Any US History teachers out there?

I took AP US History during the 05-06 school year, and don't remember thinking the portrayal was "one injustic after the next." The book we used didn't shy away from injustice, but it didn't minimize or downplay the good things either. I remember really appreciating the coverage of the Founders (flawed men with often conflicting goals and elitist attitudes who nonetheless achieved truly great things) and thinking "Wow, they really laid the 'South wasn't so bad' stuff on thick."

I wonder if the curriculum has changed in the last ~10 years or if I just had a teacher who didn't feel the need to make the class either an anti-American polemic or jingoistic apologia.

It's honest, not sugar coated. What we did we did to make our nation stronger and better (for us).

I'm not a US teacher, I teach Global in NY State.

We have AP US at our school and it is not one injustice after the next. It is a truthful portrayal of how we built our country.

I'm ok with it, I love this country.

I taught Western Civ and U.S. History for quite a few years. I made my own curriculum. And, since it was more detailed than the school's suggestion, I was given the green light. However, I have always been of thought that you should not try to influence the student one way or another. By portraying our country with one injustice after another, you can create negative attitudes.

I usually would speak of the many great men and women from, let's say, our American Revolutionary War. But, I would interesting little side stories about what some might have really been like. Like Jefferson and his slaves. Or, Franklin and his womanizing in France, and what many colonialists really thought. (Not all were on board with fighting the British), etc.

But, I usually came away with students asking many questions, and I would spend a little, not too much time on questions that were about something they thought was cool, or funny. I found history can be interesting. It really depends how it's delivered.

The story is based on misinformation. The new standard is guidelines. It doesn't direct the teacher to teach specific topics.

It's some nutjobs who want the power to define the propaganda of their choosing is taught as fact.

well it's always a matter of shading - my son's textbook has around 3 pages of military history of ww2 - you know, when the US helped save the world from nazism in the greatest conflict of all time - but a solid 1/2 of a page is on the japanese internments. Another 1/4 is on the tuskegee airmen.

it's like the textbook people have no perspective - the fighting in Europe is a scale of 100/100 of importance - the japanese internments around a 3/100, the Tuskegee airmen maybe a 2/100. These are interesting problems, but blown way out of proportion because it is a great chance to make the US look bad. And a chance to do a little ethnic studies.

Also, there should be a lot more than 3 pages on the war - but military history is massively out of favor.

I taught history many years ago. I don't know how much of what we did then is relevant now. But my oldest son took AP history 5 or 6 years ago. I did not see anything happening in the course that seemed like portraying it as one injustice after another. But neither was it like most history courses which portray US history as a relentless pursuit of freedom and equality where the most meritorious people did very well for themselves by making the most of the same opportunities that were available to pretty much everyone with a few notable and lamentable exceptions where things went off the rails temporarily.

Most nation's histories have bright and dark sides. I thought the course did a pretty good job of showing both of ours. But the course presentation is always going to be influenced by the teacher so no one's experience will be the same.

Currently teach us history. Yes there np has been a shift in the curriculum of apus but it has yet to be seen how big of an impact it will have on the actual ap test at the end of the year. I would argue it still falls on the teacher to deliver the content and if it would be on an individual basis as to whether it is taught like one injustice after another.

HRE wrote:

.

Most nation's histories have bright and dark sides. I thought the course did a pretty good job of showing both of ours. But the course presentation is always going to be influenced by the teacher so no one's experience will be the same.

yeah - the teacher is always the hinge point. the same material can be radically different taught by different teachers.

which is probably part of what is getting my goat - my son has had to write nothing but ethnic studies papers - all about the repressed groups in american history and injustice.

which is important, but again, it's just overemphasized in my son's case. Which is probably the teacher's decision, not the curriculum.

Sounds like your son is having a great experience. He is getting one perspective from you and one from the teacher. Ideally this will help him learn to think critically about history and come to his own conclusions. This state of affairs might be better than if he were taught by a teacher more to your liking.

I took AP US History a little less than 20 years ago. I wouldn't say it was sugar coated, but I'd say my course leaned more that way than toward "injustice after injustice." This just caused the pendulum to swing the other way for awhile when I became aware of the "injustice after injustice" perspective in college. Eventually I came out with a more nuanced view of history, but not until my late 20s. I think I would have saved some time if I had had multiple adults offering different perspectives when I was in high school.

I wouldn't have been a huge fan if my son had done nothing but write papers about oppressed groups in US history either. But it is a topic that needs addressing in some form or other and I don't know that banning the course statewide is the best response to an overload of focus on oppressed ethnic groups.

Curtis wrote:

Sounds like your son is having a great experience. He is getting one perspective from you and one from the teacher. Ideally this will help him learn to think critically about history and come to his own conclusions. This state of affairs might be better than if he were taught by a teacher more to your liking.

I think I would have saved some time if I had had multiple adults offering different perspectives when I was in high school.

these are excellent points

I graduated high school like 15 years ago, so I'm outdated.

My AP US history experience was as a student at a private school. My teacher primarily lectured from notes she took during classes while at college. We seemed to spend an excessive amount of time on the Civil War because it interested her. No, we did not focus on slavery. We talked about states rights. When it came to the world wars the questions were about isolationism and nationalism.

I can understand where US history might look like one injustice after another, but that's the history of any country. (Legislators would never make laws if everyone thought everything was fair.) America is in a way founded on injustice. Pilgrims fled to America due to religious intolerance and countless others for what they believed would be better opportunities than they were given at home. The revolution was brought about due to the perceived "injustice" of taxation and poor representation. The civil war was about the "injustice" of thinking federal rule should stand above state rule. The world wars were about the "injustice" of challenging sovereignty. In all cases somebody stood to gain and somebody stood to lose. Those who incurred injustice are just the losers during any particular era. Pilgrims, revolutionaries, slaves, resident Japanese, etc. It's a nation of immigrants and they were all persecuted at some point.

But to give the whole history of the US according to them would be disingenuous. It would be like saying that the millennium should be remembered as the era religious war escalated from a regional conflict into a worldwide conflict. The bigger truth is that globalism and the age of information dawning at the turn of millennium meant that ideological conflict no longer had borders. Power, money, and belief have always been the real agents of history.

If anything the shortcoming of US history is that it discourages historians from putting the appropriate focus on the world context. America exists because of people leaving Europe. Slavery exists because it was cheap labor from Africa. The goods traded were dictated by the supply and demand all around the Atlantic Ocean. Japanese internment was a response to World War II and the fact that more Europeans held trusted positions in America than Japanese people did because they did not have as strong of a history of immigrating. All of these things led to some unfortunate circumstances for various communities, but the reason is typically understandable whether or not you personally agree with it.

I get uncomfortable when people view history as a series of rights and wrongs rather than a series of complicated decisions and interactions.

Having just read a few other articles and the bill itself (10 pages) I just want to make one other quick comment. It strikes me as fundamentally hypocritical that the legislature would find fault with specific teachings they believe are subjective and then be so bold as to require by law that their chosen specific teachings be included. If they truly embraced American capitalism and competition they'd continue to let textbook and exam creators do as they wish and let parents and schools sort out what they think should be taught. Instead of doing that, though, we see these legislators taking it upon themselves to make the choice. It's ideologically paradoxical (or just ironic) for conservatives to try and change curriculum via law.

It's hard to look at this objectively when it's known Fisher, the proponent of the bill, is a Republican and he does something like require 3 speeches from Reagan, 1 from Bushes, and zero from Carter, Clinton, or Obama.

The purpose of an education is to teach students critical thinking. Be it math, chemistry, or history-- the purpose is the same.

Discussing the "the valor or heroism of American soldiers" during World War II doesn't teach anyone how to think.

Discussing whether it was appropriate to inter Japanese citizens under the same constitution that soldiers died defending does teach students how to think.

The lawmakers are essentially against education.

4runner wrote:

The purpose of an education is to teach students critical thinking. Be it math, chemistry, or history-- the purpose is the same.

Very wrong. Without knowledge you will not be able to think critically.

Curtis wrote:

Sounds like your son is having a great experience. He is getting one perspective from you and one from the teacher. Ideally this will help him learn to think critically about history and come to his own conclusions. This state of affairs might be better than if he were taught by a teacher more to your liking.

Yes, it prepares him well for cultural relativism and the Marxist thesis-antithesis-synthesis way of thinking. Is that a good way to understand what made America the greatest power on Earth?

Instead of polarizing the "oppressors" and the "oppressed" it's wiser to focus on the dual nature of every group. It's not the school system's task to promote victimhood or their sympathizers feelings of guilt. The "oppressed" groups were very often less perfect than the "oppressors".

Read Howard Zinn. And then consider Hofstadter on anti-intellectualism in American life. Conclude by watching Eyes on the Prize, about civil rights.

One injustice after the next indeed.

culture > rationality wrote:

4runner wrote:

The purpose of an education is to teach students critical thinking. Be it math, chemistry, or history-- the purpose is the same.

Very wrong. Without knowledge you will not be able to think critically.

Bull___.

Does the "knowledge" that you learned in school actually matter or do the skills that you learned-- namely, how to acquiring, understand, and manipulate knowledge-- matter?

4runner wrote:

culture > rationality wrote:

Very wrong. Without knowledge you will not be able to think critically.

Bull___.

Does the "knowledge" that you learned in school actually matter or do the skills that you learned-- namely, how to acquiring, understand, and manipulate knowledge-- matter?

You must be young and inexperienced. Come back when you've acquired some real knowledge.