National or International History.

[TomTomKent]

So there seems to be two schools of thought amongst those I work with. That history in schools is no longer "proper" history because it discusses events that are too recent (the world wars) or too foreign. Or that history taught in schools should be "history" not "British History", and that topics like the History of Medicine, the rise of facism, and so forth are of equal importance if only for context.

Where exactly should the balance lie?

[Errata]

So there seems to be two schools of thought amongst those I work with. That history in schools is no longer "proper" history because it discusses events that are too recent (the world wars) or too foreign. Or that history taught in schools should be "history" not "British History", and that topics like the History of Medicine, the rise of facism, and so forth are of equal importance if only for context.

Where exactly should the balance lie?

We had to study all of them at various points. State History when I was in 7th grade, National History in 8th including the traditional trip to DC. World History in 9th, concentration on Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, European History in 10th, concentration on 14th-20th centuries. And then government and law in 11th. Never made it to 12th grade, so I'm not sure what history was taught then. We actually studied early man in Biology, up until Sumer I think.

But the US is different. We don't have a lot of history. Anything we know about the indigenous populations came from the white men who watched them. We know very little about the people who predate Columbus. Mostly because we destroyed that knowledge. We are also more globally dependent than Great Britain. If we are going to learn from History, we need to learn it from other people's history. In public schools, it's different. I've never met anyone coming out of a public school who knew about the Ottoman Empire, the Safavid Empire, or anything about Russia predating communism. But conversely, a lot of them don't understand how the US government works either, so I'm thinking history doesn't get a good sell in public schools.

The truth is, we Americans desperately need all of it. Classical History, government, world history, local, empires, city-states, religion, philosophy, and the sound bites. Hannibal and elephants, Nero and his fiddle, etc. I don't know that the British do. It's possible that your history encompasses all the lessons, so really beyond that all a person needs is to understand is the whys of other cultures. Of course classical history studied only Rome Greece and Mediterranean regions. And in the 18th century, that was considered enough. On the other hand there were a lot of problems in the 18th century, including slavery, so perhaps that is a clue that classical history isn't enough. We can't just study white people. And in both of our countries there is a tendency to do exactly that.

[Smoking Joe]

One of the problems is that History is being changed one word at a time in our schools,by people who wish to excise the parts that they feel are inappropriate to their way of thinking.Nothing new in that of course.

[Limehouse]

So there seems to be two schools of thought amongst those I work with. That history in schools is no longer "proper" history because it discusses events that are too recent (the world wars) or too foreign. Or that history taught in schools should be "history" not "British History", and that topics like the History of Medicine, the rise of facism, and so forth are of equal importance if only for context.

Where exactly should the balance lie?

I think we have to teach children/young people to 'think historically' rather than teaching them great chunks of history out of context. They should be able to understand the connections between things, the underpinning causes, the outcomes etc.

As an example, many years ago now, when I first started teaching, I designed a module called 'conflict, concession, reform'. We looked at various points in history where 'the people' came into conflict with the 'establishment' and exercised just enough pressure to win some 'concessions' which, in time, resulted in 'reform'. This model can be applied to various events and does not just apply to British history.

[Mayerling]

I was a history fan from my childhood. In the NYC public schools we studied the history of the city, then the state of New York, and then the United States from the colonial period to the modern day (1492 - 1966). But please notice that the "colonial period" begins with Columbus (with some nod towards Lief Ericson before him in Greenland and "Vynland") and the Indians and their different lifestyles due to different parts of the country. Also as Columbus never actually got into North America, we had to study the exploration of the New World by Spain, Portugal (by extension their exploration around Africa and Vasco de Gama actually reaching India!), France, England, the Dutch, and Swedes (remember Delaware). Actually the Danes also got into the act (Danish West Indies - now the Virgin Islands). This led to looking at the Mayans, Toltecs, Aztecs, and Incans. Fact is this brought in a great deal of world history. We would touch on foreign countries again dealing with the French and Indian Wars (Europe's Seven Years War), the American Revolution (England's split with the colonies, France's alliance - belatedly Spain's and Holland's as well), the French Revolutionary Wars (which got us into an undeclared naval war with France in the 1790s), our growing problems with Napoleon and Britain under Jefferson (leading to his "Embargo Act" against both countires), the War of 1812 (how the real victor was actually Canada, which proved it would not be conquered by the U.S.), the Texas War for Independence (how Texas fought Mexico in 1835); the Mexican War (how our annexation of Texas led to the war of 1846-48, and the acquisition of the rest of the southwest); the slavery issue (bringing in African history); the American Civil War (our diplomatic confrontations with Britain and France, and how we got into a friendly relationship with their enemy Russia - leading in 1867 to our purchasing Alaska); our relationship with the Kingdom of Hawaii and the eventual road to our annexing it in 1898, and it's statehood in 1960; the opening of our relations with Japan in 1853; the Spanish-American war to free Cuba (and our acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Phillipines) in 1898; the building of the Panama Canal (and how Panama got our help to become independent) in 1904-1914; the two World Wars (bringing in our relations with Germany and it's allies in the first war; and Germany, Italy, and Japan in the second war). Fact is, we did cover a great deal of modern history. It was just not Euro-centric, or Asian-centric or African-centric: it was United States-centric.

It really was not until we got into high school that we could go before 1492 into the ancient world civilizations. More so in college. But to say we were totally uninformed of the rest of the world and it's effects on us is not true. At least it was not true in the schools I went to.

Jeff

[Smoking Joe]

I wonder how many students,pupils or whatever you wish to call them see any connections between their lives and experiences ,and those of the past generations..The emphasis today is more on the push to the future,perhaps to many history is irrelevant.It seems so sometimes. Maybe its one of the reasons History seems to continually repeat itself. I.e depression-partial recovery-war-end of war- recovery -depression etc etc. The world ,or rather its peoples and governments keep making the same mistakes.Or perhaps they arent mistakes ,maybe they are necessities enabling us to keep some kind of status quo .
We have to use History as a guide book ,if you will,to help to stop us making the mistakes of the past. We need alternative views of history to be at least discussed without fear or favour. But most of all teachers should cultivate a thirst for knowledge amongst their pupils.I dont see much evidence of that.its not enough to fill students heads with dates etc,its not just about exam results.The quality of teaching seems to have plummeted downwards in recent years,pass rates in exams have risen,probabley due to dumbing down of the syllabus,and while I Wouldnt say Britains educational system is in chaos,it surely needs some overhauling. The demise began with the abolition of grammar schools in my view.....yes and Ive wandered oh well..

[Phil H]

Isn't history really about HOW it is taught?

To fully appreciate history, one needs context and chronology - but one can also approach those by anecdotal or personal history. I myself find the study of great sweeps or movements too impersonal and always tend to come to a new subject through an individual or a single event, working outwards from there.

Questions arise like what was his or her background; what were they like, what had been their experience to that point? Or what was the place like where this took place? What did the people of that time wear? What had caused this event - what lay behind it?

Suddenly the whole period opens up.

I have recently, after years of avoiding the American Civil War so as to avoid cutting into the interest of friends, I have started to research the battle of Gettysburg (150th anniversary this year).

So far and 150 pages of notes in, I have covered the morning of the first day!! But I have already started to get an interest in the careeers of Lee and Meade, the impact of the risk averse, conservative, McClellan and the death of Jackson. I recognise I need to know more about Antietam and other battles where the main leaders fought, have started to gain some insights into the abolitionist movement; the society of the south, northern industrialisation; and the international repercussions etc etc.

I don't see, frankly, how one can teach the history of medecin without at the same time, looking at the societies from which it emerged; the cause of change; the differences over time; the philosophies and prejudices that underlie its history. The same would be true of mathematics, Shakespeare, music or thought.

In any case, history changes with each generation. EH Carr once wrote a book "What is History?" where (as I recall) he discussed the irony that while a fact might be true or false once we link TWO or more facts, we are into perceptions and interpretation, bias and prejudice. Cause and effect are about perceptions it is not written in stone.

The American Revolution seems to be being re-interpreted over recent decades. History teaching is often behind the curve of academic thought.

But to me effective teaching of history is not about national or international, it is about opening up a subject as a flower opens its petals. We are all, as individuals, a part of all our families and our countries have met. History is also about yesterday and why today is as it is - not only about subjects that were resolved long ago.

Which leads me on to my final point - history has to be RELEVANT, otherwise it is useless and/or simply a good story. World War Two is useful and relevant because so much of the modern world - decline of empires, rise of US, The Cold War and the space race, the emergence and aims of the EU; Vietnam, Japan, the atomic bomb and the nuclear age, scientific advances - these can hardly be understood without relating them to the 1939-45 wars and the preceding period.

Fascinating topic which I will follow with great interest.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Hi Phil,

You have a valid point. If you are going to study a subject you have to see how the subject's growth reflects the periods it passes through. I have frequently felt that my lack of curiosity when in school in math was due to the failure to teach math like history - as building blocks to the present. Instead it is the number system, fractions, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, algebra, (later schools go into trigonometry or calculus) but you rarely get to see how it all evolved. I have read a few histories on math (including how the ancient Egyptians used a system based on the number 14) which far more fascinating to me than what my grade school teachers pounded into our heads. Similarly with science. In the last twenty years I have read more on my own about Greek science or about people like Darwin than when I went to school.

As for the American Civil War, it has been an interest of mine since I was a kid. I have only visited two of the battlefields (Gettysburg and Antietam), and in college wrote a history thesis on McClellan's career. He was a great organizer, and when he felt he was backed properly he did better than when he was afraid he was being shafted. That said sums it up. Best biography for McClellan is Warren Hasler's "George B. McClellan: Sword of the Union (1957). Best anti-McClellan biography is Stephen Sears more recent book (published after I graduated college).

Jeff

[Phil H]

McClellan is a good example of both the fascination and difficulty of teaching or writing history.

We can ascertain the "facts" of his life, but what do they actually mean? Was he, as some claim a "traitor" as black as Benedict Arnold? Was he just risk-averse, or afraid to risk/destroy the thing he had created - the Army of the Potomac?

Where do his politics leave him - conservative, war Democrat - opposed on the issues to his president, perhaps wanting a return to the status quo ante? But did he want to avoid defeating the South in battle because that would make early re-integration of the rebel states more problematic?

He sought adulation from his men but rarely visited them in hospitals etc. Compared to say Reynolds, Jackson, and other generals, he never seems to have risked his own life in battle. He deserted his troops in the Peninsula (during Gaines Mill - have I got the battle right?) yet his former troops welcomed his return to command after 2nd Manassas/Bull Run!!

The events, his words etc afre there for all to read and study, yet the interpretation put on them changes according to the scholar.

International or national? McClellan is the US observer during the Crimean War in Europe yet his reports miss some of the key changes in warfare emerging - in Europe. So to gain a deeper understanding of the US General one would need to have an understanding of what was going on on another continent.

To me the robe is seamless, it simply depends on how you start to unravel it and which threads you choose to follow.

Phil

[Mayerling]

Nice trope about the robe and the seams. To me he was a highly gifted man, but he was not as gifted (or prepared for his position) as he thought. He climbed quickly to command of the most important military command the North had due to his success in Western Virginia (it was not a state yet), and that ascent was too fast for a young man. It went to his head in two ways: it reenforced his sense of his importance, and it made a need for support too important for him (compare him to Grant, who was willing to experiment far more readily than "Little Mac" was, even when Grant was under public attack for being a butcher). Grant was grateful for Lincoln's support and for the promotion to General - in - Chief, but it never went to his head. He did not remove Meade (who offered to resign) from command of the Army of the Potomac. Instead he retained Meade and consulted with him on strategy and tactics. McClellan helped pressure Winfield Scott out of his post s General-in-Chief in 1861, in order to replace him. Yet when he escorted Scott to the train taking him North to New York state he regretted the dropping of the old general.

I will also add that McClellan was not the equal as a field commander of Generals Lee or Jackson, although Lee's higher abilities were mingled by errors too in the Seven Days Battles, and Antietam Creek / Sharpsburg.
Jackson was active in those battles, but his work in the Seven Days was somewhat mooted by his no longer being the field commander (he was under Lee) that he had been in his stunning Shenandoah Valley Campaign. In the Seven Days he is watching Lee and learning from him.

McClellan did go onto a gunboat (it may have been at Gaine's Mill) and it is regrettable - he ended up looking cowardly (Thomas Nast had a field day showing him reclining on a gunboat looking out towards the shore by telescope - with the caption, "All's quiet on the James River."). Both Lee and Jackson were among their troops in the battles. But in the last battle of the Seven Days, Lee squandered his best victory by a series of frontal assaults at Malvern Hill. In a slighly smaller scale model for his later disastrous Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, Lee allowed Fitz John Porter's artillery to blast his lines of charging troops, causes huge casualties. As a result it is hard to quite justify Lee "winning" the Seven Days. It's easier to suggest McClellan let him win it.

Jeff

[Wickerman]

So there seems to be two schools of thought amongst those I work with. That history in schools is no longer "proper" history because it discusses events that are too recent (the world wars) or too foreign. Or that history taught in schools should be "history" not "British History", and that topics like the History of Medicine, the rise of facism, and so forth are of equal importance if only for context.

Where exactly should the balance lie?

This seems to be a UK centered problem.

When I was at school in the UK we were taught about Roman Britain and the early kings, Alfred, William, Harold, etc. Also the age of Cromwell & Charles I. Never any mention of WW I or II. In fact we were told the wars were too recent to be classed as History in the school system.

Definitely there is a need to know the history of your own country, be it Britain or the USA, but also there is a need to learn the dawn of history, Sumeria, Egypt, Assyria, etc. The development of writing, agriculture, and the movement from pastoralism to sedentary living.

If you're looking for a simple answer, I don't think you'll find one.

[Errata]

My 10th grade European History teacher was one of "those" teachers for me. She was brilliant, and made everything very accessible. My class had a tough time understanding why things in East Germany went south in such a relatively short period of time. Being the first class of the day probably had something to do with it... but she put half of us in a classroom down the hall and said we were East Germany, the other class was the USSR. She would write something on our blackboard, go to the other class to teach until they were done, and then would run over to us to teach us everything in the remaining five minutes. Needless to say we did not do well on the test. Nor would she let us retake it, because "Nobody said life was fair". But we certainly understood the fall of empires after that.

[Phil H]

I almost became a teacher in in the mid-70s. I had a place at a teacher training college following my degree - it was a lucky thing no doubt for thousands of school children that I joined the civil service instead!!

For what it's worth, I believe that many subjects could be taught in integrated ways, thus making important links and ensuring that those with an "artistic" bent are not alienated by those more scientific subjects, and vice versa.

I think you could teach history in part through local history - when was the town founded, by whom why (might be geographical reasons - rivers, hills, a mountain pass)? Where did the people originate - immigrants could lead to a discussion of economics or geography or political events overseas? Famous local people - why and when? Buildings and architectural styles could be discussed. Local businesses and industry or farming - what is the science behind it? Natural resources etc etc. Maths could come in calculating ratios and percentages, drawing up tabl;es and so on. Have any significant events happened locally - looking at newspapers and researching sources. Even drama could be involved - acting out or roleplaying an important event. And art - creating a mural or illustrations.

I think a basis of world and national chronology is required - we need to know that the Romans were before the Vikings, and the Tudors before the Georges, but I don't place much importance on dates and battles (despite being fascinated by military history) for the young.

Ancient history can bring the Middle East into focus, religion and its development and also more than is done at the moment, perhaps a glance at Chinese history in comparison to western.

I can understand why the World Wars were not taught so much in the past - perhaps, among other reasons - exactly what they meaning was had not soldified, and wounds (in a literal sense even) could still be raw. But I think that has changed now. On the other hand it is probably too soon to start to interpret the "nd Iraq War and 9/11 - too much personal feeling might enter the classroom and there is too much latitude for racial or cultural/political bias(just MHO).

To end - in part I see this dfiscussion as about definitions. How do we define history and why? Is our definition of the subject too narrow? Should it be perceived in a more holistic, multi-disciplinary way.

As an example, I read international politics at university. It was made clear that this covered chiefly the political and military elements of interaction between nations. On the other hand international relations covered economic, social, cultural etc aspects - much wider.

So should we be redefining "history" in a less narrow and more widely-encompassing way. Not as a subject solely about the past, but one that explains the present and lays the foundations for the future?

Phil

[Beowulf]

I wonder how many students,pupils or whatever you wish to call them see any connections between their lives and experiences ,and those of the past generations...We have to use History as a guide book ,if you will,to help to stop us making the mistakes of the past.

I agree. People, though in various civilizations and cultures can teach us lessons today we should not ignore, though the unawareness of history makes ones unable to learn those lessons.

In reading the Twelve Caesars recently I came across an episode in history that had a lesson in it which my father had related to me years before and is still a good lesson regarding the danger of letting one person weild too much power. To avoid forms of government that are lax in checks and balances. In other words, tyrannies.

Many judge a leader based on their personality, their looks, their charisma. 'He's a nice guy' based on a smiling face, a seemingly unselfish act, an outward appearance.

The other day we celebrated Mother's Day.

Mother's Day is evidently very old. The earliest history dates back to the ancient annual spring festival the Greeks dedicated to maternal goddesses. The Greeks used the occasion to honor Rhea, wife of Cronus and the mother of many deities of Greek mythology.

I guess that celebration really piqued my interest to a certain passage in a book I was reading, the Twelve Caesars.

I found it amusing when I read "On the day of Nero's accession (of Emperorship to Rome) the password he gave to the colonel on duty was `The Best of Mothers".

Of course, Nero is well known for having murdered his mother. There is a painting of him reclining on a couch by Waterhouse, supposedly having regretted doing so, but he attempted it 3 or 4 times before he accomplished it.

'Tacitus claims that Nero considered poisoning or stabbing her, but felt these methods were too difficult and suspicious, so he settled on building a self-sinking boat. Though aware of the plot, Agrippina embarked on this boat and was nearly crushed by a collapsing lead ceiling only to be saved by the side of a sofa breaking the ceiling's fall. Though the collapsing ceiling missed Agrippina, it crushed her attendant who was outside by the helm.

The boat failed to sink from the lead ceiling, so the crew then sank the boat, but Agrippina swam to shore. Her friend, Acerronia Polla, was attacked by oarsmen while still in the water, and was either bludgeoned to death or drowned, since she was exclaiming that she was Agrippina, with the intention of being saved, unfortunately she did not know that this was an attempt of Agrippina's life, not a mere accident. Agrippina was met at the shore by crowds of admirers. News of Agrippina's survival reached Nero so he sent three assassins to kill her.'

In other words, he used his absolute power as Emperor to commit this heinous act. He didn't do it alone, he ordered others to build the boat, assassinate her when that failed. It's a good lesson to learn, the need for checks and balances in government.

[Phil H]

Ah - but it is all interprettion. Suetonius and Tacitus, our two most compelling written sources on the Principiate are evidently strongly biased towards the Senatorial view.

In fact the Roman republic had descended into chaos after about 80BC and it was only Augustus who restored order. It wasn't a choice (in simplistic terms) between good government and tyranny - but between civil war and uncertainty and some government.

Ronald Syme, in the 30s tried his hand at re-creating the Antonian version of the struggle after the death of Caesar and did brilliantly. Looking at our sources deeply and in a different light can open our eyes to new and perhaps more realistic interpretations.

Making this relevant to the thread theme of teaching history - I have often thought that an effective way of having students learn how REAL history once was (not a form of fiction but just like now, with all its uncertainties), is to give them a situation and parts to play - Nero, Mother, Seneca, Tigellinus etc etc - and then have them roleplay out the scenario.

Gaius Caligula and Nero both seem to have been attempting to do something strange and novel - were they mad, or misunderstood? They were related to each other and to Mark Antony - so was there possibly an Antonian "policy" they decided to implement - perhaps one that envisaged a Hellenistic style of monarchy; perhaps centuries before Constantine, a move to the east - Alexandria perhaps, closer to the wheat and the wealth?

And Nero's mother, Agrippina was the daughter of a woman who had opposed Tiberius and been imprisoned, as had her sons; her father was Germanicus, who may have seen himself as a better candidate for Emperor than Tiberius and died for it. So was Agrippina seeking to manipulate Nero and he could not allow that; was she perhaps pursuing Claudian policies (her last husband was Claudius, the previous Emperor) in opposition to those of Nero and his advisers? Was it Nero who had her killed or was it his advisers who insisted on it?

In judging Nero, I can never forget that Trajan, a later emperor but usually regarded as an effective one, wished that he could be seen as being as good as Nero's first five years had been. Some tribute!

I agree wholly that all history is potentially relevant to today's issues. But I do believe that we have to respect the different realities of the past. Some tyranny (BENEVOLENT) kingship or dictatorship may have been essential in Rome, or to govern Alexander's empire, since the time was neither ripe for democracy nor were modern institutions really practical. But their mistakes can help us.

I'll ask a question, was Abraham Lincoln a dictator who acted illegally and suppressed evident states rights, or a far-seeing saint whos actions still benefit a world 150 years later?

Phil