Just as the title says, inspired by the thread on looking for Latin American and African heroes.
As a teacher, my answer: yes, of course.
But not in all units.
Define child. If you mean child as under teens, no. If you mean child as someone under 18, yes. I think very young children, like ten and under, shouldn’t because I think they don’t have the ability to under such things at that age. It will really be just pushing your, or the school systerm’s, propaganda on them.
Of course.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
Why would we not teach children about war?
As an aside, there are bookshelves in my 9-year old’s bedroom with a variety of non-kid books on them: history, anthropology, mythology, etc. He was perusing one of the books – an illustrated history of WWII. I told him that there were also some books about WWI on the shelves, and he asked if books about World War 3 had been released yet. 
(I blame movie sequels).
Errmmm… so we shouldn’t teach under-10s anything about history, mythology, religion, ethics, etc, either because we’d just be pushing our propaganda on them? :dubious:
I disagree with this. I teach my students in very small ways about the Civil War and the American Revolution, and I’ve talked with them a little bit about events in Egypt and Libya and Tunisia this year, in addition to very brief conversations about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
You’re correct, however, that it’s difficult to do so from an impartial standpoint, and it’s also difficult to provide seven-year-olds with enough background information for them to understand the causes or effects of war in details–if you haven’t tried to do so (especially the impartial part–you can’t just talk about good guys and bad guys), trust me that it’s very hard. I’m good at explaining things to seven-year-olds, but this area is a bit beyond me.
And that’s why, when we’re dealing with the social studies theme of “People who have made the world a better place,” we left out military figures. There are certainly some military figures who made the world a better place, and plenty more for whom such a case can be made–but, compared to figures like Gandhi and and Curie, it’s a lot harder to explain their contributions to the world in an honest and simplified fashion.
I see no reason to shelter children from history, military or otherwise. Sometimes I think we give them too little credit. Kids can handle more than we think.
Of course we should. They need to know about the world. They know about history, current events, and it would be ridiculous to shield them from that.
I hate the principal of not acting like kids will melt if put in contact with the real world. They are part of this world and need to understand it.
I spend a few weeks teaching my preschool class (5 year olds) about George Washington and what it was like to live in his time. Here’s the way I present the war stuff:
George Washington was the leader of the American army during the Revolutionary War. His army stood up to the British redcoat army, even though they didn’t have enough guns or food or warm clothes. Some people on both sides got hurt when the soldiers shot their guns. In the end, the British army gave up and went back to England in their ships. That’s how our country was born.
If pressed, I don’t deny that people were killed, but I don’t volunteer it or dwell on it.
Of course they should be taught, and they shouldn’t be shielded from the details either.
I am rather flabbergasted by this. Ike? Pershing? Walter-Reed? Grant? People who opposed evil and gave entire continents back to their rightful owners?
I don’t have any problem with teaching kids military history. Though I think there’s a certain way of teaching history to kids, which happily is less common then it used to be, which makes history basically nothing but a series of military leaders, wars and revolts. This is of pretty limited usefulness, and gets pretty repetitious after a while, so I think I understand LHoD’s desire to teach certain classes as explicitly not dealing with military material.
Yeah, that.
I find it kind of amazing to think about my 10yo daughter being shielded from war until 6th grade. :eek:
Great. Explain Walter-Reed to me in terms a second-grader could understand. Keep in mind that many second graders can’t name the continent they’re on, much less the names of five other countries.
How do you explain Gandhi and Marie Curie to them?
Is it possible for most children to get to 6th grade without knowing about war? Even if they don’t have a military family member, many books and movies include military themes or war experiences.
Kids learn about aggression, intimidation, and violence very early - from other kids. The world of little kids is serious stuff to the actual kids, even though adults tend to idealize it. War being essentially an extension of this same behavior, it seems foolish to not try to teach kids about it.
Indeed its easier to say “Eisenhower kicked some Nazi ass!” then “Marie Curie discovered radioactivity”.
I am at a loss as how, let alone why, you would want them to be shielded like this. If nothing else, what about kids of people in the military? I’m sure military parents are very careful to try to keep what they know age-appropriate, but there’s no not knowing that Mommy is a soldier and something of what that means, especially once you get into mid to upper elementary ages.
I don’t want my kids learning too much military history before they’re old enough to grasp something of what war really means. I don’t want to pretend that sanitized stories are the truth. There are already too many adults like that.