Dillards 41: Chocolate, Cheese, and Other Things More Interesting

[singsingsing]

My sister's grade 8 History teacher believed that William Lyon Mackenzie and William Lyon Mackenzie King were the same person, and that he/they became the first prime minister of Canada. There's a hundred years between them, William Lyon Mackenzie was never prime minister, the first PM was John A. Macdonald in the 1860s and Mackenzie King was PM in the first half of the 20th century.

I don't understand how some people are allowed to teach.

[onekidanddone]

30 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I remember back to school night in my son's US high school. Someone asked if they would be studying WWII in world history. The teacher said no, because it was really more of an American war. I'm English. Wolf Boy had to restrain me. He remembers it clearly.

Errr what? How did this dolt keep his job let alone get one? Sounds like something Derdick might say.  Didn't he sub for the public school system?

[karen77]

6 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Errr what? How did this dolt keep his job let alone get one? Sounds like something Derdick might say.  Didn't he sub for the public school system?

Did the teacher miss the first word in WORLD War 2?? what?

well, I guess if they at least covered it in American history class, then you'd still learn about it.

[onekidanddone]

9 minutes ago, karen77 said:

well, I guess if they at least covered it in American history class, then you'd still learn about it.

Well yea, cuz Merrica is the only counry there is .  Just ask Trump.

[MargaretElliott]

3 hours ago, Georgiana said:

So we have to remind people that EVERYONE is an immigrant or descended from one, even the REAL Americans (white people).

This!!! I'm the child of an immigrant, but because he's a white Englishman and not, say, Latino, for some reason, I'm more American. It's the most ridiculous thing in the world. I guess I'm hyperaware about this because I see people tweeting and facebooking about immigrants, and I think, "wow, that applies to my Dad." But nobody thinks anything of his immigrant status, because he's white. It really draws attention to the irony and racism of the situation. They're not afraid of immigrants, they're afraid of non-white people.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, Bad Wolf said:

I remember back to school night in my son's US high school. Someone asked if they would be studying WWII in world history. The teacher said no, because it was really more of an American war. I'm English. Wolf Boy had to restrain me. He remembers it clearly. 

Obviously not the same as the examples above, but shows how narrow minded we can become.

And why is my Kindle trying to capitalize the first Letter Of Every Word? It's Making Me Crazy!

In the teacher's defense, in most schools kids take a year of world history and a year of American history. World history curricula usually begins with the emergence of humans and, more and more, is expected to cover cultures around the entire globe up to the present. (And thank goodness, as back in the dark ages of the 80s when I was in high school, it was focused only on the West). American history typically begins with an overview of the Native tribes present in North America prior to European exploration and colonization and is supposed to get to the present. Each in 36 weeks full of constant interruptions (oops...the whole band is gone to play at the nursing home for Valentine's Day so you have 3 kids in 2nd period...and don't even get me started on track season). In most American curricula, events that the U.S was heavily a part of, like both World Wars, are given the quick treatment in World History and in depth teaching in American history--very much for the sake of time. This was the case when I taught American history for ten years. However, my text, course outlines and teaching included all aspects of both wars in Europe prior to American involvement. 

[victoriasponge]

@louisa05 is there a reason History is split? I took it up to 18 in school and further to degree level here in the UK and it was only ever history. Studied the UK, the USA, Italy, World Wars, USSR, China etc. We never had it split by whether it was going to be about ‘us’ or ‘them’ so to speak. Just seems like an odd way of doing it when it’s such a broad and diverse subject that interlinks. As an aside, the USA still ended up as our most studied country so some things never change.

[HarryPotterFan]

On 9/25/2017 at 6:22 PM, Georgiana said:

You don't always marry your best friend.  Sometimes, your partner is your partner, but your best friend is still your best friend. 

When one of my best friends got engaged she posted on Facebook, "I'm going to marry my best friend!" And I commented something along the lines of, "We're engaged?"

So that's an a example of having multiple best friends. And they can fill different emotional needs.

[grandmadugger]

9 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

 

Again, if there needs to be a ritual to settle the stadium crowd down for the beginning of the games, compose team songs! Heck, the St  Louis team's fandom already calls itself "Cardinal Nation."

Oh & just putting it out there: free Jana! 

Just to lighten the mood a bit 

I think it's cute you guys are a nation over there. Over here we are Royal!

[Maggie Mae]

1 hour ago, victoriasponge said:

@louisa05 is there a reason History is split? I took it up to 18 in school and further to degree level here in the UK and it was only ever history. Studied the UK, the USA, Italy, World Wars, USSR, China etc. We never had it split by whether it was going to be about ‘us’ or ‘them’ so to speak. Just seems like an odd way of doing it when it’s such a broad and diverse subject that interlinks. As an aside, the USA still ended up as our most studied country so some things never change.

Not louisa, but we were required to take a year of US History and a year of World History in high school. We started US History with the Vikings might have landed in these places and this is the evidence, then Christopher Columbus asked so and so for money for a trade route to India and instead landed here then the puritans came here. We made it to the late 1800s before we ran out of time. World History started with the change to agriculture and we made it to the discovery of the New World before we ran out of time, glossing over just about everything remotely interesting. 

My most memorable history courses were my jr high teacher who taught me 6-8. He randomly chose eras that he found interesting and we did inclusive units. We learned the names of greek and roman gods, wrote a play and put it on. Then for the Reformation, we sold indulgences to our parents and performed a different play. He took us to a Civil War reenactment. He showed us films and had us read literature from the Russian Revolution. We watched a horrifying film about The Donner Party as part of our unit on Western Expansion. We went to the local Native American festivals and Pow Wow and he invited guest speakers. We made dioramas and sewed costumes and went on field trips.  

The only problem I had as a college student was that a lot of the stuff we learned wasn't really in context. It was all so interesting - learning how people in various time periods lived, what they wore, what they ate. But I was older than I care to admit before I realized that American's involvement in WWII - the abduction of Americans by Japanese soldiers, the internment camps, Pearl Harbor, Bombing of Hiroshima - occurred as part of the same war in Europe. And Russia. Individually we learned about those things both in primary, jr, and high school. But I never actually had to learn the timeline of the events. Nor did we really learn much about the European part of the war, beyond Holocaust and Germany. 

Also I think most states require or recommend a semester of "state history." You learn the history of your state. Like, for Alaska History, you would learn the state bird, where the capital is, state flower, the different native american groups and where they live, how we were Russian and then sold to the US and everyone in the US thought it was a huge mistake (some things never change) and then some other random things. 

The state I grew up in was similar. We learned the names of the great lakes, why our city was named what it was, who settled and where, what native americans were here first and some of their traditions, the state tree and flower and bird (WHY does anyone care about these these things?) etc. 

 

[Rachel333]

A lot of high schools split history into US history, European history, and world history. That's also how the AP tests do it.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, victoriasponge said:

@louisa05 is there a reason History is split? I took it up to 18 in school and further to degree level here in the UK and it was only ever history. Studied the UK, the USA, Italy, World Wars, USSR, China etc. We never had it split by whether it was going to be about ‘us’ or ‘them’ so to speak. Just seems like an odd way of doing it when it’s such a broad and diverse subject that interlinks. As an aside, the USA still ended up as our most studied country so some things never change.

Honestly, no idea. I'm going to go with "always been that way". We don't teach enough history here. On the secondary level (grades 9-12, ages 14-18), most states have one year each of world and American history, either a half or whole year of "American government" (formerly called "civics" and the name change has led to people ranting on social media that their kids don't have to take "civics" anymore which is destroying America...), and another half or whole year of some social science area. Very few places require a full four years of social sciences. My state does 3.5 years which does not even specifically include world history now. The state my nephew went to 9-11 in required only 2.5 years and he had not had a single history course when he arrived here for his senior year--so apparently history was not specifically required. 

Having taught both world and American history, I would say that I would prefer it be divided. A separate world history course allows in-depth study of other places and cultures that could easily be lost if we had the approach you experienced. Frankly, if there were no division, I could see conservative parents demanding that the focus always be the U.S. alone. And a separate U.S. course allows for in-depth focus on more aspects of the country's history including not just political history but also cultural and social history. Obviously, there is overlap as you can't learn about imperialism without including the colonization of the Americas or approach the World Wars from only one country's perspective. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

23 minutes ago, grandmadugger said:

Just to lighten the mood a bit 

I think it's cute you guys are a nation over there. Over here we are Royal!

Really? I didn't know y'all considered yourselves Royal. lol.

I'm really sad that it looks like Cardinal Nation has been let down yet again.

[potato]

4 hours ago, JordynDarby5 said:

My history teacher a couple decades ago did a good job teaching about what it was really like for the Native people. Trail of Tears, how would you feel if that was you on that trail?

I wanted to touch on this point.  In fifth grade, my teacher told us to pack all of our things up in our backpacks and that our class would be held on a concrete lot outside.  I actually started crying (which my classmates didn't let me forget) and said that I didn't want to leave and my teacher pretended to shoot me.  My "ghost" still had to accompany the rest of the class out to the lot.  When we got outside, my teacher sat us down and told us about the Trail of Tears.  I still can't think of the Trail of Tears without remembering the sadness I felt by doing the activity and how much worse it must have been for everyone involved in the real Trail of Tears.

On a different note, I could go on and on about the history classes my high school offered (AP Euro for life!) but since history definitely isn't my forte and I usually wanted to get out of my history classes as quickly as possible, I don't feel like I should be the one talking.  I actually opted to not take any history/social science classes past the ones that were required so that I could take two science classes my senior year instead.

 

[grandmadugger]

2 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Really? I didn't know y'all considered yourselves Royal. lol.

I'm really sad that it looks like Cardinal Nation has been let down yet again.

Remember it took us 30 years to be able to play again. 

[MamaJunebug]

12 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

I am Cardinal Nation

*giving the secret Fredbird wave!*

And Free Jana. 

[feministxtian]

I took US History in 8th grade (was in the high school though), World History in 9th, another US history in 11th and US Government in 12th. I also took 2 semesters of US History in College. 

Managing to get through to a "fundamentalist". I had a debate w/my pastor over universal health care. He was against it, talking about how the churches should take care of people...right up until I hit him with some serious financial facts...like my husband's monthly prescription costs (if we had to pay for them, it wouldn't happen, it's about 7 grand/month). I asked him if the church would be willing to pay that month after month, year after year. Dead silence for about a week...then a sort of sheepish email saying he'd never thought of that and maybe universal health care was a good idea. I also blasted the "pro-life" stance when you're willing to let people die from a lack of health care. Another wake-up moment. Now, we're totally great friends. 

Spouse as "best friend"...I don't have any "best friends", I'm not really willing to let anyone in that far. I mean, I like hanging out with him, we have fun...but being that I LOVE being alone...well...

[Kangaroo]

Ours was done so the first 4 years of high school was just "history". You did a bit of everything, but overall there was more focus on Australian history and involvement in various things.

In the 2 senior years history is elective. It was split into modern, ancient and 'elective' hisotry (which was more of a focus on critical thinking).

All schools has 1 common, core topic within each branch, and then the other 3 topics were up to the school based on resources available. In the final exams that are done in the state, you only answered topics on which you studied.

Junior years definitely had more of an Australian focus and did things like Ancient Egypt and Rome).

The senior ones were more focused as everyone was there by choice, so topics became more difficult. As a general rule we didn't learn from an "Australian" perspective. (There were things like WW2 In the Pacific from Australia's perspective which was something only a few students did).

 Dividing up by time period rather than region, definitely helps.

In my senior years we covered the Russian Revolution, French Revolution, WW1, WW2, Civil Rights Movement, American Civil War, Aztecs at the time of Spain's arrival, Boudica, Thera and probably more things I don't remember.

Those two American topics are the only real American history I've come across (and it's probably quite different and less In depth  from how it's taught in the US). So I am always keen to learn more about American history whenever it's brought up!

We never really covered the Tudors, Elizabethian age, or Enlightenment. No Knights in shining armour history for me (Which is probably why I'm so excited by it now!). But I know lots about Australian and New Zealand history so that's always fun!

 

[victoriasponge]

@Maggie Mae @louisa05 Thanks for your replies. Sounds like history is just dealt with quite differently here all round. It's non-compulsory past 14 for a start so the way we're taught it 11-14 is more like yours, covering topics quickly and with less depth. Then past 14 everything you do is for national exams so the teacher picks which of the possible national exam topics they like the most and you study maybe 5 of them over 2 years. I just liked it because I liked the depth. History is more interesting when you really go in on it, I find, so I've never been one for courses that just scrape the surface trying to teach everything, though I accept that there are probably benefits to that like understanding history of an area as a whole better, and covering far more topics than I'm ever going to know.

I do remember how dull learning about early Victorian political structures and party formation was (also the Corn Laws) so that taught me the most important isn't always the most interesting. I met a US teacher last year and she was surprised at how much US history I'd covered, unfortunately haven't really done a huge amount more since aside from my Middle East module last semester. I'm looking into which books would be good to read on the colonisation of the Americas after I'm done with this semester.

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

7 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

So that's an a example of having multiple best friends. And they can fill different emotional needs.

This was exactly what I tried to explain to my long term ex. Still, he was jealous of my childhood best friend because HE was supposed to be my best friend. In fact, I found myself getting increasingly isolated from my friends because he made it abundantly clear that as his girlfriend it was my job to fulfill all his emotional needs. Plus he was judgemental of everybody in my life, and never wanted to stick around at social events I brought him to in the hopes that maybe he'd make some friends.

Thank fucking God I got out of that situation. Since ditching that emotional deadweight I've built stronger friendships than ever, and found a new partner who has healthy relationship expectations and her own friends.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

9 hours ago, victoriasponge said:

@louisa05 is there a reason History is split? I took it up to 18 in school and further to degree level here in the UK and it was only ever history. Studied the UK, the USA, Italy, World Wars, USSR, China etc. We never had it split by whether it was going to be about ‘us’ or ‘them’ so to speak. Just seems like an odd way of doing it when it’s such a broad and diverse subject that interlinks. As an aside, the USA still ended up as our most studied country so some things never change.

Here too you study history without splitting it in different courses. You start in year 1 and do it till the end of high school for generally 3 hours a week. Up until a couple of years ago (or maybe a bit more) the program was from prehistory to nowadays between year 1to 5, then in junior high (year 6 to 8) again from prehistory to nowadays and then in highschool all over again. The repetition was due to the difficulty of the need to teach it in a developmentally adequate way. Some years ago they reformed the curriculum and now it's taught like a continuum from year one to the end of high school, so let's say you study prehistory in year one and then never again, you study the Romans in elementary school and then never again. This reform was heavily criticised and I foresee that it won't hold.

Back when I was in school the program included world's history in chronological order. So if we were studying prehistory we would study everything about it not just Europe or Italy. The main focus was of course Italy and Europe but we studied it in the context of world's history, we didn't go into all the details with it and we definitely overlooked too much about msny African countries history but at least we had a vague idea of it and wewe were given thea instruments to go deeper on our own if we wanted to. US history was treated peripherally and I definitely studied more about China and Japan than about the US pre 20th century history.

[Lurky]

3 hours ago, victoriasponge said:

It's non-compulsory past 14 for a start so the way we're taught it 11-14 is more like yours, covering topics quickly and with less depth. Then past 14 everything you do is for national exams so the teacher picks which of the possible national exam topics they like the most and you study maybe 5 of them over 2 years.

I am British with a history degree, and this is NOT the standard UK way.  It may have been teacher choice for you, but not the way eg my friend teaches history, or I learned it, where there is a strategy at history department level within the school.

An example from 5-10 years ago.  Usually girls and boys get equivalent marks in GCSE geography and history.  At this very inner city school in an area of multiple deprivations, with a diverse pupil population, they wanted to know why girls were underperforming, and it turned out the old history head had picked the American West as one of the 2 modules to teach, as he'd felt it would be more interesting to the boys.  But for a lot of the pupils, it said nothing to them about their life, it was just learning for learning's sake.  So they swapped to a module that looked at aspects of British politics - how different classes of men and women got the vote, why the welfare state and the NHS came into being,  and results went way up across the board, because it gave the students something that was interesting to them, and that they could relate to their own lives.

[victoriasponge]

@Lurky I came from a small school so there were only 3 or so history teachers. There were two maximum who taught GCSE and my one was head of the GCSE curriculum so picked the topics. I didn't necessarily mean each individual teacher picked the topics, just that mine was such a small school I wasn't sure if they were picking based on being the teacher or based on being head just because there was such a small selection to go by. Either way, I learnt different topics to my friends on the same exam board in a different school is all I meant.

[Jenn The Heathen]

When I was in HS in NJ, we were required to take 3 years of history.  Freshmen year was ancient world history (through to the discovery of America), nothing was required sophomore year, but a lot of kids on the college track took modern history (Basically an intense study of the 1900s), and junior and senior year we were required to take American History, which was split (junior year covered Columbus through the revolution, senior year covered post revolution onward).  Of course, this could have all changed as I graduated in 1999.

[louisa05]

Something I would add to the discussion is that even where it remains in the curriculum here in the USA, there is an increasing expectation that history (and all social science) be dumbed down for students as it is of little importance compared to STEM. This includes even teaching government and the Constitution. At a national conference I attended in 2008 with a group of 36 history teachers from around the country, all but two of us had been told by admins or even boards to keep courses "easy" to give students more time to focus on their math and science classes.