Oh, I see. You went straight to hyperbole and I wasn't expecting it. And I really wasn't clear.
Clarification: in my schooling (back at the dawn of time), history was part of "social studies," and was a strange jumble of disparate "facts" that had nothing to do with anything. I can still tell you that the chief export of Bolivia was tin. I have no context for why this was worth remembering. I don't remember any of the dates, or succession, of English Kings we were expected to memorize to pass tests. When it came to American history, which wasn't taught until high school, it was patently obvious that it was a hagiography, not a history.
When you said (above) "just saying these things happened," I'm thinking, "yes, add these things to the laundry list of stuff to memorize for the test and then forget because there's no context."
I don't see how you could teach about the Tulsa Massacre without bringing up the threat that affluent blacks represented to the white people, and you can't explain why that was a threat without talking about the US history of slavery, the Jim Crow period, and the idea of white privilege, which is the core of what was threatened by affluent (uppity) blacks.
The Tulsa Massacre doesn't make any sense outside the context of Jim Crow, which brings up ALL the barriers placed in the way of black people. You are now talking about systems of oppression, rather than acts of individual racists, and -- if I understand the term -- you are now talking about Critical Race Theory. Not at the graduate level, of course.
You bring up a deeper point. If teachers just say "these things happened," they aren't really teaching anything at all. It's one of the reasons kids grow up hating history, because they aren't really taught history, which is not about disconnected events and dates, but about relationships, and patterns, and the "rhyme" that unites recurrent themes.
Of course, you tailor the subject to the student. You don't teach a kindergarten child about the Tusla Massacre.
I don't assume they're teaching the deck is rigged or asserting? Just saying these things happened. And we did them. And we can be better.
Oh, I see. You went straight to hyperbole and I wasn't expecting it. And I really wasn't clear.
Clarification: in my schooling (back at the dawn of time), history was part of "social studies," and was a strange jumble of disparate "facts" that had nothing to do with anything. I can still tell you that the chief export of Bolivia was tin. I have no context for why this was worth remembering. I don't remember any of the dates, or succession, of English Kings we were expected to memorize to pass tests. When it came to American history, which wasn't taught until high school, it was patently obvious that it was a hagiography, not a history.
When you said (above) "just saying these things happened," I'm thinking, "yes, add these things to the laundry list of stuff to memorize for the test and then forget because there's no context."
I don't see how you could teach about the Tulsa Massacre without bringing up the threat that affluent blacks represented to the white people, and you can't explain why that was a threat without talking about the US history of slavery, the Jim Crow period, and the idea of white privilege, which is the core of what was threatened by affluent (uppity) blacks.
The Tulsa Massacre doesn't make any sense outside the context of Jim Crow, which brings up ALL the barriers placed in the way of black people. You are now talking about systems of oppression, rather than acts of individual racists, and -- if I understand the term -- you are now talking about Critical Race Theory. Not at the graduate level, of course.
You bring up a deeper point. If teachers just say "these things happened," they aren't really teaching anything at all. It's one of the reasons kids grow up hating history, because they aren't really taught history, which is not about disconnected events and dates, but about relationships, and patterns, and the "rhyme" that unites recurrent themes.
Of course, you tailor the subject to the student. You don't teach a kindergarten child about the Tusla Massacre.
Not to be a jerk, But you teach them Jesus walked on water?
??? Sorry, not getting the point.
We teach some interesting theories in regard to religion. At an early age. What is your point sir and I asked that with respect.
I'm not sure where religious teaching came into this thread.