FaceCalifornia. Repeatedly.

[agamemnus]

So of course history education is primarily composed of the first three

I don't think that is a universal effect, but it seems to be pretty common. It's much easier for teachers to give a multiple choice test on what date Alexander first battled the Persians than to ask students to write about the lasting impact of Alexander's empire.

It's also easier to grade multiple choice tests.

It's also easier to teach those.

Thus it goes back to teacher quality (and student quality), not some indomitable tendency towards mediocrity.

[Loki]

Major historical figures. . . almost always a pointless exercise in rote memorization. The who, the where, and the when are the least useful, most trivia-based areas of knowledge in history education. The what and they why are the only questions that matter. The others merely serve to help keep track of things and give them some context. So of course history education is primarily composed of the first three

You can't learn the why and the how until you know the who and what.

[Ominous Gamer]

Major historical events and concepts rarely revolve around a single person. How much of history consists of being in the right place at the right time? and history is so rarely written by the deeds of a single name. Students (and its not only their fault), at least in America, have an extremely hard time understanding history as a conceptual experience (the why), and usually end up requiring some sort of labeling, which ends up being the "who"

Take the light bulb and modern electricity for example. So commonly tied to Edison's name, when honestly, it should be taught as a result of the industrial research laboratory.

[LittleFuzzy]

You can't learn the why and the how until you know the who and what.

You can't learn without the what, but I said the what. How is usually not closely explained in history education, that's pretty much on the learner to figure out. The who is usually interchangeable and hence not all that meaningful. Like the when, it only serves to keep events separated and tracked accurately in all but rare cases. You're the IR realist, but now you're trying to claim that it's the person who matters and not the situation?

[Loki]

You can't learn without the what, but I said the what. How is usually not closely explained in history education, that's pretty much on the learner to figure out. The who is usually interchangeable and hence not all that meaningful. Like the when, it only serves to keep events separated and tracked accurately in all but rare cases. You're the IR realist, but now you're trying to claim that it's the person who matters and not the situation?

I'm not talking about what matters more. I'm saying that one can't appreciate historical events without knowing some basics about the actors and the situation.

Major historical events and concepts rarely revolve around a single person. How much of history consists of being in the right place at the right time? and history is so rarely written by the deeds of a single name. Students (and its not only their fault), at least in America, have an extremely hard time understanding history as a conceptual experience (the why), and usually end up requiring some sort of labeling, which ends up being the "who"

Take the light bulb and modern electricity for example. So commonly tied to Edison's name, when honestly, it should be taught as a result of the industrial research laboratory.

It doesn't hurt to know some of the people responsible for the invention and a rough idea of the context (including a rough date) when it took place. Without that basic information, the conceptual learning is much more difficult to achieve. Try getting someone to understand WWI when they don't know most of the countries involved, the leaders of those countries, or even the time period during which it took place.

And let's be honest here, the kind of concepts taught to high schoolers are inevitably so simplified as to be caricatures. I'm prefer someone knew the basic facts when they came to college than if they came to college with no knowledge of facts along with a warped idea of historical processes.

[Ominous Gamer]

Try getting someone to understand WWI when they don't know most of the countries involved, the leaders of those countries, or even the time period during which it took place.

Explain this more in depth.

I understand how WWI came about because of treaties and alliances, sometimes secret, inflamed by imperialism and nationalism, following a domino effect after an assassination. I don't remember the the leaders' name, who exactly was assassinated, hell I'll even admit I don't even remember all the major players (only that some no longer exist). I don't know exact dates either, only a general time frame.

Now, on a conceptual level, and I missing something important about how the world was lead into the Great War?

Should I do the same for how the handling at the end and after the war did little to divert WWII?

[agamemnus]

Well, I'm sure 95% of us remember that it was Archduke Ferdinand who was assassinated, but it's not really important. However, you should be able to know at least which major countries fought on which sides because the end result of whether they won or lost (and the war and armistice affected them) is the building block of WWII and eventually modern history.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not talking about what matters more. I'm saying that one can't appreciate historical events without knowing some basics about the actors and the situation.

What did I say in that first post? "The others merely serve to help keep track of things and give them some context." That sounds a lot like what you just said. So. . . what, you're nitpicking because you didn't like how stark I was?

[Loki]

Explain this more in depth.

I understand how WWI came about because of treaties and alliances, sometimes secret, inflamed by imperialism and nationalism, following a domino effect after an assassination. I don't remember the the leaders' name, who exactly was assassinated, hell I'll even admit I don't even remember all the major players (only that some no longer exist). I don't know exact dates either, only a general time frame.

Now, on a conceptual level, and I missing something important about how the world was lead into the Great War?

Should I do the same for how the handling at the end and after the war did little to divert WWII?

The high school explanation is generally some combination of: secret alliances, German blank check, nationalism, and the Anglo-German naval race, with the assassination of the Habsburg heir serving as the catalyst. Some primary documents from the time period are used to support this case. While there is some truth to these hypotheses (one of the problems of a secondary education is that hypotheses are often treated as facts), they are grossly oversimplified. The treaties in question weren't particularly secret; it's unclear whether Germany could have stayed out of the war even if it wanted to; nationalism is a constant and can't really be used to explain specific wars; and the arms race was one cause among many. More generally, the biggest flaws with the high school explanation is that A) it implies that individual wars have precise and discernible causes, B) it treats hypotheses as facts (and overlooks many other potential hypotheses; there are dozens of "theories" about the causes of WWI in IR and History), and C) it ignores underlying conditions that made the War likely.

Point C is where my earlier criticism comes in. It helps to know that WWI took place in 1914, as that was shortly after the Spanish-American War (which made American entrance into WWI more likely), shortly after the Russo-Japanese War (which made everyone, particularly the Austrians, sense Russia's weakness), and shortly after machine guns became widely available (leaders at the time falsely assumed that machine guns would be a great offensive weapon). It helps to know that Austria invaded Serbia, as the former was a stagnating multi-ethnic empire and the latter a revanchist state with a history of being supported by Slavic Russia. It helps to know that Germany supported Austria because it feared encirclement and therefore couldn't afford to have its Austrian ally defeated. It helps to know that Britain had a history of guaranteeing the neutrality of the Netherlands and Belgium, and therefore would be unlikely to tolerate German occupation of either. Etc.

[Loki]

What did I say in that first post? "The others merely serve to help keep track of things and give them some context." That sounds a lot like what you just said. So. . . what, you're nitpicking because you didn't like how stark I was?

And I think spending a few extra days learning about the context surrounding one of the bloodiest wars of all time is a better use of time than learning about obscure individuals, whose accomplishments are incredibly narrow. Now if the purpose of high school History is to make children more accepting of alternate lifestyles and beliefs, then sure, the alternative is probably better.

[LittleFuzzy]

And I think spending a few extra days learning about the context surrounding one of the bloodiest wars of all time is a better use of time than learning about obscure individuals, whose accomplishments are incredibly narrow. Now if the purpose of high school History is to make children more accepting of alternate lifestyles and beliefs, then sure, the alternative is probably better.

You're still conflating "major historical events" (the what) and "major historical figures" (the who). This isn't going to go anywhere while you insist on doing a find and replace on my terms to change what I said.

[Loki]

Ok, less time learning about context of WWI, more time learning about San Francisco gay rights movement.

[GGT]

History and Literature get short-changed. It's amazing we're still on the K-12 + 4 year degree plan, after so many added decades of historical world changes. We should either add school days to each year, summer school, year-round or another whole year. There's just too much to cram in now without glossing over or ignoring huge chunks of time.

[Ominous Gamer]

History and Literature get short-changed. It's amazing we're still on the K-12 + 4 year degree plan, after so many added decades of historical world changes. We should either add school days to each year, summer school, year-round or another whole year. There's just too much to cram in now without glossing over or ignoring huge chunks of time.

Thats why we have world history (WWI) and american history (gay rights) as different classes in most curriculums. Loki's current issue sounds like the same moaning people had when schools started beginning their american history classes at the beginning, then ending, of the Civil War.

[Dreadnaught]

I have no objection to the general concept of teaching the experiences of various groups. I think my only objection is the law could be used to fuel never-ending lawsuits from interest groups that their particular group isn't being properly represented/included.

[CitizenCain]

His work was among the more important in winning the war as well as bringing about the modern age. he was also hassled like you wouldn't believe for his homosexuality and after undergoing forced "treatments" finally ended up committing suicide. There's a lot to think about in that story, even for highschoolers. History, sociology, philosophy, psychology, whatevs

Right, and that's the proper approach, not this bureaucratic clusterfuck. When you discuss an important historical figure, instead of whitewashing over any aspect of his or life that might be controversial... actually discuss it.

Like how Ben Franklin was an alcoholic man-slut or how Winston Churchill was an alcoholic failure who'd been drummed out of both the Admiralty and the national political arena in utter disgrace, to later become one of the world's most pivotal and renowned figures... and was rewarded for his war efforts by being thrown out of office in exchange for someone who offered the voters more free stuff. Or how Turing was rewarded for his role in saving his civilization and society by being harassed and forcibly "treated" for his sexual preferences until he took his own life.

Of course, the "proper" approach might actually lead to the kiddies learning valuable lessons and/or practicing independent thought, which makes it a tough sell to government bureaucrats whose existence is more or less predicated on the absence of those things.

If you're not Californian, and if this change isn't going to make our curriculum any worse, then may I kindly ask you to remove your nose from our business?

Only if the rest of us can apply that standard to California and all prominent Californians. Not that the crazy left-wing that's so popular in your state would ever dream of legislating its crazy standards on the rest of us and/or almost all of our consumer goods, or even, say, inflict your batshit crazy politicians onto the rest of the country as speaker of the house or anything.

You can't learn the why and the how until you know the who and what.

That's completely backwards. I can't even count the number of excellent (published) profs I had who couldn't recite the who and what of their field from memory, yet still made a living and had sterling reputations for knowing the how and the why. They carried little cheat sheets for the who and the what, because that wasn't the important part.

Of course, as with everything else, our public education system fucks it up and does things backwards, so kids come out of it with a bunch of useless memorized trivia, rather than an understanding of why any of it is worth caring about. And, as a result, they forget all of it a week after final exams and enter the world with as much useful knowledge as they left the 4th grade with... and FWIW, that seems to apply to every subject, not just the soft sciences.

But clearly, forcing the curriculum to include Markella Ramirez-Chang, the pregnant, transgendered American of mixed Pacific Islander, African America, Native American, Asian American, Mexican American, Guatemalan America, Irish, Russian descent who was born with Downs Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis... and all hisher contributions to history is a much more pressing concern than actually addressing any of the issues facing the country's best funded, worst performing public school system. (Or maybe it's 2nd best funded, 48th worst performing? Something like that.)

Ok, less time learning about context of WWI, more time learning about San Francisco gay rights movement.

Oh, no. Not according to this bill. According to this bill, less time learning about the existence of WWI and more time spent learning about the contributions of transgendered, lesbian, Native American/African American/Mexican American/Asian American/Pacific Islanders to the development of California. Something to give them real world skills, such as knowing who the first transgendered, lesbian, Native American/African American/Mexican American/Asian American/Pacific Islander from California to set foot on the moon was.

Really, that right there is the problem with America. That a group of people presiding over 66 billion dollars of utterly wasted tax money can pass such a pandering, useless, trivial piece of crap like this bill, in lieu of trying to unfuck the fuck-up they created... and not only are they spared the lynching they so richly deserve, they even get to keep their jobs and continue wasting tens of billions of dollars making things worse.

Three cheers for democracy, right?

[Aimless]

In many fields experts "learn to forget", eg. learn the who and the what but forget much of it once the most important things have solidified in their rapidly aging brains. But those are experts, not new learners.

[Loki]

That's completely backwards. I can't even count the number of excellent (published) profs I had who couldn't recite the who and what of their field from memory, yet still made a living and had sterling reputations for knowing the how and the why. They carried little cheat sheets for the who and the what, because that wasn't the important part.

Academics operate at a different level than school children. There are plenty of mathematicians who don't know arithmetic. But for most people, learning the latter is a good prerequisite for learning more advanced math.

Thats why we have world history (WWI) and american history (gay rights) as different classes in most curriculums. Loki's current issue sounds like the same moaning people had when schools started beginning their american history classes at the beginning, then ending, of the Civil War.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've had both types of topics covered in my social studies classes. I don't care whether some important topics are skipped (there's no way around it), but I do care that important topics aren't replaced with obscure ones.

[Ominous Gamer]

In many fields experts "learn to forget", eg. learn the who and the what but forget much of it once the most important things have solidified in their rapidly aging brains. But those are experts, not new learners.

I agree that the 5 Ws are important for understanding new context, but the problem comes in with what new learners are forced to memorize because its the easiest information to test on. The Why is not so easy, but the Who sure is.

How does that song start out...In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue...
Now look how screwed up America is when it comes to the history of Columbus!

I don't know what you're talking about.

I've had both types of topics covered in my social studies classes.

I don't think I had a regular social studies class after 6th grade. 7th and 8th were split between american and world history, and that process repeated in high school, and again with AP. We also had elective history classes that were focused on certain time frames or events. I remember taking a Vietnam War class my senior year.

I don't care whether some important topics are skipped (there's no way around it), but I do care that important topics aren't replaced with obscure ones.

and I don't see anything in this bill that is going to require this. Its simply extended the protections that were already in place, protections that most states either already have, or follow. Like mentioning the Tuskegee Airmen, or the contributions of black civil war soldiers, or mentioning Sacagawea when you get to Lewis and Clark.

[Loki]

Except that's not what it means. The legislation calls for teaching more about various "diverse" figures. That means learning more about the "leaders" of all the "ethnic" and "sexuality" movements and an overview of those movements. And learning that must be default come at the expense of what is currently taught.

[Aimless]

Let them eat more schooldays

[agamemnus]

Let them eat more schooldays

How droll.

[LittleFuzzy]

Only if the rest of us can apply that standard to California and all prominent Californians. Not that the crazy left-wing that's so popular in your state would ever dream of legislating its crazy standards on the rest of us and/or almost all of our consumer goods, or even, say, inflict your batshit crazy politicians onto the rest of the country as speaker of the house or anything.

Those would actually be examples of us doing something that affected someone other than ourselves. Which my text plainly considered a reasonable standard for objection.

[Loki]

Does that mean if Chavez does something insane (again) and continue ruining his country, but not anything that screws his neighbors (this time), it should be off-limits for discussion?

[CitizenCain]

Those would actually be examples of us doing something that affected someone other than ourselves. Which my text plainly considered a reasonable standard for objection.

Well, as painful as it is, California's assorted curricular lunacies do effect the rest of us in that they largely set the standard for available textbooks based on being the largest market for such things. So while no one in Ohio gives a crap about inventing history to teach kids about the importance of impregnated, transgendered Eskimos with degenerative nuero-muscular disorders, we get it shoved on us as a result of California's politicos pandering to the stupidest and most pathetic of their widely assorted constituents.

Not that I object to diversity, mind you, but rather to the type of revisionist pandering that blames the current state of the world on every obscure ethnic group and vanishingly rare variant of human being, when it's painfully clear that history has been made and impacted by white, heterosexual, "Christian" men who generally went to great pains to persecute and exclude anyone who didn't share their skin color, genital configuration and belief system. Which, incidentally is pretty much the same way it works everywhere else too, except that occasionally the skin color and belief system of those in power is different, but nothing else changes.

As I said before, I understand why teaching children to think for themselves and illuminating them as to the foolishness of aiding the government and/or society at large is not a viable option (the truth rarely is), but that doesn't mean I'm going to stand by silently while the government mandates even greater contortions of the facts to fit the political views of a fringe group of lunatics in a constituency which is already pushing the limits of sanity.

Does that mean if Chavez does something insane (again) and continue ruining his country, but not anything that screws his neighbors (this time), it should be off-limits for discussion?

Well, maybe it's high time we do make Chavez and his country off-limits. You know, like we do with dump sites for nuclear waste. Just wall it off, and come back after the toxicity has reduced to survivable levels to study what, if any, life has been able to evolve in an environment we consider fatal to any life-form with a brain stem.

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, as painful as it is, California's assorted curricular lunacies do effect the rest of us in that they largely set the standard for available textbooks based on being the largest market for such things.

Was this the textbook committee? I don't see anything indicating it's the textbook committee. And to the best of my knowledge, when the first form of this statute passed, it didn't alter textbooks or enter the guidelines listed for publishers. Teachers supplemented their textbooks with their own material or other sources *go figure, doing something besides straight reading from the textbook once in a while* In this case, since as I said earlier this bill is mostly about requiring mention of Harvey Milk as some political Bay Area fan-service, presumably by showing excerpts from Milk. Is it useless? Absolutely. But it's not like the teacher was going to spend the time on something besides "fill in the blank person's name" material anyway. So why do you give a shit?

[Loki]

The article said this change will affect textbooks, but that teachers will have to use supplemental material until that happens.

One lesson on "Milk", another on Native American activists, another on Hispanic activists, another on additional black activists, maybe another on other minorities...

[CitizenCain]

Was this the textbook committee? I don't see anything indicating it's the textbook committee. And to the best of my knowledge, when the first form of this statute passed, it didn't alter textbooks or enter the guidelines listed for publishers. Teachers supplemented their textbooks with their own material or other sources *go figure, doing something besides straight reading from the textbook once in a while* In this case, since as I said earlier this bill is mostly about requiring mention of Harvey Milk as some political Bay Area fan-service, presumably by showing excerpts from Milk.

For now, maybe that's all it is and how it's used. But the law is a blunt instrument and as close to immortality as we can get. We both know that in a few years, after the intent is forgotten, or that Harvey Milk guy just not the most prominent niche cause anymore, this is going to be used as justification or defense of shoving God-knows-what down everyone's throat as soon as anyone with an agenda finds it useful. And, like the tens of thousands of other laws on the books, good luck repealing it, even centuries after it's outlived its usefulness and is demonstrably doing nothing but harm.

Is it useless? Absolutely. But it's not like the teacher was going to spend the time on something besides "fill in the blank person's name" material anyway. So why do you give a shit?

Because "useless" political pandering is the most unrealistic, generous, optimistic, best-case-scenario description of this law. In reality, it's not useless at all. It's worse; it's harmful. Minimally harmful at best, if only because it's joined by a countless multitude of similar statutes and falsehoods all also added for no good reason and for no good benefit, that together comprise a legal code so bloated and unmanageable that its size is no longer officially counted.

Even more fundamentally than that, what this really does is allows socially and government sanctioned violence against people who don't share this particular group of politicians' views on the importance of obscure groups of (vaguely defined) people in world history. That's what makes it so repugnant and obscene. "Believe what we [and our insanely stupid] constituents say and repeat it as Truth to the young and impressionable, or we will direct violence at you until you comply (or die)."

And of course, the fact that otherwise rational people like yourself don't seem to have a problem with (and even defend) forcing fringe beliefs on people through the threat of force just makes it all the more appalling, in a look-how-far-we-fallen kind of way. The law is supposed to be about truth and justice... or at the very least, retain some semblance of either, and not be just an excuse to send armed agents after anyone of a slightly different opinion on relatively trivial topics.

[Aimless]

How droll.

I'm serious. They have too few schooldays, if they had more they could afford to spend some.of it on gay people