When Americans Save Lives Overseas, it Doesn't Make the Textbooks

[Pete]

Thanking America: When Americans Save Lives Overseas, it Doesn't Make the Textbooks

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...#ixzz1eg8Sxmcn


"In October 1914, over 5 million Belgians faced starvation. The German Army had invaded on August 4 and swept across the country in three weeks. Revisionist historians would later snicker about "atrocities" invented by the British, but the Kaiser's troops executed over 5,500 Belgians, women and children as well as men, though there was no civilian resistance to the invasion. Over 2 million refugees fled to Holland, France, and Britain. The Germans requisitioned all grain, flour, livestock, fruit, and vegetables. They seized the railroads, canals, all motor vehicles, and telegraph and telephone lines, and removed machinery from factories. The economy collapsed. The British naval blockade made the situation desperate, as Belgium imported nearly 78% of its food........................"

An interesting article.

And another.....

What We Lost In The Great War

http://www.americanheritage.com/cont...lost-great-war

"Seventy-five years ago this spring a very different America waded into the seminal catastrophe of the twentieth century. World War I did more than kill millions of people; it destroyed the West’s faith in the very institutions that had made it the hope and envy of the world..............."

A little longer - but a good read.

[JMART5]

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off--always has. Our children aren't being taught history. They're being taught a revised version of it.

[Richard]

Most textbooks offer an 'Overview' (a 'Macro' or 'Survey') of History and its events. However, there are also many expanded sub-units which offer teachers a 'guide' to have their students explore events at a much greater depth - IF - the teacher and/or the student(s) have the time and desire to do so. Such historical thematic exploration is less common among the 'regular' History courses (often taught by coaches who are strapped for time and tend towards teaching the minimums to students with little interest in the topic) and more common with 'Honors', 'IB', or 'AP' courses who also supplement their texts with numerous outside readings and thematic units of exploration which offer a much greater understanding of the events.

'America In The Great War' is taught in-depth by some teachers, and studying the effects of 'Total War' (a common sub-topic for WW1 and WW2) does cover the issues mentioned in Pete's post.

For example, these are the Texas regular History course standards:

(4) History. The student understands the emergence of the United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920. The student is expected to:

(A) explain why significant events, policies, and individuals such as the Spanish-American War, U.S. expansionism, Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Sanford B. Dole, and missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power;

(B) evaluate American expansionism, including acquisitions such as Guam, Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico;

(C) identify the causes of World War I and reasons for U.S. entry;

(D) understand the contributions of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) led by General John J. Pershing;

(E) analyze the impact of significant technological innovations in World War I such as machine guns, airplanes, tanks, poison gas, and trench warfare that resulted in the stalemate on the Western Front;

(F) analyze major issues such as isolationism and neutrality raised by U.S. involvement in World War I, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the Treaty of Versailles; and

(G) analyze significant events such as the Battle of Argonne Forest.

Here's an example of an AP 'thematic' unit syllabus for the same time period:

7. New Imperialism, Progressivism, and World War I

4.0 weeks (standard)
2.0 weeks (18-week block)

Organizing principles: From 1890 to 1918, the United States became increasingly active and aggressive in world affairs. The Progressive movement partially succeeded in improving life for average Americans by curbing big business, making the government more responsive to the will of the people, and enacting social welfare legislation.

Topics: New Imperialism, Spanish–American War, Big Stick policy (jingoism), internationalism, Progressive reform (political, social, economic), regulatory agencies, Square Deal, Old Guard (Conservative Republicans led by Speaker of the House “Uncle” Joe Cannon) versus Insurgents (Progressive Republicans who sought to limit the power of the Speaker of the House), New Nationalism, New Freedom, Supreme Court and social welfare, World War I (economic, political, social consequences), the Committee on Public Information, Red Scare, Treaty of Versailles.

World War I simulation (from OAH Magazine of History): The Organization of American Historians has an excellent simulation on American entry into World War I. Students move through four rounds, assuming the roles of various groups from the time period, giving their positions on possible American entry into the conflict. They are asked to respond to events such as the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram. The exercise does an excellent job of helping students see the changes in American opinion as the war progressed.

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/ap...hers-guide.pdf

The IB (International Baccalaureate) program offered by a number of schools (either ICW or in lieu of the AP program) is explained here:

http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/core/

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off--always has. Our children aren't being taught history. They're being taught a revised version of it.

History has, historically speaking, always lent itself to revision; always will. SLA Marshall once spoke on the difficulty of recording the History of an event such as WW2, claiming that if a million men went to war and they all returned, there would be a million versions of the 'History' of that war.

As far as being 'taught' History - in my experiences, it all depends on where you are, who your teachers are, and what your personal interest levels in the subject and your personal educational goals happen to be at the time.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Buffalobob]

Perhaps history should be taught backwards instead of forward. Most kids have little concept of their immediate situation and how the history that their parents lived through affects the society that they live in. My daughter just took a history course that was supposed to deal with "modern History" but of course the professor only knew archaeological history and so she was greatly disappointed that the events such as sputnik, civil rights. interstate highways, and Vietnam were only briefly touched on at the last minute.

Sorry for the rant off the subject somewhat but its one of my irritations with how history is taught.

[greenberetTFS]

Buffalobob,

I totally agree with you,my kids in the late 60's,early 70's knew so very little about the Revolutionary war(peoples names,battles fought,etc.)...... Same thing about the Civil war........... My wife was on the youth commission at that time(25 years) and said that the "overview" concept was being taught,and that the "in depth" concept was no longer required......... That's just a brief statement,it's much more involved,but that's the jest of it...........

Big Teddy

[ZonieDiver]

They keep adding stuff to history and not giving us any more time to teach it!

[cant hardly]

.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

My daughter just took a history course that was supposed to deal with "modern History" but of course the professor only knew archaeological history and so she was greatly disappointed that the events such as sputnik, civil rights. interstate highways, and Vietnam were only briefly touched on at the last minute.

FWIW, there's a difference between modern history and contemporary history.

The former is considered to include events from the late 1400s (give or take a decade or two) onwards while the latter alternately includes events of the last fifty years or so and/or events in which people still living participated.

Within the domain of academic history, the study of contemporary history is controversial for two reasons. First, it is hard to know if a current event is going to be historically significant. Second, the study of history centers around primary source materials. Those source materials need time to become available. Consequently, the question becomes Can historians responsibly discuss an event when one can only see the tip of the iceberg?

[ZonieDiver]

Within the domain of academic history, the study of contemporary history is controversial for two reasons. First, it is hard to know if a current event is going to be historically significant. Second, the study of history centers around primary source materials. Those source materials need time to become available. Consequently, the question becomes Can historians responsibly discuss an event when one can only see the tip of the iceberg?

That said, it never seems to stop 'em!

My Contemporary American History class (His419) at Arizona State University, Spring Semester, 1975 with Professor Chris Smith was one of the best, and most interesting, classes I ever took. Our weekly seminar was held at "Minderbinders" - a local, Tempe watering hole with the walls covered in newspaper clippings. We were to wander about, find something interesting, and report back for discussion - while he drank beer (as did we).

God, I miss the 70's!

[PSM]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

"Minderbinders" - a local, Tempe watering hole with the walls covered in newspaper clippings.

I remeber that place! Didn't learn much history there, though. Well, there was this one clipping above the urinal...

Pat

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

That said, it never seems to stop 'em!

MOO, the profession's efforts to strive for "relevance"--especially the American Historical Association's decision to join the SSRC in 1925--continue to illustrate the concept of "unintended consequences."

Then again, why should political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and economists get all the air time/bandwidth?

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Richard

Most textbooks offer an 'Overview' (a 'Macro' or 'Survey') of History and its events. However, there are also many expanded sub-units which offer teachers a 'guide' to have their students explore events at a much greater depth - IF - the teacher and/or the student(s) have the time and desire to do so. Such historical thematic exploration is less common among the 'regular' History courses (often taught by coaches who are strapped for time and tend towards teaching the minimums to students with little interest in the topic) and more common with 'Honors', 'IB', or 'AP' courses who also supplement their texts with numerous outside readings and thematic units of exploration which offer a much greater understanding of the events.

'America In The Great War' is taught in-depth by some teachers, and studying the effects of 'Total War' (a common sub-topic for WW1 and WW2) does cover the issues mentioned in Pete's post.

For example, these are the Texas regular History course standards:



Here's an example of an AP 'thematic' unit syllabus for the same time period:



The IB (International Baccalaureate) program offered by a number of schools (either ICW or in lieu of the AP program) is explained here:

http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/core/



History has, historically speaking, always lent itself to revision; always will. SLA Marshall once spoke on the difficulty of recording the History of an event such as WW2, claiming that if a million men went to war and they all returned, there would be a million versions of the 'History' of that war.

As far as being 'taught' History - in my experiences, it all depends on where you are, who your teachers are, and what your personal interest levels in the subject and your personal educational goals happen to be at the time.

And so it goes...

Richard

That one word means- BS.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by alright4u

That one word means- BS.

Which word is that?

Richard

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Richard

Which word is that?

Richard

Richard [/QUOTE]

Not a bit "confused." Teddy Roosevelt was a damn disgrace in my part of upstate NY. My grandfather who was mustard gassed in WWI thought him a clown. My uncle, his brother, who died in WWI as a pilot can be googled under Potter Society,NY.

I spent my first seven summers as a kid looking at Valcour Island from my grandfather's property on Lake Champlain. That was the damn naval battle of 1812.

What part of the history of that naval battle did you know about? I doubt you knew it happened -without a google.

History was all around me as a kid. In fact, the first SF man to receive the CMH from the war in RVN was from NY.

Now, back to progressives and their whining.

Land was the means to money in early America. If you owned the land-you paid the only taxes. Now, where were those progressives during the land rushes, or during any one of the hitch up your wagon and stake your claim? I say-BITCHING.

BTW. You ever earn a CIB?"

[Richard]

Originally Posted by alright4u

That one word means- BS.

Which "one word" are you talking about?

Or were you trying to say that the idea of History being taught in many ways on many levels by many teachers is, in one word, BS?

I'm just trying to understand the context of the post.

Richard