"What American textbooks say about Vietnam, and" Topic

…about Americans' attitudes toward war

"Textbooks are opportunities for governments to instill patriotic values in school children. Such values are especially important if a government wants its citizens to support future wars. Governments that seek to convince their soldiers to fight, kill and die in wars need to present past wars as glorious and honorable and minimize the wartime suffering of the country's soldiers. However, textbooks, deliberately or inadvertently, can also open space for ‘critical pedagogy' that undercuts militarism by presenting the human costs of war for soldiers and civilians.

Textbooks are especially influential in shaping US students' opinions on war. This is because American high school teachers, unlike their counterparts in Europe and Asia, are not trained in history, having majored in education or social science disciplines, like sociology or psychology. Thus, the decisions made by US textbook authors and publishers are decisive in determining what students learn about America's wars…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

They actually discuss Vietnam in text books in school ? I thought most schools didn't teach much about history. Clearly demonstrated when the uneducated or miseducated rabble started to tear down statues …

As both a college professor and a high school teacher, the truth is it does not matter what the text books say.
They cannot give the space to an in depth discussion on ANY issue.

It all depends on what the teacher or instructor says about a subject that matters.
On the college level the Osprey Essential History series are a lot more informative than most of the supplemental books now in use. Sadly Random House has done a very poor job of distributing and promoting them at the college level.

Enormous problems with the US education system at all levels from elementary school right up to University. The UK is only slightly better and quality is dropping.

When education is merely a way to prepare for a lucrative career, and fees are often exorbitant, any 'questioning' and search for truth just falls through the cracks.

When people complain [rightly] that Japan distorts or hides its history before and during WW2 you have to ask if other countries do any better? The UK certainly brushes some things under the rug…

An interesting factor in the US is the influence of Texas. It's a large, populous state [2nd only to California] so has undue influence. Many RED states just buy the Texas textbooks and they are to say the least slanted a certain way.

The key skill of the teacher [full disclosure I am one] is to train the learners to learn. To question everything and examine evidence. Alas it's a dying skill. With many US teachers reliant of food banks and having to moonlight other jobs is it any wonder?

The Canadian school system also has some challenges when teaching history. My son, who is in grade 12, came home the other day and told me his English teacher told him the US started the Vietnam War over oil. In junior high his social studies teacher taught that Japan was the victim in WW2. In elementary school he came home and told me his teacher said I was going to hell because I did not believe in god. I told him I likely was going to hell, but not because of that. Parents need to discuss with their kids what they are being taught at school as, sadly, some teachers teach an agenda rather than facts.

Also – don't forget you are getting what the kid thinks they were taught – not necessarily what they WERE taught.

A lot of shades of meaning get lost like a game of Chinese whispers.

If a teacher says 'One of the reasons the US intervene in Vietnam was because of oil' that could easily turn into "the US started the Vietnam War over oil".

Before having conniptions I would ask to see what the written materials supporting the lesson were.

Maybe, as a teacher I get triggered when people play the 'blame the teacher card' without really knowing the full story.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Skarper, that is just it, there were no materials to support the assertions I referenced above (well maybe the Bible on the god thing) – it was simply the teachers opinion being taught as fact. Further, I do not believe it is even factually correct to assert that one of the reasons the US intervened in Vietnam was because of oil.

I have a bachelor's in History, so I have some strong opinions on the subject. IMHO trying to squeeze extra meaning or aspire to better standards in anything below University level history classes is a lost hope. In my HS one of the history teachers was the Football coach too, with about as much dedication to the subject that you'd expect in an HS where Football was king. You need both a dedicated instructor to teach the subject AS WELL as the freedom to teach to the standards the teacher expects.

Damon.

Facts and history are a murky area. Some things about what happened can be factually deduced from evidence to a high degree of certainty.

The why is harder to judge. Everything needs to be based on evidence and every piece of evidence evaluated.

I agree history needs high level cognitive ability to teach and to learn. I suspect most under 16s can't grasp what history is about. Not that many adults can either, in any country.

What you get taught is too often ‘our story that we all believe'. And once learned it is hard to unlearn.