History, True or False?

History is the tool by which students begin the life long process of sharpening critical thinking skills, learn the value of certain “soft skills” (such as tolerance), and begin to appreciate the complexities of change management. One could argue, and indeed Dr. ED Hirsch has spent nearly his entire life doing just that, that an education which is weak in history fails to prepare students to participate in the essential conversations governing their world.

Then, there is the whole cyclic nature of history to consider.. How is a student to begin to recognize the generational similarities between today’s world and that of War of the Roses, Amada Crisis, and/or Glorious Revolution if they are constantly limited to content curated for political correct restraints?

This is not to say young students should be exposed to the bloody and gory details of the of the Crusades (for example) or, do I believe, students should be pressured to accept today’s political views on the past.

IMHO, students should be provided with a developmentally appropriate objective account of their country/world’s past, and then encouraged to examine that past through a lens of inductive reasoning. To my students, this translates into my expectation for them to practice thinking critically, questioning frequently, and communicating clearly. -I goal I myself work towards daily!

For example, when I teach the account of King John to 3rd graders I do not go into lengthy details of the gruesome methods King John used to extract payment from his nobles; nor, do I go into a lengthy debate/detail on the influence of the papacy at that time. I do, however, explain to students the significant role the pope had at that time and why people at that time were so concerned with the closing of churches -a hard concept for some students to understand now days.

I focus on those issues of King John’s reign that are revenant to my student’s world. We might talk about how King John’s inability to read or even sign his own name might have been a barrier to his understanding his role in society. They might, to the cringing of some administrators, engage in mock debates on the various tenets of the Magna Carta, learn a little Latin, and write a narrative about a time they were forced to agree to do something they didn’t want to do. In short, I do my very best to make their classroom learning experience relevant to THEIR world rather than expect them to adopt my perception as their own.

PS Sorry for the length of my comment but my word count got away from me

I think kids should be taught from an early age that history isn’t simple, and that the “truth” can often depend on where you’re looking from. (In saying that, I’m not talking about blatant lies, which the current occupant of the White House is so fond of telling.) Maybe if we can get people to look at issues from both sides we will understand that there are no cut an dried solutions, and that there can be truth (and moral, thinking people) on both sides of an argument.

I attended Catholic elementary school. We studied English history, and I’ll never forget that in our history books, “Bloody Mary” was defended as just trying to protect her faith, while Elizabeth was a terrible queen who killed those who followed the “true” religion. That has stuck with me through 60-plus years; it would have been so much better to have learned where each side was coming from and why things happened as they did.

Kids also need to see historical figures as people, because it may help them understand that just like all people, leaders make mistakes and do stupid and immoral things. That’s truth, too.

My amazing History teacher for A Level told us two important things about History:

1. History is never black and white. It is shades of grey.

2. The victors wrote the History books.

I would add a third: The generals and politicians are the tellers of History because their records are most often the only ones that exist.

While working on the First World War centennial commemorations I learned a great deal about individual ordinary people who were never mentioned in any books except as part of a ‘common herd’, both socially and as statistics. Not just soldiers and not only men.

It was wonderful to know that so many schools took part in projects. Some asked their pupils to research a person from the same school who had been through the war. It wasn’t celebration but digging up memories of what had never been written in books. Many of their stories are now in books as part local history.

I’m from Northern Ireland, Protestant mother, Catholic father, brought up on a mixed council estate in the1960s and 1970s. We were a tribe in our little square within the estate, regardless of religion. We went to different schools and different churches. But if we differed in opinions we never went there. There was no point. We differed in a lot of ways but we knew to be tolerant. That’s how our friendships survived.

We recognised propaganda early on in our lives. We recognised rabble-rousers. Not everyone is so lucky. Trying to explain that to others is extremely difficult. They are entrenched in their beliefs and it’s a series of ‘But they did this’ and ‘But they did that’. They’re not wrong. Seeing both sides is rare. It’s difficult. Tolerance for the differences is the key. Sadly I find the loudest voices voices still tend to be the rabble-rousers who pump out one virulent view.

I would argue that there is rarely an undeniable truth or an uncomplicated one, with people doing bad things for both good and bad reasons and inversely, with points of view or aspects forgotten to make a simpler version more easily told and remembered, to protect themselves, to give themselves advantages etc It all ends up being whispers transmitted overtime. Even if we forced the learning of texts word by word to be sure of the transmission as we do for poetry, who would choose which texts to remember? As in all things maybe we need balance, to remember and to forget at the same time. Each new generation has to do that, to remember what was before to create from it, and forget it at the same time, to create something new and feel like they can add something. Is there a difference in creativity and entrepreneurship between North America and Europe? Europe is heavy on the history side and I sometimes get the feeling it weighs as much as a stone cathedral, what can we do that hasn’t already been done, do we have the right to feel like we could make a difference, to compare ourselves to those that have come before? We have to free ourselves from this to make our time our own, but still learn from what was to not have to start from scratch. Maybe there should be a balance too in the way we remember history. Maybe we could actually leave the choice to each individual, learning what they feel like learning as we propose subjects but do not enforce them so they still feel that what they think and feel counts, and while making a model of questioning what we read to develop critical thinking, and not judge what is worth learning and what isn’t. Ultimately I think we all have to make the choice of what version we believe in, helped by those who came before us, and we all learn a history with holes that can’t be filled, except by future time travellers and writers!

Here in Australia an entire history was erased: the acts of the invading white people did to try to wipe out the Indigenous Australian peoples. To make the lie of “Terra nullius” true. Slowly it is all coming out: the arsenic in the food; the smallpox infected blankets; the massacres – literally 100s and 100s of instances where white people killed, shot, hung, burned, etc the local indigenous people. Even the ones that had helped them survive. The British Settlers didn’t consider them human – they were “fauna” so they could be treated like animals.
The history is only just starting to be written of the 195 indigenous nations, that existed in a complex mesh of political and trading relations, with people speaking hundreds of different languages. A 60,000 year old culture that educates in story and art their history, mythology, culture and even geological events that happened thousands of years earlier – including, for example, the days before the Great Australian Bight existed, and how the land was taken over by the sea. Indigenous Australians were marginalised, called druggies and alcos, had their children stolen and given to wipe people to use as slaves into up until the 1970s. And their land was taken too – the country to which they belong, that they had been managing and caring for 60,000 years, stolen from them and destroyed by agricultural interests that didn’t understand the Australian soil, climate, weather patterns, needs, etc.

Racism is still a political norm in Australia with mining companies given rights to mine aboriginal land without their consent, for example, and so, so, many aboriginal deaths in custody that strangely, no-one is to blame for. The Australian Government would rather spend money on the already well-funded War Memorial in Canberra, than on an Aboriginal history or art museum, memorial to the many aboriginal dead, or even on the historians and ethnographers to research indigenous history.

So Jody, yes, it is important for the truth to be known. For the descendants of the invaders and murderers and child and land stealers to know that they only have what they have because it was violently taken from someone else. And that the Indigenous Australians are just as good as them when they have the same opportunities.

It would be great if St Mary’s would visit Australia during the colonial era and see the convicts and the first settlers trying to build Sydney with Indigenous Australian Pemulway acting as terrorist/rebel leader, soldiers getting their rum rations, and of course female convicts not having quarters dedicated to them because “a woman can always find a bed for the night”. I’m sure Max, Petersen and Markham would enjoy meeting the local wildlife too……

PS If you’re interested in learning more about the history of Indigenous Australians there is an excellent 7 part documentary on SBS In Demand called “First Australians”.