The topic "Gore Vidal on why Pearl Harbor was attacked (explicit)" got me thinking about how kids are taught history in a "light" way. Dan brought up the Vidal quote which showed the contrast between what we are taught as children and the actual bloody truth.

I was wondering: what would children turn out to be like, if from the very beginning they were taught history as it actually happened?

For example, suppose a child was taught that the US deliberately started a war with Japan instead of the version we were taught where Japan launches an unwarranted surprise attack. Now extrapolate that child out into adulthood. What would he/she be like? What kind of political views would they have, would they be different? Would they be cynical of their government, or understanding?

I really don't know, and was wondering if anyone else had some ideas.

I would hope that the children being taught history as it actually happened would be taught the entire history of Imperial Japan, and it's aggressive wars fought for expansion starting in the late 19th C. and concluding with it's defeat in 1945.

While Gore Vidal takes the US to task for provoking Imperial Japan, he doesn't look back at the full history of the Japanese Empire and it's attacks on China 1894, Russia 1904, Annexation of Korea 1910 and so on. To boil the war down to one factor, "Gore Vidal's true history" won't benefit children.

These statements are contradictory.

Why?

Because OP is contradicting himself. OP assumes that history about the US-Japan conflict is taught in a wrong way, yet at the same time proposes teaching them a version of history that is as biased as the version he himself criticizes.

It is not history as it actually happened to simply teach that the US "deliberately" started a war with Japan. There might be a grain of truth to it, but teaching that version conflicts with Japan really wanting to eliminate any threat to their empire building plans. That the US acted against Japanese interest prior to Pearl Harbour, cannot be interpreted properly as "starting a war" with Japan. "Escalating conflict", perhaps.

In short, history is about the nuances, about asessing ALL available data, not just that which tells the story from the "real" perspective. OP seems more interested in knowing of history from a different perspective, than "history as really happened". Not by intent, I'm sure.

I was bored once and turned on the local conservative talk radio show, and it was (I think) Laura Ingrim, and she was calling Tom Hanks unpatriotic because he was supposedly going to show the inhumane things our soldiers did in the pacific theater along with the things that Japanese soldiers did in his new HBO show. It had not even aired at that time.

She was calling him a commie, Liberal, traitor for trying to show the truth. How can showing the truth be a bad thing?



The right wing would never let us tell children the truth about history, they think telling adults that truth is equivalent to treason. Admitting that the United States has done anything wrong ever (though, I don't think putting sanctions on an aggressive state such as WWII Japan who was attacking China was wrong) is like telling their kids that their is no Santa Clause, all the adults no, but inside their house everyone pretends like they don't and breaking that rule is not tolerated.

Anyone occupied more with their "wing" than objectivity is unlikely to give you or anyone else anything but a biased history lesson. The "left" is just as bad as the "right" when it comes to bias, deliberately leaving out undesirable facts, or simply lying. Anyone with a political/philosophical/religious/ideological agenda is unreliable to tell "history as it actually is", so it doesn't what their agenda is.

I've always countered media bias in the same way I'd advocate countering historical bias (and the way Dan did on the "Texas textbook flap" episode. Go for the crazy. Expose the kids to everything.

When I was doing my undergrad education work, a fellow in one of my classes was teaching a history class and the high school class was going over the Kennedy assassination. What he did was look at all the conspiracy theories, presented them all to the kids, with motive, means, and opportunity, and then asked the kids, knowing all of those theories and the facts surrounding them, to make up their own theory on why/how Kennedy was really assassinated.

That's how you teach history. Not from a single, "white male" or hell, even "black female" or any other myopic perspective. That's -why- our multicultural nation is so glorious. We can look at the issue from varied perspectives, and then compare them and glean the good from their overlap or disagreements.

To tae the OP's question but disregard his slightly skewed logic about the question, what would happen if we taught children a more faceted version of history rather than the straightforward version we currently give them. Well, first of all I think History as a subject would be massively more popular... Second, it should contribute to producing citizens who can not only think for themselves and appreciate other points of view, but who also understand where they and their country came from and why. But, on the downside, a lot would be lost, too. American History, especially concerning things like the Revolution and the Founding Fathers is two parts history to one part myth in some cases, especially in the way it appears to be taught in schools. Would the current deeply held beliefs about the Revolution stand up to this kind of teaching?

I mostly agree with Eustace and Hollowgolem. History is a very complicated subject, and I am against any type of spoon-feeding to students. Kids should be encouraged to do their own research in something that they're interested in.

Students need to be taught to defend their beliefs and respect the points of others. But when people are younger and more impressionable that can get dangerous at some point. What if a 10th grader, while researching for a World History project comes across a copy of Did Six Million Really Die?

Basically I think that kids need to be taught to read critically and not necessarily believe in anything that they learn from books. Though the answer to how history should be taught isn't simple.

I wonder, do they teach children of Mexican decent the history of The Mexican war? The way we forced Mexico, by war, to sell us the southwest might piss them off. But they could find out by going to any public library.
When you have schools run by the government, you are going to have biased history lessons. They aren't going to paint themselves as the bad guys.
Cocerning Pearl Harbor, putting sanctions on Japan was the right thing to do, but to teach the attack was unprovoked, or unpredictable, is disingenuous. FDR wanted to get the US involved in the war with Germany. Japan was their ally. We didn't do anything to stop the other imperialistic actions of Japan until they became an ally of Germany.

I'm sure that's true of places like North Korea or Hamas-controlled schools, but let me ask you: Don't american history classes feature learning about slavery in the United States or the Vietnam war? Or the Watergate scandal? Do they paint slavery as a just neccesity, or the Vietnam war and Watergate as a glorious fight against communism? If not, your assertion kind of falls to the ground.

You give "government" just a tad bit too much credit when it comes to power over teachers. Even american ones, which according to some on this forum apparantly live in a third world police state.

Teachers are given curriculum guides which they usually follow closely. If a student brings up a subject, the teacher is free to discuss that subject, but not base tests or work on those subjects.
Slavery was fought against by our government, so why would they profess the idea it was necessary? Over 600,000 Americans died to end slavery and reunite this country. To say it was a necessary evil would be saying the government was wrong for stopping it.
Vietnams true causes are not discussed in high school history classes. The fact that the US supported the calling off of elections that would have overthrown Diem and put the Viet Minh in power is not covered.
Watergate? The Watergate scandal was about partisan political corruption by one administration, which ended in the first resignation of a US president. It had nothing to do directly with the policy of containment. The policy of contaiment continued even after Nixon had left office, even by Democrats.
But what about the Bonus Army Marchers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_ArmyThey were a group of destitute WW1 veterans who wanted to get their Service Certificates redeemed, but they had not matured. They peaceably went to Washington and set up a camp on the Anacostia flats. When the Congress turned them down, the army went in with tanks and flamethrowers, driving them out. It was one of the reasons FDR was elected so handely. It angered people that the government would use such force against destitute Americans. But it is never covered in history class.
Or how about the Philippine Insurrection? Or the overthrow of Mossedegh? Or the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii? No, schools avoid these subjects as they make the US look imperialistic. Most Americans, unless they directly profit, or don't understand what Imperialism is, reject it as policy.

Yes, but are they also given guides on how to teach and what particular aspects and highlights of the curriculum subject they must teach? Around here, high school history classess will have three staples: How Denmark was formed, the christianization process and the danish reformation. But they aren't given any rules on how to teach those things, what particular aspect of those events they should focus on, or which authors you *must* use. I have trouble believing that would be any different in the U.S. Having a national school board judge what the curriculum should be does not determine how the curriculum must be (and will be) taught.

And about the slavery, vietnam and watergate comparisons...

You don't follow me. You were saying that the government (which I assume is an american way of saying "the state", seeing as governments be they republican or democratic tend to change) will not want to have something taught that makes them seem like the bad guys. Hence my examples.



How do you know what each and every individual school teacher covers?



Why would they (government and schools) care wether or not past actions of past american governments made the U.S "look" imperialistic?

And again, who knows that some teachers haven't covered those events? However, those events should not be the major part of the education. After all, there is a finite amount of time for the teacher to teach in. It's a question of what events formed the U.S the most. In that perspective, the overthrow of the hawaiian queen is an important anecdote, because it gives a view into how one might have viewed the outside world, but not worthy of more than one hours lesson.

How would I know? Well, let me see, I went to school in the US, I have had three kids in public school in this country. I ask people if they were taught these things in school. I have read high school text books. And guess what, these things are not taught, and they are important to understanding American history.
In this country, state boards, meaning individual states like Texas and Ohio, choose what the curriculum will be. And if a teacher wants to keep their job, they follow the curriculum.
Denmark is half the size of South Carolina (40th largest in the US) with 1.5 million more people. I see why it is hard for you to understand America. We are not a Constitutional Monarchy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html
The Monarch appoints the Supreme Court for Life!? What a joke.
Egad, your political parties are a socialist dream team. 95% Evangelical Lutheran? I was raised a Lutheran, but not Evangelical.
I will never understand the mentality in your country. It is too different. I doubt if you will ever understand mine.