History within our schools

[dreaming_mouse]

I was talking about this with a guy from a writer's forum who is a pretty patriotic guy. It started off with me asking him about his name, I thought he was being slightly hypocritical and having a French name, anyway it was Spanish. Anyway it started off a conversation about the Battle of Trafalgar which has lead me to thinking about this:

This was an important battle for the English, possibly even Britain (I wouldn't be 100% sure as I do not really pay attention to English history. It doesn't interest me and I don't really see myself as English...so yeah.) Anyway there is no mention of it within our schools.

If someone had said to me who was Nelson I would have looked at them blankly most probably. I know about the Wellington Duke and I like to go visit his statue, in fact if I ever get round to taking my practical that may be one of the first things I do (Gaulia - fancy a picnic? whee )

Anyway should these not get more of a mention within our curriculum? We hear about the World Wars, yet in the long run if we had lost these battles hundreds of years ago we could have had near enough the same effect. Although instead of speaking German we would speak French/Spanish.

So do you think Nelson and his battles and/or the Duke of Wellington should be added to our national curriculum? Or at least should there be some kind of way children can learn about their countries past? When I was a small child I probably would have, now though I prefer to learn about the more romantic/fashionable history eras. rolleyes

 

[Fourcolour]

I think it's far more important to learn about recent history myself. Learning about the World Wars gives children knowledge of several things which will give them a greater understanding of the world they live in. Things like:

The rise of Nazism, and the particular conditions which allowed a fascist regime to take power and threaten to overwhelm the world.

The formation of Israel, and therefore the start of the current (since there's been fighting there for centuries) conflict in Palestine.

Humanity's capacity for evil.


There are reasons to learn about those particular naval battles, but I don't think they're necessarilly relevant enough to warrant national curriculum attention. The BBC has plenty of historical documentaries, and people can check those out if they want to learn more.  

[Invictus_88]

What interests me is that our empire surpassed that of the Romans, and yet it is almost totally omitted from the curriculum.

Yes, I think the aspects of British power should be less hidden from children. Nelson included. It is essential that children understand not only about native american indians and the US depression, but also about the very fundamental element that is their own history.  

[Fourcolour]

Invictus_88

What interests me is that our empire surpassed that of the Romans, and yet it is almost totally omitted from the curriculum.

Yes, I think the aspects of British power should be less hidden from children. Nelson included. It is essential that children understand not only about native american indians and the US depression, but also about the very fundamental element that is their own history.

I'd agree with that post. I worry though that the inclusion of these topics in the national curriculum would lead to poorer coverage of the topics I outlined in my earlier post. There's only time for so much after all.

As for the part about our empire, I think children should be taught about it, if only to understand that exploiting those weaker than yourself may be hugely successful economically, it's wildly unethical.  

[Invictus_88]

Fourcolour

I think children should be taught about it, if only to understand that exploiting those weaker than yourself may be hugely successful economically, it's wildly unethical.

Oh no, I don't.

I'm a great supporter of balanced and impartial teaching. Presentation of the facts on both sides and allowing the young the opportunity to think.

Your suggestion seems too close to brainwashing and smacks of New Labourism.

Creates people who aren't in the habit of thinking and analysing.  

[Fourcolour]

Invictus_88

Fourcolour

I think children should be taught about it, if only to understand that exploiting those weaker than yourself may be hugely successful economically, it's wildly unethical.

Oh no, I don't.

I'm a great supporter of balanced and impartial teaching. Presentation of the facts on both sides and allowing the young the opportunity to think.

Your suggestion seems too close to brainwashing and smacks of New Labourism.

Creates people who aren't in the habit of thinking and analysing.

Oh, I don't advocate that kind of approach at all, but I think most kids will come away with the idea that labour which is effectively of the type known as 'slave' is unethical. Give 'em the facts, along with a few anecdotal pieces from those who wrote about it at the time, and let them figure it out.  

[and_solo_said]

Well, our history curriculum is bollocksed up to the max.

We do all the important bits when we are too young to learn the important bits (not the best way to phrase it), learn pitifull amounts about the emergence of Britain during the middle ages in high school, and then spend 3 years learning the same damn parts of modern history in years 9, 10 and 11.


We have never been taught anything about -

The 100 years war
The civil war between Stefan and Matilda
The saxons
The vikings
The Romano-British
The Boar war
India
Africa

...You see where I'm going with this  

[Vanilla Pod]

There's too much history to cover everything.

I think possibly modern history and...normal history should be separate subjects.  

[Fourcolour]

and_solo_said

Well, our history curriculum is bollocksed up to the max.

We do all the important bits when we are too young to learn the important bits (not the best way to phrase it), learn pitifull amounts about the emergence of Britain during the middle ages in high school, and then spend 3 years learning the same damn parts of modern history in years 9, 10 and 11.


We have never been taught anything about -

The 100 years war
The civil war between Stefan and Matilda
The saxons
The vikings
The Romano-British
The Boar war
India
Africa

...You see where I'm going with this

A lot kids don't even have to do history at GCSE these days. In my old school it recently became an option subject, to make way for compulsory IT.  

[and_solo_said]

Fourcolour

and_solo_said

Well, our history curriculum is bollocksed up to the max.

We do all the important bits when we are too young to learn the important bits (not the best way to phrase it), learn pitifull amounts about the emergence of Britain during the middle ages in high school, and then spend 3 years learning the same damn parts of modern history in years 9, 10 and 11.


We have never been taught anything about -

The 100 years war
The civil war between Stefan and Matilda
The saxons
The vikings
The Romano-British
The Boar war
India
Africa

...You see where I'm going with this

A lot kids don't even have to do history at GCSE these days. In my old school it recently became an option subject, to make way for compulsory IT.

The only subjects that we had to choose were maths, science, english and short course RE  

[Invictus_88]

and_solo_said

The only subjects that we had to choose were maths, science, english and short course RE

Same but with the full RE course.  

[Foetus In Fetu]

I agree with Fourcolour; while history like the Battle of Trafalgar may be interesting, it is not as relevant and therefore not strictly as 'important' as more recent history, such as the politics involved in the World Wars and the way that the world became structured as it is today and what the implications of this are.

As for brainwashing, well, there is a degree of that involved in history lessons already. It's ironic that we're taught about the way schools were made into brainwashing factories in Nazi Germany and yet the way the facts are presented to us imply that, at the Treaty of Versailles, for instance, Britain had the most favourable stance but didn't get what it desired. We're also encouraged to believe that extreme politics are inherently 'wrong' or 'bad' when this is not the case, although they are often unrealistic or become hate-motivated; we're taught to believe that the best stance to take on any issue is the moderate stance, the one slap bang in the middle, when that just isn't always the case. It's stifling. History lessons are accurate, but they are subtley biased, which isn't necessarily bad if you believe promoting patriotism to be a good thing -- you just have to wonder where the line should be drawn.  

[and_solo_said]

I found a most biased passage on an illustrated Scottish timeline whilst away.

It reads: 'Mary Queen of Scots; she helped the poor, but was executed by her cousin Queen Elizabeth 1 of England'

stare

That's it  

[Teta the punisher]

very biased, i agree.

You do get some finatical Anti-English people. Im not talking suicide bombers, im talking normal people, i live near wales, and ive met some people there who are HORRIBLE towards english visitors. Fortunatley its a small minoritory.

The goverment proposed making history a core subject all through to GCSE's again, i gotta agree persoanlly, but i wish they would make up their mind, they put in on and take it off the list every few years  

[Invictus_88]

Teta the punisher

very biased, i agree.

You do get some finatical Anti-English people. Im not talking suicide bombers, im talking normal people, i live near wales, and ive met some people there who are HORRIBLE towards english visitors. Fortunatley its a small minoritory.

The goverment proposed making history a core subject all through to GCSE's again, i gotta agree persoanlly, but i wish they would make up their mind, they put in on and take it off the list every few years

We'll see how I manage..

..I'm the Englishman going to Wales for uni before (probably) joining the Welsh cavalry.