Children should be taught history well

thebossman · Jul 5, 2010

David said:
So Gandhi was a man of peace that wished for the deaths of over 20 million people. That is what you get by stating 'facts' but offering no context, explanation or opinion. It's a simple statement of simple fact that lets a person know about something but teaches them nothing. Great for Trivial Pursuit, not so great for laying the foundations of a civilization, improving on the works of others or avoiding repeating mistakes.

No, both are opinions. One is reasonable inference and the other is nonsense.

Historical facts should record Gandhi's life events and his own teachings as he recorded it his own writings.

Either let students judge what he really was based on those facts or offer an opinion by clearly demarking them from those which are undisputed facts.

David · Jul 5, 2010

thebossman said:
No, both are opinions. One is reasonable inference and the other is nonsense.

Historical facts should record Gandhi's life events and his own teachings as he recorded it his own writings.

Either let students judge what he really was based on those facts or offer an opinion by clearly demarking them from those which are undisputed facts.

I did. Gandhi wrote several letters to Jewish leaders telling them to let themselves get exterminated least they resist and start a war.

We're getting off topic, my point has been made.

thebossman · Jul 5, 2010

David said:
I did. Gandhi wrote several letters to Jewish leaders telling them to let themselves get exterminated least they resist and start a war.

We're getting off topic, my point has been made.

I will make the distinction.

The contents of Gandhi's letters to the Jewish leaders would be historical facts. Any interpretation you put on them are opinion. So yes, all you've been stating up to now are opinions.

I hope you are able to appreciate the point I am trying to make. Similarly the events of Mahatma Gandhi's life would be facts. Whether he was a great leader or an apostle of peace would be an opinion derived from those facts.

David · Jul 5, 2010

thebossman said:
I will make the distinction.

The contents of Gandhi's letters to the Jewish leaders would be historical facts. Any interpretation you put on them are opinion. So yes, all you've been stating up to now are opinions.

I hope you are able to appreciate the point I am trying to make. Similarly the events of Mahatma Gandhi's life would be facts. Whether he was a great leader or an apostle of peace would be an opinion derived from those facts.

So you would have the history books say what? "Gandhi existed."? The point of history ins't to gain knowledge but wisdom, leaving out the effects, reasons, ect. of history to 'avoid bias' makes this impossible.

thebossman · Jul 5, 2010

David said:
So you would have the history books say what? "Gandhi existed."? The point of history ins't to gain knowledge but wisdom, leaving out the effects, reasons, ect. of history to 'avoid bias' makes this impossible.

Actually if you read my posts carefully I never said don't express opinions in history books. All I said was, present facts accurately and without mixing them with opinions. Express opinions separately by clearly marking it as such. Don't mislead children (especially) by presenting opinions as bare facts. Again, if a historian has no idea what is fact and what is opinion, he shouldn't be one. Even with my own limited knowledge of history I have a reasonably clear idea of the distinction. An academic scholar should have no issues.

To reiterate, all I said was present the bare facts as bare facts and separate them from opinions. You're looking for an argument where there is none actually.

Oh, and historical facts are a lot more than saying "Gandhi lived."

notimpressed · Jul 6, 2010

A truly clever teacher finds ways to let the student draw their own conclusions. A students own conclusion could then be wrong only, if the information presented is inaccurate and/or skewed by opinion.

jdsingle · Jul 6, 2010

thebossman said:
Actually if you read my posts carefully I never said don't express opinions in history books. All I said was, present facts accurately and without mixing them with opinions. Express opinions separately by clearly marking it as such. Don't mislead children (especially) by presenting opinions as bare facts. Again, if a historian has no idea what is fact and what is opinion, he shouldn't be one. Even with my own limited knowledge of history I have a reasonably clear idea of the distinction. An academic scholar should have no issues.

To reiterate, all I said was present the bare facts as bare facts and separate them from opinions. You're looking for an argument where there is none actually.

Oh, and historical facts are a lot more than saying "Gandhi lived."

What makes something a historical fact then? Because you or someone else says so?

Food for thought

thebossman · Jul 6, 2010

jdsingle said:
What makes something a historical fact then? Because you or someone else says so?

Food for thought

Simple, if a thing can be proven to have taken place with reasonable evidence and independent sources, it is a fact.

If a thing is a statement that expresses a viewpoint about a certain character or period in history then it is most likely an opinion, unless it is stating that the viewpoint was expressed by another person, which statement would then be a fact.

Consider the below examples:

'X said "so and so was the golden period of history"' ---> this is a statement of fact if you can prove that X really did say the above words with due authoritative references. The truth of what X actually said is not in question here, merely the fact that X said the above.

'So and so was the golden period of history' ---> Opinion, when it is a bald statement without any proof to back it up.

jdsingle · Jul 6, 2010

All vague definitions in my opinion. A historical fact is no more a fact than anything else. It is subjective in nature. Why? For the mere reason that our minds are not perfect. They are forgetful, and they are biased. Although certain dates have been declared as the date the war started, it doesn't make it absolutely certain that that is when it happened. Only by word of mouth have you learned unless you were alive at that time and place the event took place.

thebossman · Jul 7, 2010

jdsingle said:
All vague definitions in my opinion. A historical fact is no more a fact than anything else. It is subjective in nature. Why? For the mere reason that our minds are not perfect. They are forgetful, and they are biased. Although certain dates have been declared as the date the war started, it doesn't make it absolutely certain that that is when it happened. Only by word of mouth have you learned unless you were alive at that time and place the event took place.

So basically you're saying that all the history you've learned so far is a waste because everything is subjective, so I can pass off my opinion of a historical event as undisputed fact. That represents the height of sheer intellectual laziness, not to mention dishonesty, in my view and is inexcusable in anybody who claims to be a historian.

Just because you consider it a vague definition doesn't mean the procedures adopted for verifying and collecting facts can be dropped and people can claim anything as history. Human mind's bias cannot erase or remove events that have actually occurred and a man who approaches a task objectively can set aside his personal feelings in the matter. And it can be done with a solid background of knowledge and professional training.

If you're SURE that something has happened in the past today you have to thank those historians who collected facts and verified them meticulously. Even recent history would be fuddled if nobody bothered with collecting data in a very precise and methodical manner and everybody was "biased" as you claim.

Today in an electronic age when you can record anything that happens with a video camera and it's broadcast around the world and preserve it for posterity, this is not a very positive way of looking at things.

I think you carry the principle of "everything is relative so let's stop worrying about what is true and what is false" to an extreme level. The only reason I feel you're doing this is to somehow disagree with my very valid point.

el canadiano · Jul 7, 2010

I want to see less bias taught in history. As much as we should (as an example) denounce Hitler for stuff like the holocaust, you also have to realize that if it wasn't for him, Germany's economy would've triple-plummeted (double plummet from both the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression combined). And honestly, George W. Bush was as much of a terrorist to "them" as they were to the western world.

jdsingle · Jul 9, 2010

thebossman said:
So basically you're saying that all the history you've learned so far is a waste because everything is subjective, so I can pass off my opinion of a historical event as undisputed fact. That represents the height of sheer intellectual laziness, not to mention dishonesty, in my view and is inexcusable in anybody who claims to be a historian.

Just because you consider it a vague definition doesn't mean the procedures adopted for verifying and collecting facts can be dropped and people can claim anything as history. Human mind's bias cannot erase or remove events that have actually occurred and a man who approaches a task objectively can set aside his personal feelings in the matter. And it can be done with a solid background of knowledge and professional training.

If you're SURE that something has happened in the past today you have to thank those historians who collected facts and verified them meticulously. Even recent history would be fuddled if nobody bothered with collecting data in a very precise and methodical manner and everybody was "biased" as you claim.

Today in an electronic age when you can record anything that happens with a video camera and it's broadcast around the world and preserve it for posterity, this is not a very positive way of looking at things.

I think you carry the principle of "everything is relative so let's stop worrying about what is true and what is false" to an extreme level. The only reason I feel you're doing this is to somehow disagree with my very valid point.

Nope. Just putting out food for thought. You don't do a good job at making inferences into what my post was in relation too. I was merely stating that unless you were there all you have is word of mouth or more recently video footage of things. People still deny certain events happened even after being shown photographic or video evidence. All they do is tell it differently and that different story is what becomes history to whoever it is passed on to.

Frogger · Jul 18, 2010

As a menber of Phi Alpha Theta national honor society of historians and students of history I have always tried my best to adhere to the maxim of the 19th century German historian Leopold von Ranke; ... nicht das Amt die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zuk?nftiger Jahre zu belehren, sondern blo? zu zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen ist. (It is not the job of the historian to judge the past or to instruct those in the present with an eye toward the future but simply to report history as it actually happened.)

obtuseobserver · Aug 4, 2010

prasanth5 said:
I think children at our homes should be taught history well. This makes them rooted not only in their nation's past but also in the glory of the whole world in general. History is a subject that should never be dumped.

without doubt

imo, the most important course of learning a person may undertake... it touches on the important developments of human growth and acheivement (and the contrary events as well)

ladypantherz33 · Jun 28, 2011

thebossman said:
Too many historians are passing off their personal opinion as facts. This is diluting the real value of history and would lead to dangerous distortions which might be accepted as fact.

I agree with you 100%! History has become an opinion, and not cold hard facts. Yes, you can interpret how things were used and done, but sometimes people take that to far. Another factor is people are embaressed and willing to cover up what their ancestors have done. An example is the Texas government. They wanted to change the textbooks to shed a better light on the governments judgement in the past. I think that history is our greatest teacher, and should not be changed. Things were done that can not and should not be undone in order to give us the life we have today. Kids need to learn the importance of history along with the facts in order to stay away from the mistakes everyone is so eager to erase from the minds of the public.

charleighants556 · Aug 5, 2011

What part of history though? As one of my close friends said to me yesterday: "You can spend your whole lifetime studying history, and only scratch the surface."

george · Aug 21, 2011

stories inspire children to a very great extent, but historical stories taught to children must be violence free, this must be kept in mind that children' smind is an empty book, you write things in it, and these writings should be violence free...

DodgeFB · Aug 21, 2011

george said:
stories inspire children to a very great extent, but historical stories taught to children must be violence free, this must be kept in mind that children' smind is an empty book, you write things in it, and these writings should be violence free...

I disagree. If you are to teach children it must be complete and true or it is not "history". It is a bedtime story. And we all know we need to prepare children for life not a fairy-tale. Those two need to be kept clear and well defined.

netanyahoo · Oct 7, 2011

Holocaust of Native Americans is ignored too

jdsingle said:
I do not believe that History in the United States is taught well at all, at least in my experience. I don't have to look any further than Jaywalking, a show on TV where Jay Leno asks people questions that they should easily know. Some guy didn't even know what the Holocaust was. It hasn't even been more than a century since that happened.

The education system in America is in need of reform and parents need to stop making schools lower the educational standards because their kids don't want to go home and do homework.

Holocaust of Native Americans is ignored too which happened after German holocaust. So, US tries to omit the important historic details from their historic books deliberately.

David · Oct 7, 2011

netanyahoo said:
Holocaust of Native Americans is ignored too which happened after German holocaust. So, US tries to omit the important historic details from their historic books deliberately.

After? By WW2 the tribes were being integrated into American life and the gov't started giving back the land it had conquered. Before yes, not after.

Children should be taught history well

Similar threads