I have never really thought about "history" the same way that I am thinking of it now. To me “history” has always been the facts. Year after year, a teacher has taught me what the textbooks tell them to teach us. But as I’ve been thinking, I’ve realized that “history” can never be factual in the same way that other subjects such as mathematics or sciences can be. The reason for this is that in order to write “history” one must recall the situations and events that took place. Therefore, the best source for truth would be the primary source, someone who actually witnessed the event taking place. And to get a more accurate list of these “facts” many points of views must be combined to make a single “fact” that becomes what we know to be, “history”.
But who is to say what is good enough to make it into these textbooks? Why does it matter what you put in the curriculum? What is important? Can the question of importance ever be answered? I think not. Here we find the dilemma of religion being inserted into textbooks or staying out of them. We all know that separation between church and state is a huge part of our country, but where is the line drawn between the two? Do we exclude any and all forms of religion? Or is it ok to teach about religions, but not necessarily to preach them. If we make it ok to teach about religions, we will encounter the problem of biased teachers and even students. Religion is an emotional thing, in which people get very passionate about. If a textbook teaches about the principals of Christianity, and the course is being taught by a teacher of another faith, the class lecture could easily erupt into a religious debate. On a similar note, if not all religions are represented within the text, then the text itself becomes biased.
This brings us back to the question, where is the line drawn? Once the influence that one religion has had on a country enters a textbook, all religions and their “influences” (again, who is to say what religions have or have not had significant impact on a country?) must be entered. If this is the case, will then other historical figures such as Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall be “vaporized” as Sean pointed out, or as the article suggests?
With all these questions in play, one must consider the consequences that inserting religion into textbooks would have.
Trent, I think you hit the nail on the head about the issue. Although history isn't empirical like mathematics or the physical sciences, it needs to be taught in a way as to draw a straight line between what is truth and what is belief.
ReplyDeleteTell me and everyone else that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, that George Washington was the First President of the United States, that atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is history those are FACTS that everyone knows happened. But,when you attempt to teach scripture, there will always be that bias, as you said, that will influence the subject and maybe even the students.
But, if religion were to be taught in school, why not separate it from the History curriculum? Why not teach all of the major religious ideals, rather than focus on the percieved majority?
You present a great argument, I hole-heartedly agree with the statements brought up. But, even though I think religion shouldn't be taught as base curriculum, I do feel there is a right way to include everything into learning, and a right place. A sweet spot that will make both sides happy, but right know if you want your kids learning scripture than Sunday school is your best bet.
Hey Trent, I agree with Daniel however, did you ever think why math and science are facts? If you are going to consider the historical curriculum just something that has been taught to you in a book what makes other subjects any different. People came up with numbers and science and it has been proven but they are telling us this is the right way to do things and or learn things. These things have developed over time,similar to history itself, and once were theories but I doubt we can actually tell whether this if fact or fiction. The schools tell us the way to add subtract multiply and divide but I doubt that that was the actual way it was done a long time ago. It is just a set standard that is agreed upon which has evolved. What if we want to eliminate division? Im sure we would have the power to do so. The same relates to history.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly I agree with you on the idea that we should have someone that was there what had happened. However, could there memory have been tampered. And what if no one from a certain event was alive, do we forget it completely?
"Can the question of importance ever be answered? I think not." I agree with this statement completely.
Also "On a similar note, if not all religions are represented within the text, then the text itself becomes biased." I think you came up with a goo point. I do not think that religion itself should be taught however if there was a religion in a certain event then the name of the religion should be mentioned. There has to be no debate about what is or isn't the correct belief, people just have to know for example that yes there were different religious groups living in different colonies. If the children find it necessary to seek knowledge about those religions they can ask their parents or google it. Religion and beliefs themselves should not be taught. However it should be represented.
I thought you did an incredible job expressing your view points and I agree with a lot of what you said:) major kudos.