and high school all the history teachers sugar coated shit, and didn't speak on alot of things. This happened up til my senior year. My world history teacher told us the world is a f*cked up place, and that sugar coating things wouldn't help us in college. He told us all the things that happened throughout history things on very touchy subjects. After having a history class in college I am glad he did. Cause I would have had no clue about alot of things.

Anywho I feel it should be taught in Middle School, and High School. By Middle School you should be grown up enough to handle. They would have to be careful with how they approach the subject, but it should happen.

[Jin]

I thought the "why" of something was part of the facts for talking about history. The why usually gets explained as the preface to the actual event. What were the factors that led to the event. It is certainly difficult to understand an event if you don't know the why. I would find it odd if they skipped over the why. As you said history lessons maybe different between the two of us, but my teachers made it a point to make sure we knew why something happened, the causes, the things that were in place to set it up.

It's not that they don't teach a why, it's that they only teach one why. Why is not an knowable truth. It's something that one has to interpret from the evidence given, not to mention the literary theory that goes behind reading into texts from any given historical era. History isn't static - it's a dialogue between historians and their interpretations of what happened and why.

I know I'm picking out words here, but the idea of teaching interpretative history sounds very worrisome to me. Because it sounds like its gone from being an objective telling of history to a subjective telling of history. And at least for me I don't want someone giving me a subjective history. Give me an objective history with the facts and let me make my own decision on the actual event.

There's no such thing as an objective history. If you think anything you've read was objective, then you weren't looking at it analytically enough. The rise of postmodernism/poststructuralism has made this clear enough that even the most empirical historian cannot go back to a prior way of thinking. History is no longer the social science it was formerly claimed to be; it's part of the humanities now, along with literary theory and so forth. I can't properly (or even convincingly) write here what four years of history has taught me about the discipline, but it can be summarized that historical documents and writings are not "evidence" as they were before, but rather texts - things to be analyzed and deconstructed so as to understand the unseen currents behind it. This is an interpretive process just as is literary theory. History then is the myriad of differing and often opposing interpretations of the available evidence, coupled with the knowledge that historians as well cannot write outside of their own historical or discursive context. It is the product of the time and place in which it was created. History therefore cannot be objective. A chronicle can be, at least more so, but not history. That is the concept high schools should be teaching - that history is a verb, not a noun.

[Kaiden]

It's not that they don't teach a why, it's that they only teach one why. Why is not an knowable truth. It's something that one has to interpret from the evidence given, not to mention the literary theory that goes behind reading into texts from any given historical era. History isn't static - it's a dialogue between historians and their interpretations of what happened and why.

This isnt true for most of American History. Recent history(past 150 years) is pretty set in stone. As you start to get further back in history things open up for interpretation. We don't know as many facts about what actually happened. People try to make assumptions based on the few things we do know. Thats when historians start to debate why or how things happened.

[Jin]

This isnt true for most of American History. Recent history(past 150 years) is pretty set in stone. As you start to get further back in history things open up for interpretation. We don't know as many facts about what actually happened. People try to make assumptions based on the few things we do know. Thats when historians start to debate why or how things happened.

...

You're misunderstanding me. The events are not what are being interpreted. Obviously we can be fairly certain that the Civil War happened and when the battles were and who the generals were and who was on whose side and so forth. What's up for interpretation is the big picture meanings of these events, their causes, effects and their relation to one of an infinite number of discursive, cultural and social constructs and systems. Discourses of race, for example are an integral part of American history, but textbook histories will not (very, very rarely) engage with them on the discursive level. The only reason for this, that I can think of, is that the idea of discourse analysis is too complex for high school students. Everyday I try to fully wrap my head around it myself and I've yet to get there.

High school therefore, in my opinion, should be providing a base for this, so that it doesn't come out of nowhere to aspiring historians that pursue history in university. Even in the first two years of university (at least in my experience), history is treated as nothing but a series of events, then suddenly, bam, year 3 comes and you're hit with your first taste of true analysis that leaves you wondering what in the hell is going on. When did history become philosophy or literary theory? The truth is, modern history owes more to philosophy and literary theory than most realize. Perhaps I worded it poorly earlier, but that which I'm claiming historians interpret are not the historical events themselves (though obviously there is some of that), but methods of understanding these events and tying them into the big picture. Historiography and methodology - that's what history is all about and that's what high school students, in my opinion, should be introduced to. Specific events aren't anywhere near as important as that.

The only real purpose I see in teaching them the way they are taught in school is to make students identify with their country and therefore build up a binding sense of nationalism - the kind every 'good citizen' needs. But that's just a guess.

[Unknown Entity]

I don't understand why the bad side of history isn't taught. In my opinion, withholding the bad sides, and portraying a country in a good light from all the "good" a country has done is brainwashing someone into patriotism. Being proud of a country is one thing, but being proud about it based on famous exploits of history of a "good" nature is something else completely.

The bad side to history should be taught to students so that they can form their own opinion in their heads. People should be taught the difference between right and wrong, and it's not always something parents or guardians can teach. It also depends on the kind of home they come from, and what the people they live with stand for or believe - you can't learn everything from home, and it's most likely you'll only form a one-sided opinion there. Learning a one-sided opinion in school, however, is questionable.

Information opression may be seen as a bad thing, but what I'd suggest isn't strictly opression. More serious and darker sides of history, covering discrimination, should not be taught to children until they reach a mental stage where they aren't influenced by every single thing a teacher says.

There's not much we can do about the children of racists, homophobes et al., however I think that schools should leave lessons that involve discrimination until children are older, as it would probably mean less discrimatory people.

tl;dr - Don't teach kids about the KKK and Hitler until they're old enough to realise that behaviour is morally wrong, and have the capacity to do something about their own behaviour if they act like that.

Pretty much what I wanted to say. Although I think the topic of discrimination should be brought up at an earlier age, perhaps in a sugar coated way - I'm pretty sure explaining the ins and outs of sexuality or race or etc to a seven year old might be a difficult task, and would probably be too much of an influence.

[Pete]

I think that we should teach both the good and bad of history, but at the same time, there should be limits to how exposed the bad side really is. It's one thing to tell small children about things like the Trail of Tears and slavery, but it's something else to go into great detail about what happened at Guantanamo.

I had a history teacher who would give us the facts, and we would discuss the reasoning behind it, along with the differing angles of parties involved. Granted, we couldn't do this so much until we got into the Civil War, but once we did, it was pretty incredible to learn how much deception was occurring, both in the classroom and in the world. I don't feel that it was too soon to learn about it, nor did it really turn anyone against any of their beliefs; we just learned the events, and what different peoples stakes in them were at the time, and how it affected them and the world around them.

I also had an eighth grade teacher teach us about the klan, nazis, and ebonics... which was also awesome and eye opening

[Alpha]

Can I ask what exactly you mean by the 'dark side'? Is there really a 'good' and a 'bad' side of any nation's history? It's being presented as fairly discrete in this thread so far.

From the (highly generalised) perspective of the indigenous people of North America, the whole institution of the United States of America represents something negative: genocide, land confiscation, the imposition of an entirely new and foreign perspective on the natural world, as well as on-going racial discourse, and lack of appreciation and understanding of what 'existed before' and is now ignored. This is held in common with indigenous people in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and parts of Asia and Africa, and its even possible to argue the same in parts of Europe.

What I'm trying to get across is that anything can be considered 'good' or 'bad'. It's easy to say that the Constitution was a 'good' thing -- it was and is a ground breaking document in individual liberty. But that is not the only perspective possible on the document. I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that at least some Native Americans could see the Constitution as a symbol of a great upheaval in their way of life, best described as colonialism. Keep the possibility of revisionism open -- and that is not done by making a demarcation between events in history as 'good' or 'bad'. Ever.

Students should be not be told what is 'positive history' and what is 'negative history'. They can be told discrete facts, and then taught how to see the same facts from different and opposed perspectives.

[GypsyElder]

Ugh what horrible timing for my internet to mess up. There's so many things I want to respond to but I can't type it all out on my phone. I will once I get my router working properly.


For now, @ Entity, the Dark side of history is taught. The sugar coating in my opinion is the problem. History from what I've experienced growing up is not factual. For example, is it okay for children to grow thinking thanksgiving was all happy happy joy joy? I wasn't even told anything along the lines of "yeah we may have made some "uh ohs" but the sacrifices made are what helped us get to where we are today this is why we celebrate thanksgiving [...]"

@ Alpha the word dark isn't being used to label it as a "bad" type of history since I don't think there's a way to categorize history in that way. I think of it more as things we're definitely not proud of.

In my opinion, it may not be a matter of IF it should be taught but more of how it should be taught at a respected level. Aerif said it best, that's kind of where I was leaning when it comes to the elementary school part. This way people will not feel the need to avoid or neglect teaching history and specific events because they will be grade level appropriate.

As for high school, being completely honest, I didn't learn any legitimate history until my Jr year and that's because my teacher was the only ones who didn't rely on hand outs and slide shows. History may as well have been another english or reading class. From what I remember history was more about memorizing names and matching them to specific events and useless vocabulary that I have never hard of ever again since then. So you could say my knowledge of history is horrible.

[che]

All important parts of American History, good or bad, should be taught. Don't censor anything. Censoring is evil and makes us forget any bad things we've done and we will only get the good things, which is not how it actually happened.

American History is mostly a high school course, isn't it? General history can be censored, but if it's a high school course I see no reason whatsoever to censor it.

[GypsyElder]

American History is mostly a high school course, isn't it? General history can be censored, but if it's a high school course I see no reason whatsoever to censor it.

It's really not...

And as of now I know of some elementary schools here that are literally taking it out of the curriculum.

[Sasquatch]

I think most "dark" history is already taught in most American public schools, to the point of it not being historical anymore. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been told that, basically, white men are responsible for all the evils in the world. That's how it was when I went through -- the American Indians were peace-loving, technologically advanced people, and evil white men came on boats from Europe and slaughtered them, even using biological warfare, even though these white men had no clue what germs were and thought that diseases were caused by religious curses. Then, those same evil white men invented slavery, then went to Africa and captured slaves just so they could bring them back to the Southern states of America and beat them to death -- that is, of course, until the hero Abraham Lincoln marched into office and told them to stop, which is when the Southern racists rose up and started a war.

It's pretty sad, really.

I would much rather see FACTS being taught. Not "we'll teach this because it makes white men look bad" or "we'll teach this because it makes our country look good", but "we'll teach this because it's true."

(Keep in mind, while most schools are all about teaching about evil white men, most kids don't hear much at all about Waco or Ruby Ridge, or the other actual black marks on our government.)

[Unlucky Rufus]

I don't really know about the differences in school system ether, but i know that I was briefed on many evil things that my country has done, as while as the evil things that England, Spain, and France has done. Unlike many people, i think that my Elementary school and High School did a great job with history.

[Pete]

So this means that Obama and Oprah are gonna unite and cause everyone in the world to love each other, right? Cause most of my sociology education was that white guys caused most of the worlds problems.

[Spartan of Zanarkand]

I'd say yes but like it has been said, it depends on how it is being taught.

[Rhaps]

We already do, or at least my classes do. When we cover a subject, we never stick to the text, we have research and find out what exactly the circumstances and the times and what happened, be it good or bad. Like George Washington's Missing Slave Ad, or that Ben Franklin spent most of his time in France getting laid. For a more serious look, we covered how white encroachment destroyed Native Americans and how we continued to give them unfair rights up into the modern era. They don't focus on the negative entirely. It's a comprehensive thing, you learn the good and the bad. So I think yes, we should learn dark and light sides respectively. This way people don't have a narrow and close minded view from either perspective and can g into the world with an expanded knowledge base.

[Heartless Angel]

Yeah, we need to teach kids what reallly happened in the past, good bad or ugly. This means giving ACCURATE depcitions of the events. Not blowing something out of proportion to make somebody look better than somebody else, or downplaying what was really a major event to make a historical figure look good. One thing I noticed in hostiry classes I took earlier on, we only really talked about events in which America seemed like the good guy. We never went into detail on slavery, or which presidents owned slaves, but we sure had to drive the point home that ole Honest Abe saved the day and abolished it. We talked about how many jews we saved in WWII, and how many innocents the evil Hitler killed, yet I don't think we mentioned the death count in Hiroshima once (not aying Hiroshima was nescessarily a bad thing, or we were bad for doing it, just that we seem to have prioritized some details that make us look better over the ones that don't).

Now I'm not saying we need to tell kindergardeners about exactly how people were killed in the gas chambers or the symptoms of the radiation poisoning caused by the A-bomb, but we can't just pick and choose which facs we give kids, and which ones we make out to be more important for the sake of making ourselves look better. When kids are old enough for the facts, we need to give them the facts in an unbiased way.

[ZRO]

Up to a certain age, it's true that stuff shouldn't be taught to kids. But past that age, it's time to start (for lack of a better way of phrasing things) slapping them in the face with the truth. You don't know right from wrong if no one ever shows you something IS wrong, and for us to not acknowledge what has gone wrong in our past, leaves us with only what was done right. Sadly, school alone can't teach kids that, and a lot of parents now days think that it can.

What's that saying? "War does not determine who is right or wrong, only who is left." This is also a factor in the matter in my opinion, as anyone who's been on the winning or losing side of any conflict can say with a certainty. If both sides of a conflict feel strongly enough about something that it comes to blows, then whoever "wins" is going to feel, and then teach, that their side was "right" and that the other side was "wrong". Sadly, this can (and I'm sure does) come through many times in the teaching of history.

Elementary, teach them how to tell right from wrong. Past that? Hit'em with the facts, and then let them SEE what was right or wrong with it.

Then again, my thinking also assumes that these kids have a decently average level of intelligence...and my recent dealing with the public are leaving my thought about the "average" level of intellience in a sad state of despair too, so, my own thinking on the matter may be considerably far off from what we can expect. X.x

[Block]

as long as they don't hotlink!!!