"Teaching Sensitive and Controversial History" Topic

Of possible interest?

Free to read

PDF link

Armand

An article from the UK; it is interesting to see how other nations view their history at a time when our history in the US is under attack.

Grelber

Interesting, Armand, but not really convincing. The main purpose of the paper seems to be justifying the teaching of history, firstly, and explaining why the teachers should shift from the usual/traditional curricula. Thirdly there's a swipe at any media which shows some concern about the topics being discussed, and those opponents are all identified as "conservative" or "right wing". So the bias of the author is allowed to shine through.

Also it should have been proof-read before being published. Punctuation, grammar and spelling mistakes are present, while some run-on sentences could have been better presented as two or three sentences.

Thank You for posting. I will give it a read.

My next book, about a third done, is TEACHING THE TOUGH TOPICS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Here's the opening section of the first topic:

A SHINING CITY ON A HILL:
TEACHING AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

1. Note to Teachers:

This contentious topic is a good occasion to teach how to deal with ideas and the words that name ideas. Elementary students are often taught to begin with a word and then to define it, but this is backwards; very young children begin with the thing and then learn the name for it. "This is your NOSE," as it is touched. "Where's your NOSE?" The thing itself, the definition, the meaning, is what is most important; the word is a convenient name for a description or an object or an idea.

One must first understand ideas, and then be able to recognize and name them, and then may decide to accept or reject them. Earliest literature includes the idea of a woman through whom everything is ruined. The name of that idea is femme fatale, the deadly woman, and Eve and Pandora are examples. Students who understand the idea (whether they agree with it or not!) can then identify Helen of Troy as a femme fatale, and debate whether Cassandra or Lady Macbeth is one. The idea is more important than the name of the idea, and the test of understanding is when the idea can be identified and named in an unfamiliar context.

What then is the idea which some name "American exceptionalism"? Answering this key question makes it possible for students to recognize it when they see it and to name it, as well as enabling them to debate whether the idea itself is valid in general and in particular cases.

2. What "American Exceptionalism" is NOT: John Winthrop's "city on a hill" as its first expression

A common misconception is that this idea is simply a claim of superiority: America is better than other nations. But this quite misunderstands what Winthrop was saying in his sermon "A Model of Christian Charity," preached as Massachusetts was being founded (and so before there was a nation to be proud of.) He was indeed reminding his listeners of their exceptional circumstances, but far more as a stern warning than as any occasion for pride. Being on a mission for God carries heavy risks, and so does espousing high ideals. The higher the aspiration, the greater the risk of failure and the greater its cost.

Thirdly there's a swipe at any media which shows some concern about the topics being discussed, and those opponents are all identified as "conservative" or "right wing". So the bias of the author is allowed to shine through.

No Dal, he is commenting that the opposition to even discussing these 'difficult' topics comes from media seen in the UK as on the political right. This is a matter of simple fact, not a 'bias'.

G'day, GF. It may be a fact that it's the gossip-mongers on the right that are doing the criticising, mate, and that would not surprise me at all. GM's of all political stripes do it all the time, here. However, the need to call out and underline the "villains'" political leanings seems unnecessary. "Certain sections of the media", or even "the usual suspects from the media" would not have drawn a political line and put him and his critics on different sides. Yet his audience would have a good idea of who he meant. Then again, that's how the gossip-mongers and politically motivated dance the dance here. It may well be different in the UK and I'm reading too much into it.

Thanks

Armand