Patriotism in School

[NJCubScouter]

I am not sure that the teaching in school has really changed that much in terms of facts, places and dates. Although it may include things that were formerly omitted (how did the Pilgrims feel, from what I have seen from my own childrens' school papers, they still do learn about Thomas Jefferson, the Civil War, Teddy Roosevelt and all the rest of it.

 

I think the issue is not so much what kids learn in school, but what they retain. This also goes for adults. On these tests where college-age kids do so poorly, I suspect that adults of my generation would not do much better -- and we did have the historical facts drummed into our heads. I am pretty good at history, can name all the presidents in order (and the monarchs of England as well), but that is because I am interested in history, continued taking it in college when I didn't have to, and have read history as an adult. Same goes for Geography -- ask the average adult to find Afghanistan or Zimbabwe on a blank world map and see what happens. And forget about the Articles of Confederation or what the Fifth Amendment actually says, as opposed to what 3 generations of television watchers think it says.

 

The reason, I think, is that most people today just don't care about things that they perceive as not directly affecting them. This is not limited to kids and it does not matter whether they learned it in school. Where there was once a general pride in having knowledge, I think most people only care about having the limited knowledge they need for their career or hobbies. If they read, they read novels, and if they read non-fiction, it is basically trash biographies.

 

As for New Jersey's core curriculum standards, I think this was an issue that was taken out of context and blown out of proportion, particularly by conservative media such as the Washington Times. I don't think there was ever an intent that teachers not deal with Ben Franklin, the Mayflower, etc. It was more that they should add the other items mentioned. And I think when the issue arose, they added the "traditional" subjects back into the core curriculum standards. Those standards, which I know something about, are basically an exercise in political and legal gamesmanship, but I really don't feel like going into the intricacies of educational politics and court battles in New Jersey.

 

By the way, Quixote, from what I remember of my own grade schooling in New Jersey (in the ancient 60s, before any of the "new ideas" in education took hold), they called it "social studies" through the 8th grade because it also included geography and some of what was then called "civics", and then in high school there were separate courses in "History" and electives in "Government." But again, not too many kids took the electives.

 

 

[slontwovvy]

Still, I wonder if those Pilgrims were ever able to peacefully and concisely express their emotions. Sad, really...

[VH_50]

First, as somebody who teaches history (college, not K-12), I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot of lousy history teaching being inflicted on American students. The problem is, IMHO, more often an excess of dry, disconnected facts than an overdose of fluff . . . but I'll save that soapbox for another day. :-)

 

Second, and more to the point of the thread, what is it we want young Americans to get out of their history (or social studies) education? A body of factual knowledge? An understanding of how the past shapes the present? An ability to think critically about historical problems? A collection of stories about America's past that "everybody" knows and that forms part of our shared culture? All these are valid and worthy answers, but they require different approaches and there's seldom time to do all of them well. Given my choice (which, teaching undergrads, I pretty much am), I go for 2 & 3 . . . but I drive crazy those students who come wanting 1 or 4 (too many Questions, not enough Answers). They think my class is terrible . . . those who hated 1 & 4 all through high school often love it.

 

My point, here, is that what you (or me or anyone) sees as "good" and "bad" history teaching often has a lot to do with what you (or me or anyone) wan out of history classes.

 

Third and finally, how in blazes do you "teach" patriotism--in school or otherwise? If patriotism is "the love of one's country" I'd think it's no more teachable than the love of clam chowder, baseball, or the girl next door. You can introduce someone to the depths and subtleties of something that you think they ought to love, but you can't make love happen (or, to the dismay of generations of parents, prevent it from happening).

[VH_50]

Bleah. Sorry about the runaway italics in my last post . . . I'm still discovering the idiosyncracies of the "edit" function. :-0

[OldGreyEagle]

VH,

 

I dont see how you can teach how the past shapes the future or how to think critically about historical problems without an understanding of what happened.

 

And, to me, what happened IS HISTORY. I dont see how you can teach your numbers 2 and 3 without 1 and 4, unless I miss the point which is eternally possible.

 

Now, you mentioned something that tweaked my interest. What is an example of "thinking critically about a historical problem?" I am not sure I understand that phrase.

[slontwovvy]

I believe that you can teach patriotism, or at least provide the basis for it, by teaching more of America. Provide more in-depth looks into The Star-Spangled Banner as Key originally wrote it (including the second, third, and fourth verses), by learning more about Lincoln and the history of the flag, by learning more about what makes America great.

 

That's where I think many schools have been lacking. They've been teaching it as a normal collection of names and dates where really it is something alive and special.

[berkshirescouter]

OGE, I think an example of critical thinking might be how Truman made the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan. That whole question goes to what was to be expected from Japan if invaded, however it was only based on intel. The question then is, what if the intel was not accurate. I am not taking sides here only giving an example. VH, as the history expert, is this what you ment?

 

Paul

[OldGreyEagle]

Right, Trailday, I can see it. The decision to drop the atomic bomb would be an exercise in critical thinking. The whole management of the Manhattan project could be viewed in that context. We had the smartest people of our country racing to do something we knew our enemies smartest people were also doing. Then when we perfected it, the question was whether or not it should be used on "people" or should a "demonstration" be arranged.

 

Many of the top scientists wanted to let Japan know we had a weapon beyond measure and to watch a certain location and then an Atomic bomb would have been exploded. The idea would be to allow Japan to surrender before the bomb was used on a Japanese city. Then the question becomes did Truman do the right thing? In the context of ending the war and saving the death and destruction of an assault on Japan, the answer is yes, but in terms of was the most ethical descision made, you could debate it.

 

Then again, without knowing that Pearl Harbor occurred on December 7, 1941 (a date that will live in infamy)

and of the exploits of American Forces in Europe and the Pacific Theatre at Guam and Guadalcanal and , wihout knowing about the Battan Death March and MacArthurs return to the Phillipines the descison to drop the Atomic bomb cannot be discussed until the entire stage is set.

 

And that stage, the "dry" facts of timelines and who did what to who is what to me is history. Never dry as the past shapes the fabric of our culture and society of today.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

PS

 

Can anyone tell me if in Japan when they teach history if the question whether or not the Attack on Pearl Harbor should have been carried out is asked?

[OldGreyEagle]

PSS

 

Ok, last one, I keep thinking of stuff to add.

 

Isnt the critical thinking we are talking about Ethics? or at the very least Philosophy? History is about the background needed to understand the Philosophic teachings of Plato and Socrates as they had a much different view than those of Rousseau and Voltaire, and Kant. Perhaps becasue they lived in such historically different times?

[Rooster7]

The problem with history classes as proposed by VH_50, is that they tend to indoctrinate vice educate. I'd rather my son or daughter be given the "dry facts" without any "propaganda." As OGE alluded to, when "critical thinking" is injected into the history curriculum, more often than not, it turns a history class into a philosophy class. The desired critical thinking is going to occur whether it is "encouraged" or not. The real issues are; how much of this thinking is molded by the teacher and his personal philosophy? And, how much of this thinking is being shaped by the actual facts as they are viewed from the personal perspective of the student? If a teacher chose to do so, he could push a class in a certain direction just by presenting certain facts and not others. If you add one personable teacher and stir in some "critical thinking", you have the perfect recipe for creating "true believers". But, what exactly do they believe? Do they believe that somehow the United States were the aggressors in WWII? When they think of our founding fathers, do they think of self-sacrificing men who fought (and in some cases, died) for a worthy cause, or do they think of slave owners? Of course, both facts are correct but which story - which truth, has the greater relevance to us today? Doesn't a student (particularly one who is out of grade school) have the understanding and capacity to make these value decisions without guidance from a teacher? If so, why are these issues being discussed in a classroom setting? Is it for educational purposes or is it for indoctrination? Ask a conservative and a liberal, and you're apt to get two different answers. Given the politics of the NEA and the staffs of most universities, it shouldn't be a great surprise that many (if not most) conservatives view it as indoctrination. History is about facts. Philosophy is about what one thinks of those facts. History is mandatory for high school students and for many college majors as well. Philosophy is optional for high school students and mandatory for very few college majors. There are obvious reasons for this reality. These two classes should never be "merged." Teachers should encourage us to examine the facts, but they should not attempt to channel our thoughts to meet their political expectations/desires.

 

Having said all of the above, I do not know VH_50 or how he goes about instructing his classes. I am wary of any history class that would spend more time focusing on "critical thinking" than it would spend discussing the facts.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle]

Whoa there, you mean I agree with Rooster? That either means Satan will be getting an Ice Water bath or I am wrong... Wait, unless it means we finally found some common ground.

[berkshirescouter]

Rooster

You make good points however how do you teach analysis of the 'dry facts'. That to me is critical thinking. You must have all the facts for this to work and if they are not provided then it is as you say, indoctrination. I was made to find my own facts. That was lots of resurch, footnotes and the like. The point was take a position and defend it. In the example I gave not only was the decision based on the facts but the facts at that time. I still believe Truman made the right one but it is based on what followed, the cold war. Stalan saw the results of the A-bomb and felt it was not a good idea to push too hard, though push he did.

 

Paul

[sctmom]

How can one think critically without FIRST knowing the facts? I am a firm believer that the facts can be taught without always being dry, sometimes it will be dry.

 

OGE, you and I are sounding mighty "conservative" on this thread. What is this world coming to?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Dont worry Sctmom, we will diverge from this alliance soon, but it is nice to know we and our conservative brethren do have common ground, after this peace in the mid east should be a done deal