[barmar]

kenberg, on 2015-February-19, 12:59, said:

Don't hold me too literally to the word "interpretations". I was trying to get at the difference between "Did this or did this not happen?" and "What lessons can be drawn from what happened". A current example would be Obama's recent reference to the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition in discussing current terrorism. Exactly what happened during the Crusades and the Inquision can be, and is, debated but they toook place and few would deny that they were awful, even if some would downplay some of the horrs. That takes care of "Did it happen?". Turning to the second question about lessons to be drawn. What are they? Presumably no one is arguing that because of the Inquisition we should simply say "Oh well, beheading people, shooting school children and setting peoople on fire is just one of thoise things humans do, no big deal". But if that is not the purpose of bringing it up, what was the purpose? So people would not get on their high horse? That's it?

As I interpret it, Obama wasn't trying to minimize what ISIS does, or to put down Christianity, either.

What he was doing was countering the claim that Islam is a crazy religion that uniquely promotes cruel behavior. The Crusades and Inquisition are examples of Christian principles being interpreted similarly. It's people who are evil, they just find ways to use religion to support their behavior.

So we should remember that our beef is with the extremists, we're not in a war with Islam as a whole.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2015-February-21, 20:53, said:

As I interpret it, Obama wasn't trying to minimize what ISIS does, or to put down Christianity, either.

What he was doing was countering the claim that Islam is a crazy religion that uniquely promotes cruel behavior. The Crusades and Inquisition are examples of Christian principles being interpreted similarly. It's people who are evil, they just find ways to use religion to support their behavior.

So we should remember that our beef is with the extremists, we're not in a war with Islam as a whole.

Certainly, watching it all, he was not trying to demean Christianity. But it seems easier to say what he was not trying to do then what he was trying to do.

I brought this up to distinguish between historical fact and interpretations of significance in the context of the Standards.. I can imagine questions on an exam about the Inqusitin that could be confidently graded right or wrong. If the question were "Compare and contrast the Inquisition with the actions of ISIS" I would consider this a very thoughtful and interesting question but I would hesitate to give a list of right answers and wrong answers for the purpose of grading.

It's really tough to give a mass exam with a group of hired graders that tests the ability to give thoughtful answers. For one thing, many people think that answers that they disaree with could not possibly be thoughtful.

Of course the Standards are for U.S. History but the ame problems arise.

[Trinidad]

History is simply a problematic subject. As with any science, it has to deal with gathering facts and interpreting them. There are two problems with that.

1) The facts as we know them now are not the same as the facts that were available at the time they happened. The information that the crusaders had was different from the information that we have. In some cases we are better informed, since we can compare inforomation from all sides. In other cases they were better informed, since information has been lost over time.

2) The interpretation of those facts, with the morals of today, will be different from the historical interpretation of those facts. And, probably, this interpretation will change again. As a quick example: When I went to a calvinist elementary school in the '70s (in an area that was dominated by Calvinism), the crusades were a good thing, and so was the iconoclasm of the 16th century. When my kids went to a catholic elementary school (we live about 30 miles from where I grew up and here Catholicism is dominant), they learned that the iconoclasm was barbaric. Now, a few years later in high school, they learn something different: There is not really a religious point of view. The iconoclasm was seen as a catalyst for the Dutch revolution. (And the fact that the Dutch Revolution happened is obviously something positive. Perhaps they think different about that in Spain. I would be interested in hearing what e.g. Fluffy learned in school about the wars that Philip II fought in the 16th century. Or about the inquisition for that matter.)

Gathering historic facts is already hard enough. Interpreting them or morally judging them is even more problematic.

Rik

[mike777]

barmar, on 2015-February-21, 20:53, said:

As I interpret it, Obama wasn't trying to minimize what ISIS does, or to put down Christianity, either.

What he was doing was countering the claim that Islam is a crazy religion that uniquely promotes cruel behavior. The Crusades and Inquisition are examples of Christian principles being interpreted similarly. It's people who are evil, they just find ways to use religion to support their behavior.

So we should remember that our beef is with the extremists, we're not in a war with Islam as a whole.

Barmar you raise a key point, many look at the history and do not see we are at war.

If we are not at war, call it a law enforcement issue or something else, you can see the historical problem.

Also add that whatever the correct definition of the conflict is, many, many believe it can not be won or resolved by bombing or killing.

Compare this written history to historical wars over thousands and thousands of years where winning or resolution came from bombing or killing. If one side or the other just bombs or kills enough there will be some political resolution, at least for some years.

[mike777]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-22, 00:42, said:

History is simply a problematic subject. As with any science, it has to deal with gathering facts and interpreting them. There are two problems with that.

1) The facts as we know them now are not the same as the facts that were available at the time they happened. The information that the crusaders had was different from the information that we have. In some cases we are better informed, since we can compare inforomation from all sides. In other cases they were better informed, since information has been lost over time.

2) The interpretation of those facts, with the morals of today, will be different from the historical interpretation of those facts. And, probably, this interpretation will change again. As a quick example: When I went to a calvinist elementary school in the '70s (in an area that was dominated by Calvinism), the crusades were a good thing, and so was the iconoclasm of the 16th century. When my kids went to a catholic elementary school (we live about 30 miles from where I grew up and here Catholicism is dominant), they learned that the iconoclasm was barbaric. Now, a few years later in high school, they learn something different: There is not really a religious point of view. The iconoclasm was seen as a catalyst for the Dutch revolution. (And the fact that the Dutch Revolution happened is obviously something positive. Perhaps they think different about that in Spain. I would be interested in hearing what e.g. Fluffy learned in school about the wars that Philip II fought in the 16th century. Or about the inquisition for that matter.)

Gathering historic facts is already hard enough. Interpreting them or morally judging them is even more problematic.

Rik

A very interesting post regarding "science" as you put gathering facts and then interpreting them at the top. As you point out "interpret" is a confusing word.


I think of looking at as science:
1) some generally accepted definition of that piece of science
2) some generally accepted measurement of that piece of science.


So in my example it comes to defining and measuring that piece of history in some generally accepted fashion.


To use an example from some posters in this thread, Gettysburg.


How do we define and measure Pickets charge in some accepted way?
Or How do we define and measure the pursuit of Lee at the end of the battle?


btw I fully accept the "general accepted ways" changes over time and that is ok, that is the advancement of science.

[barmar]

Winston Churchill put it well:

Quote

History is written by the victors

The proposed curriculum is attempting to reverse the inherent bias that comes from that.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2015-February-19, 12:59, said:

Don't hold me too literally to the word "interpretations". I was trying to get at the difference between "Did this or did this not happen?" and "What lessons can be drawn from what happened". A current example would be Obama's recent reference to the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition in discussing current terrorism. Exactly what happened during the Crusades and the Inquision can be, and is, debated but they toook place and few would deny that they were awful, even if some would downplay some of the horrs. That takes care of "Did it happen?". Turning to the second question about lessons to be drawn. What are they? Presumably no one is arguing that because of the Inquisition we should simply say "Oh well, beheading people, shooting school children and setting peoople on fire is just one of thoise things humans do, no big deal". But if that is not the purpose of bringing it up, what was the purpose? So people would not get on their high horse? That's it?

So I am claiming: Learning facts about the Inqusition is one thing, students should learn these facts. How these facts apply to ISIS is another matter.


I mean this as an example of the distinction between facts and interpretations. Pick another example if you don't like this one.

Bear in mind that Obama is speaking as a politician and also a statesman, with motivations that have very little to do with conveying a history lesson. He needs the majority of Muslims in the US and the rest of the world to see efforts against ISIS and other (Muslim) terror organizations as being actions against terrorists and not Muslims. He desperately wants, and the West needs, to avoid allowing extremist propaganda to describe the Western response as part of a clash of cultures or beliefs, lest even more disaffected young men join the terrorists.

Fox News and most of the Republican Party play directly into the aims of the terrorists, as did that US general who famously told his troops, priortothe invasion of Iraq, that they were modern-day crusaders

As an atheist, I do fear that we are indeed facing a clash or war of cultures. There are striking similarities between the world views of Xian and Muslim extremists, the main difference, it seems to me, being that there are far more Muslims living lives of humiliation, desperation and futility than there are Xians in the same boat. It seems to me that the reason for religiously-inspired terror is not found in the religion, although religion makes for a powerful tool, but rather in social and economic factors. It is too bad that the US government, and the Israelis, see economic repression and remote-control killing as the appropriate response rather than economic aid. Give the Palestinians equal financial aid as is given to Israel, and the hatred of Palestinians for the US would likely fade away. Of course, preventing that aid from being used to attack Israel might be a problem.

I admire Obama for doing his best to show Muslims that he knows that the West ought not to be at war with Islam, but I fear it is too little, too late, since far too much of the US establishment acts as if it were.

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-22, 00:42, said:

2) The interpretation of those facts, with the morals of today, will be different from the historical interpretation of those facts. And, probably, this interpretation will change again. As a quick example: When I went to a calvinist elementary school in the '70s (in an area that was dominated by Calvinism), the crusades were a good thing, and so was the iconoclasm of the 16th century. When my kids went to a catholic elementary school (we live about 30 miles from where I grew up and here Catholicism is dominant), they learned that the iconoclasm was barbaric. Now, a few years later in high school, they learn something different: There is not really a religious point of view. The iconoclasm was seen as a catalyst for the Dutch revolution. (And the fact that the Dutch Revolution happened is obviously something positive. Perhaps they think different about that in Spain. I would be interested in hearing what e.g. Fluffy learned in school about the wars that Philip II fought in the 16th century. Or about the inquisition for that matter.)

I didn't even know about protestant iconoclasm until this morning. (We only studied what happened in Byzantium and within Islam)

[billw55]

onoway, on 2015-February-21, 09:57, said:

http://www.theguardi...t-nightmare-snl

I ignore her the same as any other foolish celebrity. Kim Kardashian, Justin Beiber, Sarah Palin ... whatever.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2015-February-22, 23:55, said:

...

It is too bad that the US government, and the Israelis, see economic repression and remote-control killing as the appropriate response rather than economic aid. Give the Palestinians equal financial aid as is given to Israel, and the hatred of Palestinians for the US would likely fade away. Of course, preventing that aid from being used to attack Israel might be a problem.


...

A pretty big problem. Even if the premise is true, there would certainly be a lag time of at least several years before attitudes changed. Realistically, two or three generations might be needed - basically, waiting for the old attitudes to die out. In the mean time, a significant amount of the aid would most certainly end up being used to attack Israel, the USA, France, or indeed any target in western society. That's going to be a tough sell.

I have often wondered what the difference is from other nations that were once enemies. After WW2, I am not aware of ongoing terrorist or guerilla warfare against occupying forces in Japan or Germany. Maybe I just need to learn better history?

[kenberg]

If Obama were to ask me, I might suggest the following formulation:

"Martin Luther King once sai 'I look to the day when people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character'. I wish to extend this to say that the content of their character is far more important than which Church, which Synagogue, which Mosque they attend, if indeed they attend any at all".

Interestingly, he could find some support for this general approach from the right. The Wik quotes Barry Goldwater, whose mother was Protestant and whose father was Jewish, as saying:

"If a man acts in a religious way, an ethical way, then he's really a religious man—and it doesn't have a lot to do with how often he gets inside a church."

With respect to Muslims and ISIS, the obvious fact is that if ISIS were in charge not only would Christians suffer, so would the vast majority of Muslims who have no interest at all in conforming to ISIS fundamentalism. Instead of bringing up the Inquisition, it might be more effective to note that the Ten Commandments forbid adultery but most of us, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, whatever, do not agree with stoning an adulteress to death or even wish to paint a big A on her chest.

It is not reasonable to expect perfection. We do not always live up to our ideals. But we need to not kill each other.

[Trinidad]

mikeh, on 2015-February-22, 23:55, said:

Give the Palestinians equal financial aid as is given to Israel, and the hatred of Palestinians for the US would likely fade away. Of course, preventing that aid from being used to attack Israel might be a problem.

The EU has given financial aid to the Palestinians.

When democracy was brought to Gaza (remember that Hamas won democratic elections) Gaza Airport and harbor were rebuilt with EU money to build up the economy in Gaza. ... and then they were destroyed again by the Israelis with US money...

As long as the US keep backing Israel, no matter what, it simply doesn't make much sense to aid the Palestinians: The Israelis will attack anything that leads to a somewhat functioning economy in Gaza... with the blessings of the US.

Rik

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-23, 06:08, said:

I didn't even know about protestant iconoclasm until this morning. (We only studied what happened in Byzantium and within Islam)

One can't know everything.

But I suppose you know why Catholic (and -to a somewhat lesser extent- Lutheran) churches are full of statues of a large variety of saints and Calvinist (or Zwingliist) churches are not.

Rik

[kenberg]

At any rate, this all supports my claim about the Standards, that questions about what happened are tough enough, questions about how to interpret what happened are unlikely to have clear enough answers so that a student could pass or fail depending oi how he answers.

[Winstonm]

My issue with the dissenters is that they are arguing that only positive aspects of US history should be taught, regardless of facts - not much different than the notion of teaching pre-schoolers "Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tell me so" in Sunday School - fiction is fiction regardless.

[nige1]

kenberg, on 2015-February-23, 09:14, said:

At any rate, this all supports my claim about the Standards, that questions about what happened are tough enough, questions about how to interpret what happened are unlikely to have clear enough answers so that a student could pass or fail depending oi how he answers.

Sweeney, in T S Eliot's 'Fragment of an Agon', said:

Birth, and copulation, and death. That's all the facts when you come to brass tacks: Birth, and copulation, and death.

Some truisms:

• It's hard for you to separate fact from interpretation. You decide which "facts" are "true". You select facts. You ignore others. You choose the (weasel?) words to express those facts. Thus, news media use Newspeak (e.g. when describing recent events in the Ukraine).
• Learning facts is less important than learning how to draw conclusions from them. You interpret facts to decide what to do. So you should teach this vital life-skill to children.
• For assessment purposes, however: your conclusions are less important than your reasoning process. (The converse of real-life).

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2015-February-23, 09:57, said:

My issue with the dissenters is that they are arguing that only positive aspects of US history should be taught, regardless of facts - not much different than the notion of teaching pre-schoolers "Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tell me so" in Sunday School - fiction is fiction regardless.

With this I certainly agree. For elementary students I don't think we have to go into gruesome details of history but even for them I think that the history that they are taught should be history that will stand up in later and closer examination. For a high school student age 16 or so, taking an AP course, surely significant events need to be presented accurately.

My sense of history, whether of the U.S. or whatever, is that a great deal of it is barbaric. For me, this leads to a great appreciation of successful efforts to rise above this cruelty. And a sense of caution that such efforts often are unsuccessful. I am not sure that I could turn this view into a final exam question.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2015-February-23, 14:30, said:

My sense of history, whether of the U.S. or whatever, is that a great deal of it is barbaric. For me, this leads to a great appreciation of successful efforts to rise above this cruelty. And a sense of caution that such efforts often are unsuccessful. I am not sure that I could turn this view into a final exam question.

"My teacher is a barbarian but his parents are worse. True or false?"

True=10 points
False=0 points.

[mike777]

"Criticism

Faculty at a number of universities have expressed doubts about the value of a passing AP score. Highly capable students who receive scores of 3 or 4, but not the perfect 5, are being given college credit at fewer universities. Academic departments also criticise the increasing proportion of students who take and pass AP courses but are not ready for college-level work.[27]"
http://en.wikipedia....anced_Placement
-----------------


I like this approach:

"if I was teaching history I would make people memorize the sequence of certain events, front to back, at the start of the class, and then go back and go over them slowly."

Students need to at least know the sequence of historical events without the need to look at their machines. But I fear many will say, why when I can just look it up.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2015-February-24, 09:30, said:

Students need to at least know the sequence of historical events without the need to look at their machines. But I fear many will say, why when I can just look it up.

In this day and age, there's little need for memorizing all the detailed facts (e.g. exact places and dates) -- that's what we have the Internet for. We should concentrate on understanding and placing all these facts into context, our devices can't do that for us.