May 13, 201016 yr So, cultural perspective of science issues is not relevant. Good in one class, not good in the other. Interesting. Cultural views we are comfortable with are okay. Cultural views we are not are not okay. My point of whose views do we leave out is made when we try and start giving all the different cultural views of things. Interesting that you will teach an American Indian culture in Nuclear Science but wouldn't include a Christian culture view of something that is as reasonable view of how earth was created as the Big Bang Theory is. You can twist my words however you want to. That does not make your twisting of them accurate. Science is based on factual evidence. There is no evidence for Creationism. However, as a Christian, I can mesh my belief in the overwhelming evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory and my belief that God is responsible for it. Religion is about faith, not fact. It there were actual factual evidence of the existance of God (or any deity), then there would be no need for faith. I can mesh Native American beliefs in a discussion that involves OPINION (not fact) on whether or not the use of nuclear weapons in WWII is just. Additionally, Creationism is not culture. It is a religious view.
May 13, 201016 yr I understand what you are saying and could be behind it BUT, with the mindset of politicians today and what they expect in public schools and what things should be covered, it is very difficult to teach everything that everybody thinks should be in there. And the basics are glossed over at the expense of how a group felt at the moment something was happening. I could see an argument for how do you think African Americans felt during the American Revolutionary War and how it affected their thoughts of freedom. And that would be a good thing to study. But Social Studies class that is trying to get a person to understand and learn the basics of the American Revolution. One thing that you might also need to understand is that the American Revolution is not taught in HS. We start around the Reconstruction and move forward. So many of these cultural experiences before that time are going to be taught in Elementary and Middle schools. The problem is that the "basics" are subjective. We ask that students know, or memorize, a list of facts placed in a very specific context and success is measured by how well they can regurgitate them on a test at the end of the year. We end up with students who know that 1776 was an important year, but who don't know that the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Or students who know that Alexander Hamilton was an important guy (or maybe even that he was shot by Aaron Burr), but who don't know why he so adamantly pushed for a central bank or how he catalyzed the two party system. The point is, we don't ask students to think or engage but just remember some random events where they likely assume that is all there is to it or that what is left out is unimportant.
May 13, 201016 yr Interesting... Interesting ... It is also interesting that you keep avoiding my question, that I will now have asked three times. If we don't teach historical things from a multicultural viewpoint, whose singular viewpoint do you think that we should teach it from?
May 13, 201016 yr The problem is that the "basics" are subjective. We ask that students know, or memorize, a list of facts placed in a very specific context and success is measured by how well they can regurgitate them on a test at the end of the year. We end up with students who know that 1776 was an important year, but who don't know that the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Or students who know that Alexander Hamilton was an important guy (or maybe even that he was shot by Aaron Burr), but who don't know why he so adamantly pushed for a central bank or how he catalyzed the two party system. The point is, we don't ask students to think or engage but just remember some random events where they likely assume that is all there is to it or that what is left out is unimportant. :thumb: This is another way in which cultural perspective makes historical events more relevant to the student. Additionally, being able to think/engage/critically analyze is something that needs to be stressed in a variety of subjects.
May 13, 201016 yr I thought 1 was World Civ, 1 was US History, 1/2 was Political Science and then the other 1/2 was an elective. 1 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 3 You can find the specific requirements here: http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7999B884-18F3-42EE-B187-FB7291058BC5/0/HighSchoolGraduationRequirementsChart.pdf
May 13, 201016 yr It is also interesting that you keep avoiding my question, that I will now have asked three times. If we don't teach historical things from a multicultural viewpoint, whose singular viewpoint do you think that we should teach it from? From a perspective of whomver is the majority. (Unless you arre looking for a deeper answer) I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that if another group were to claim the majority stake in our culture that they would even have this discussion. They would represent things from their viewpoint. Part of this discussion makes the USA unique. To the victor go the spoils and you are able to weave history in that way. Edited May 13, 201016 yr by History spelling
May 13, 201016 yr From a perspective of whomver is the majority. (Unless you arre looking for a deeper answer) I would say that most agree with you. I just think that is a wrong approach and I am glad that I was not taught that way. I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that if another group were to claim the majority stake in our culture that they would even have this discussion. They would represent things from their viewpoint. Part of this discussion makes the USA unique. To the victor go the spoils and you are able to weave history in that way. When did I make the bolded claim? I did not. I'd say that you are likely correct in the 2nd part. That would not make it any more the correct presentation of the facts.
May 13, 201016 yr Well it is impossible to present every side from every story. So there is always a bias of some type.
May 13, 201016 yr Well it is impossible to present every side from every story. So there is always a bias of some type. So we shouldn't try? I personally think it's healthy to read books like "Black Elk Speaks" or "The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Oladuah Equiano." They illustrate what people find important in history and how they view things. I'd be willing to bet there's even a big difference among white people about how history is valued. Read books by traditional Catholics and tell me that the Reformation and the Enlightenment are written about in the same way that they are in the mainstream academic community.
May 13, 201016 yr Sure you can try but who has the time? I would say that in any country the majority rules, and many, that appear to be like you, are lucky that the majority allows such free thought to be bantered about.
May 13, 201016 yr Back to the original topic - The way I've had the law explained to me is that the only difference in this law and the one already on the books is that Arizona can now deport illegal immigrants themselves rather than only being able to lock them up (and pay for everything out of taxpayer $) for 30 days because immigration officers can't keep up with the huge number of illegals. There is no change in the reasons a police officer can stop someone - there must be probable cause such as a traffic ticket or other offense. At that time identification may be requested and if the person is illegally in the country, Arizona officials have the authority to deport the person. I am not well versed in the law but this is how it was explained to me by a police officer friend of mine... If this is a correct interpretation, I think all states should follow Arizona's lead. If it's not - let me know what the law really states.
May 13, 201016 yr Over-exaggerate much?? Now we're comparing Arizona to the Nazis.... I am not sure that it is an over exaggeration. It does not imply that what followed in Nazi Germany will follow in Arizona, but the whole point is the fourth amendment. Does it not mean anything in this debate. We are all about the 2nd and 10th amendments, but not so much the 4th.
May 13, 201016 yr I thought 1 was World Civ, 1 was US History, 1/2 was Political Science and then the other 1/2 was an elective. I am not saying from "some cultural perspective." I am saying that they would have to be taught from ALL cultural perspectives. That can't be done, realistically. in the time that SS teachers would have and with all the material they would need to cover. Why can't history be taught with the basic facts and that is it? Do I need to know the American Indians cultural perspective on the American Revoluation? And other such examples? While we are getting caught up in this debate, I think my real point is being missed. At some point, they have to quit adding onto what they expect public schools to be doing or they are going to be doing everything halfway. Heck, in Philadelphia, I posted a thread first semester about principals being evaluated on the number of kids that eat breakfast in the morning. It is now the responsibility of their principals to make sure each kid had a good breakfast that morning. Do you teach social studies??? World History (1500 to the present) - required US History (Reconstruction to the present) - required Third Social Studies Class - required however, you must be sure that 5 strands are covered 1. US History - check, 2. World History - check, 3. Civics, 4. Geography, 5. Econ. Where you put 3,4 and 5 is up to you. Many schools do an integrated Social Studies course during their freshman year that combines those three.
May 13, 201016 yr The problem is that the "basics" are subjective. We ask that students know, or memorize, a list of facts placed in a very specific context and success is measured by how well they can regurgitate them on a test at the end of the year. We end up with students who know that 1776 was an important year, but who don't know that the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Or students who know that Alexander Hamilton was an important guy (or maybe even that he was shot by Aaron Burr), but who don't know why he so adamantly pushed for a central bank or how he catalyzed the two party system. The point is, we don't ask students to think or engage but just remember some random events where they likely assume that is all there is to it or that what is left out is unimportant. I think it has been a long time since you have been in a high school social studies class. If a student chooses to take American Gov't there is no way around the discussion of Hamilton and the bank and why the US having debt (at that time) was good. And why he and Jefferson 'fought' over the power of the government - central or de-central.
May 13, 201016 yr It is also interesting that you keep avoiding my question, that I will now have asked three times. If we don't teach historical things from a multicultural viewpoint, whose singular viewpoint do you think that we should teach it from? Whose have we been teaching from?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.