There certainly is a truth of history. I don’t want to get into a postmodernist debate, but the truth is out there. Not everything, or even most things, in history is a morass of debate and speculation. Like any other field of research, the arbiter of truth should be the concensus of published research. If the textbooks contradict that body of knowledge because they wouldn’t foster national pride, then that’s a bad thing.
Third base!
Avumede wrote:
Really? What if the majority of historians publishing happen to be Marxists? Or Fascists, for that matter? Should their interpretations of history be taught as “The Truth” in classrooms? If the majority of historians in Nazi Germany were fascists, and their writings formed the concensus in Germany at that time, did that make their interpretations “True?”
There are certainly facts in history. The problem is that historians don’t just recite facts (names, dates, etc.). They place interpretations on those facts. A Marxist historian will tend to see events through a Marxist lens, describing every event in history in terms of class conflict. A feminist historian might place more emphasis on the oppression of women. A conservative historian might present history as a series of great deeds by great individuals. Yet another historian might prefer to focus on history from the view of the average citizen.
History is not a science. It is not subject to empirical proof or the scientific method.
Go back and review some of the debates over history in this very forum. Time and time again, you will see one set of facts given a dozen different interpretations, depending on the world view of the poster.
Which “Truth” do you propose we teach? My alternative would be to present such objective facts as we may have (and by “facts” I mean names, dates, objective events), offer students some of the competing views on the interpretation of these facts, and invite the students to debate the various interpretations or develop their own.
You’re a ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d boy.
Tomndebb needs to change his nick to Budnlou. 
The problem that arises in teaching high school history is that you have the kids for 40 minutes a day (In a fifty minute period, even the best teachers spend 10 minutes on administrative BS and classroom management) 180 days in a school year, minus time missed for assemblies and such. In a world hsitory class you are expeceted to cover anchient Sumer-the modern era. In an American History class you are expected to cover the period from the early 15th century through the modern day. Your students will vary in reading level from that of a sixth grader to that of a university senior. You cannot assume any prior knowledge. It is impossiblle to cover everything, and so things have to be cut, and worse, things have to be simplified, often to the point that they appear simply wrong. The question of what to cut and how to simplify will always be there, and it will always be problematic.
If I may draw an analogy, it is rather like a library with limited funds choosing what books to buy. If they opt not to buy The Satanic Verses, is it censorship or economics?
If you go into detail about America’s involvement in Latin America, then you have to choose not to talk about Veitnam. If you spend time telling the anecdotes that make history interesting to students, you dont have time to work those antedotes into any sort of greater historical picture. If you spend time on the politics of medieval Europe, you have to skim over the Rennasianse. Worst of all, if you spend time teaching techniques of interpretaion, you dont have time to teach the facts needed to make those techniques meaningful. And this is all with a good, well-meaning, well-educated history teacher. A coach who hasn’t cracked a book since college is that much less effective.
This is why I hope some day to teach a combined history/English class with block scheduling. I think such a setup could be moderatly more effective. However, many of these problems will remain unless we either dedicate serious amounts of time to history education (sacrificing math or English or Art or band), or we come to a shared national consensus about what is really important. Neither solution is likely or even desirable.
A very good point, Mandy.
One idea would be to have a history class cover 15-20 “events”. Covering each one in detail, with some depth, some anecdotes, some discussion and multiple perspectives. Each “event” could be covered for 1-2 weeks.
The theory is that students would find history more interesting, and would therefore a) retain more of what they were taught and b) be more likely to learn more history on their own.
The difficulty would be getting such a curriculum past a school board… “What do you mean you aren’t going to talk about the War of 1812?”.
But barring implementation concerns, do those of you closer to the front lines in classes think this would be a better or worse way to teach history?