

Teaching the past

1066 and all that

How children learn history is as controversial as what they are taught

See article

Readers' comments




Learning history chronologically and topically/ thematically, both have their values. Learning it chronologically can be beneficial, but only so long as it doesn't encourage a 'grand narrative' perspective of things. That would be regressing into a pre-modern age. There could be modules focusing on particular time periods, while also incorporating significant non-British elements.

cornwallis627 in reply to edmcw

...oh, and the biggest plus for learning history and its methods would be, that you´d be able to assess the the "history" provided in films, television and books critically by yourself... some history channels could well be named propaganda channels.

cornwallis627 in reply to edmcw

Maybe that historian had some understanding of the social situation and immense injustices that predated socialism and made it (socialism) seem like a jolly good idea at the time... and indeed, studying "the russian revolution" in school would enlighten pupils to that fact.
Your idea of teaching history as part of the different subjects is interesting and propably worthwhile. But learning history should also be about methods, the critical evaluation of sources and practising the ability to challenge authorities on an intellectual basis.
on another note: I hated history in school... I only warmed up to the subject after I experienced how historiography shapes ones thinking (and possibly the readiness to serve as cannon fodder).

jvance in reply to MySetDancer

You'll note that my original comment placed the term "history" in quotation marks, meant to indicate that the more distant past recording of events and the confluence of contributing factors (reasons, social influences, societal paradigms, etc.) all too often became an exercise in asserting a particular point of view (i.e., brand of propaganda) by those "victors" which then became embedded with passage of time from lack in reliable sources of contrarian points of view or indisputable evidence that could challenge what had officially been chronicled. The Norman Invasion and Conquest was a classic example referenced by the article's header, but the same pattern held true for centuries before and afterward.
There is a rather big difference in how "history" was chronicled up to a century or two ago and since the establishment, proliferation and advancement in forms of mass media to the state of today's play which seems to involve a lot of instantaneous characteristics -- instant mass communicability for one, along with instant (and often mis-)interpretation of import and historical value. The various bits of "history" and particularly the broader meanings and characteristics associated with what we as individuals may have learned through our formative early years and beyond simply can't always be construed as absolute and incontrovertible fact with a capital-T "truth" because of that bias consistently imposed by "victors" or the socially dominant "winners" at the time of some particular events or social and political movements as presented in the officially-sanctioned schoolbooks covering those historical past eras. Earlier societies might have been less advanced technologically, but were equally robust in their social complexity and political machinations as any which exist today.
In my lexicon, current events and the spin-doctoring involved in presenting the latest news flash are not "history" (though they may become historical), since the delivery all too frequently is made within a false context of having some vital importance -- primarily driven by the economic need for readers, listeners and watchers in an industry grounded in market principles so the entity delivering the messages can generate revenue in some fashion (whether through direct advertising or by eliciting contributions).
Granted, efforts to provide a reconciled or enlightened view of past events and circumstances to clarify perceived bias embedded from an earlier era and the promotion of current-day propaganda in whatever form may be difficult to distinguish. You didn't mention Fox and some others in the list of media outlets named in association with your perception of revisionist history inclinations, which seems a pretty strong indication of an absolutist bias embedded within those perceptions.

Michael P in reply to Nuijel

Teaching students to know why someone else thinks it's relevant is as dangerous as telling them to know a list of facts verbatim. It doesn't teach thinking in a context unique to historical method. That is more important.

E.P.G. in reply to MySetDancer

More like, if it's prepared by a Communist dictatorship, read something else (if there is anything else to read). It's funny how conservatives have abandoned the Thatcher-era belief in the superiority of our democratic system of government, and now believe it's as evil as Communism.

E.P.G. in reply to CFCHeadHunter

It's also a precise parody of the lists/dates/names style of teaching and the imperialist/Whig/Blimp theory of history as constant progress towards Peak Victoriana, around a century before Mr Gove though to revive it.

Academician in reply to Michael Kohler

You did not get me right. There will always be disputes. Still there should be a common "line" in history. Just do not include very contoversial topics or include a few points of views on such.At least there should be historical 'milestones' which raise no disputes. In other words: Churchill was for sure a great politicaian etc.

Michael Kohler in reply to A. Andros

I've now seen multiple posts of people claiming that Americans call history "social studies" through high school. Perhaps some area does, but no district I've ever been in. None of my schools did so (and, being a military brat, I had a dozen of 'em), and the schools in the area I currently live don't either.

Most American schools have social studies for early grades only. In high school, the subject is called "history" (well "American history", "World history", "European history", etc., depending on the year and class).


I think there should be 1 (at most 3) book on history in any country. It will take long time to prepare it (because of long debates) but is is good for patriotical education. It does not mean that this book should show a country as a holy land where every king/queen/president was the wisest, yet citizens within one country should have a common view on the past on their motherland.

MySetDancer in reply to Elgratia

Your "facts" are exactly why people must study all aspects of human culture and their relationship to each other, as they are all interwoven. Doing so prevents one from developing their own "facts" and condescending tone.

Elaborate? History is indeed a dicey subject and peoples commonly held assumptions about the past are often either gray or completely the opposite of recorded fact. Take as an example John Wycliffe, William of Ockham, Joan of Arc, etc.. Often the relationship of religion and science hasn't been as adversarial as many like to pretend and the church far weaker then most assume. Furthermore you can't hold the opinions of Baptist in TX as the opinions of the entire holy see. Look at the writing of Augustus of Hippo.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18
El Salvador's election: An extraordinary result
Americas view March 13th, 14:13


Products & events