Is it important to teach children the true history of Indian/Settler relations during this time of the year,?

Question

or do they need to only be taught those aspects that places America in a positive light?

See this story
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/local_story_328120459

If you believe they should only learn the positive aspects, than does that mean it is also okay for Japanese children to only learn the positive things about Japanese Imperialism during the first half of the 20th Century?

Answer 1

History is about truth. We study history to interpret the past, to learn from it, and to get meaning from it. We study history to learn about ourselves. Socrates said, "Know thyself." We study history to improve ourselves, and by improving ourselves we improve society.

What is presented in history class in any given setting is affected by the perspective of who wrote that particular "piece of history". History texts are written by the victors.

Answer 2

History is not taught honestly until you get to university, and even then, there's a bias. This is because, as is often stated, the winner writes the history. (Which also means what the loser writes is generally more a defense than a true history: witness the white-washing memoirs of Hitler's generals, published in the 1950's).

Honesty is only possible after all those with vested interests have shuffled off this mortal coil. Example: modern histories of the Ancient Romans and Greeks are certainly more honest than those written contemporaneously.

But teachers should make a valiant attempt to teach accurately, unbiasedly, and honestly, no matter what age their students or what time of the year it is!

Answer 3

Before I start I would like to ask 'are you 100% sure that the history you've been taught/learnt is not biased? therefore are you going to teach your children a bias history'?

In recent years many authors have gone back to 're-write' and challenge conventional history and this approach is known as the 'black armband view of history'. I would like to suggest that the 'white blindfold history'(aka the one taught in schools etc.) is not politically neutral but is used to deliberately support specific present day policy making and is used for the benefit of the current national image. The perpetrator of such disunity is the black armband view that questions the past and how this nation came to what it purports to be; a country where justice is upheld, democracy nurtured and humanitarian cherished. This particular image with the white washing of the invasion is being taught in schools today. For example it is often portrayed settlement was peaceful and peacefully become a strong democratic nation that has a focus on human rights. It is often taught that Australia has always been democratic nation since settlement (not true for colonial Western Australia) and that Australia won democracy with relative ease.

Ours school however fail to teach that Indigenous tribes were disposed from their lands, murdered and the government gave them little or no rights. This all appears to stand for the opposite to democracy. For a system that has focused on individual responsibility and individual rights, it is ironic that they have often failed to consider the Indigenous population at all until now. It is argued that the teaching of such a horrid past, which is the anti synthesis to unity and cohesion, would result in a continuation of diversity & inequality into the future.

The founding claim for the revisionists is that history needs to be based upon the truth. The reason being is that for moral growth to occur, lessons must be taught. Importance of the revisionists perspective is reflective of the weaknesses of the conservatives. Earlier histological accounts that that any indigenous killings were moral and legal, there was little resistance from indigenous Australia but placid and dependent upon the state and that aboriginals were more like animals, nomadic and with no moral order. ). It is difficult to argue how the promotion of such a history can result in unity and cohesion, particularly in the present xenophobic climate.

...... teach them the truth
(I'm Australia so some of the above may not apply to the Indigenous American struggle...but i'm sure the underlying message is the same)

Answer 4

I agree with the first guy . Why lie? I grew up with that whole load of B.S. about the Indians and Pilgrims being so happy to help each other and they were so friendly. I also had to deal with the Columbus discovering America crap. Imagine my surprise entering High School and finding the truth. I felt like my whole education up till then was a horrible joke. I then began to wonder what else did they lie to me about? As of recently I purchased a book called "Lies my Teacher told me" and realized that the individuals who create American public school's curriculum have been spreading this false stories for years and actually just recently changed things but only at the high school level. That's just not right. These same curricula only allow for certain minority figures to be discussed. That's why when you talk to African American children and ask them about famous AF Am's the first one they mention is Martin Luther King (as if he's the only one who existed). The same goes for Latino children who only know Cesar Chavez. If we don't inform them of the truth, they will never know how much their ancestors struggled, what important contributions their people made to creating this country and most importantly they won't have the drive to better themselves.

Answer 5

Depends on the kid. Eventually every kid should know about the screwed up things our ancestors did to each other, but it can wait. It can wait for the simple joys of dressing up like cowboys and Indians, or just childhood innocence. There's such a rush to bring children up to snuff historically, but I can see no reason to tamper with innocence before around ten years of age. To a child Indians are funny people with feather head dresses who exist in magic land - because children have trouble comprehending the idea of "the past".

My mother teaches a grade 2 class and on Nov. 11th they write letters to veterans thanking them for fighting in WWII. I assure you that eight year olds do not understand what "sixty years ago" means. They write as if the war was last week because they're eight!

So no, you don't need to tell your seven year old that we sent smallpox laced blankets to the Indians, or that we massacred them like crazy, or that we didn't like them just because they were different. Buy your kid a coonskin cap and let him be a kid while he still has time.

Answer 6

History should always be taught as honestly and objectively as possible.

A failure to do so leads to truth in the adage that history always repeats itself.

And rewriting history, which is what the traditional 'Thanksgiving' type perception of how European immigrants treated natives can lead to events such as the rise of the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930's (the Nazis).

Tell the truth, anything else is lying and the potential inherent in that is dangerous at best.

Current Japanese arrogance is a denial of their past - unlike Germany, which admitted its crimes, and in the process accepted responsibility and moved on to a better future.

Just my .01

-dh