I guess what I was trying to say is that teaching US History does entail teaching about the different groups (blacks, Indians, Mexicans). I don't see how we can teach US History without having chunks of the lessons revolving around the other groups AND their heritage.

 

I guess the bolded is correct, maybe. Pick an American of German, Italian, French or Russian heritage who played a significant role in US History: do you remember being taught about that person's ethnic heritage in the US History classes you were taught? I don't.

 

I'm fine with people being well aware of their cultural and ethnic heritage. I'm of German heritage and proud of it. The question should be: should the taxpayers of Arizona see their tax dollars spent on making children aware of that heritage or is that something best done outside the classroom? Are our children being so well educated in the subjects of math, science, technology, etc. that we can afford to take time out of the teaching day to teach Ethnic Studies? I've kind of gotten the impression from all that I've read and heard that kids today are coming out of high school very far behind in the subjects needed to prepare them for the working world and for college. If such is accurate, do you think teaching Mexicans about their heritage in school is a wise use of the school day? Does it help arm them to compete to get the job after high school or get into a good college? Does it help prepare them to get the job that may allow them to move up the economic chain? Just what is the purpose of high school, particularly public high school, and does teaching Ethnic Studies help satisfy that purpose?

As someone that loves history let me just say.....It is sad that kids are only taught about historical events from the eyes of white America.

 

To fully understand all of history and the true lessons you need to get the prospective of all that were involved. (Black, Mexican, Spanish, White, Jewish, German........etc. )

I guess the bolded is correct, maybe. Pick an American of German, Italian, French or Russian heritage who played a significant role in US History: do you remember being taught about that person's ethnic heritage in the US History classes you were taught? I don't.

 

I'm fine with people being well aware of their cultural and ethnic heritage. I'm of German heritage and proud of it. The question should be: should the taxpayers of Arizona see their tax dollars spent on making children aware of that heritage or is that something best done outside the classroom? Are our children being so well educated in the subjects of math, science, technology, etc. that we can afford to take time out of the teaching day to teach Ethnic Studies? I've kind of gotten the impression from all that I've read and heard that kids today are coming out of high school very far behind in the subjects needed to prepare them for the working world and for college. If such is accurate, do you think teaching Mexicans about their heritage in school is a wise use of the school day? Does it help arm them to compete to get the job after high school or get into a good college? Does it help prepare them to get the job that may allow them to move up the economic chain? Just what is the purpose of high school, particularly public high school, and does teaching Ethnic Studies help satisfy that purpose?

 

Are these ethnic classes electives? If so, then there shouldn't be any issue with it.

 

As to the "preparing them for the job market" argument would you say we eliminate gym class? Music classes? Languages?

Are these ethnic classes electives? If so, then there shouldn't be any issue with it.

 

As to the "preparing them for the job market" argument would you say we eliminate gym class? Music classes? Languages?

 

I don't want to eliminate anything, especially history, we should learn from our successes and mistakes, but too much diversity dilutes the curriculum to the point of uselessness.

 

As LN mentioned about his German lineage, I am of Irish decent and have no recollection of my Irish heritage being delved into during any of my US History courses, high school or college.

I can remember a decent chunk of my high school history course devoted to the perils and plights of early immigration, the "Know Nothings," and how the issue informed some elections. But, it's also my feeling that history is usually whitewashed and taught in such a non-offensive, bland manner that classes like these are a necessary counter. I also think that one of the most important goals of education should be developing the ability to think critically, and it would seem that these courses would demand that. If they also spurred students to be more interested and engaged, then all the better.

I can remember a decent chunk of my high school history course devoted to the perils and plights of early immigration, the "Know Nothings," and how the issue informed some elections. But, it's also my feeling that history is usually whitewashed and taught in such a non-offensive, bland manner that classes like these are a necessary counter. I also think that one of the most important goals of education should be developing the ability to think critically, and it would seem that these courses would demand that. If they also spurred students to be more interested and engaged, then all the better.

 

Clyde and Habib, if I may, I'll respond to both of your posts in this post. Habib, I fully agree with you that to the extent something in one's ethnic heritage is known to have played a role in that history maker's action, it by all means should not be whitewashed. For example, in studying the Irish immigration to the US in the late 1840's caused in large part by the potato famine, I'd think it would be reasonable to discuss and explore the impact of farming on the Irish at that time. I wouldn't expect a full blown review and study of the ethnic culture of Ireland however.

 

We have to be reasonable here. There have been history makers in the US from about every ethnic background on the face of this earth. Are we going to teach the culture and heritage of every history maker in the US during US History classes? Aren't the teachers already glossing over lots of US History in the rush to just get through the subject matter during the school year?

 

Clyde, I'd probably be fine with it if it was an elective. Then again, does it really need to be taught in school or wouldn't it be better taught in the family dining and living rooms? What I learned about my German heritage I learned from my 4 German grandparents. Seemed to work fine. Music I'm probably fine with as an elective. Mandatory? No. Gym, given the obesity issue, probably should stay, although I think gym classes are the crutch used to deal with poor parenting. Language classes, I've got no problem with. Heck, teaching about the Latino ethnic culture probably belongs in Spanish 101 anyway. That would be the perfect place for it. (Weird sidethoughts: do the Arizona high schools offer Spanish? If so, do they let Latinos take the class? If so, would they struggle with the courses as much as I struggled with English classes?)

 

What were they trying to accomplish by teaching Mexican Ethnic Studies, anyway? Was it an attempt to educate caucasians in the hope of avoiding racial hatred? Or was it an ethnic pride kind of thing?

Clyde and Habib, if I may, I'll respond to both of your posts in this post. Habib, I fully agree with you that to the extent something in one's ethnic heritage is known to have played a role in that history maker's action, it by all means should not be whitewashed. For example, in studying the Irish immigration to the US in the late 1840's caused in large part by the potato famine, I'd think it would be reasonable to discuss and explore the impact of farming on the Irish at that time. I wouldn't expect a full blown review and study of the ethnic culture of Ireland however.

 

We have to be reasonable here. There have been history makers in the US from about every ethnic background on the face of this earth. Are we going to teach the culture and heritage of every history maker in the US during US History classes? Aren't the teachers already glossing over lots of US History in the rush to just get through the subject matter during the school year?

 

Clyde, I'd probably be fine with it if it was an elective. Then again, does it really need to be taught in school or wouldn't it be better taught in the family dining and living rooms? What I learned about my German heritage I learned from my 4 German grandparents. Seemed to work fine. Music I'm probably fine with as an elective. Mandatory? No. Gym, given the obesity issue, probably should stay, although I think gym classes are the crutch used to deal with poor parenting. Language classes, I've got no problem with. Heck, teaching about the Latino ethnic culture probably belongs in Spanish 101 anyway. That would be the perfect place for it. (Weird sidethoughts: do the Arizona high schools offer Spanish? If so, do they let Latinos take the class? If so, would they struggle with the courses as much as I struggled with English classes?)

 

What were they trying to accomplish by teaching Mexican Ethnic Studies, anyway? Was it an attempt to educate caucasians in the hope of avoiding racial hatred? Or was it an ethnic pride kind of thing?

 

Great conversation from most on this thread and good job by Habib and Leatherneck. :thumb:

 

I think a good History teacher/student wants/needs to know "WHY?" something happened that leads to something else.

 

For example. When people talk about the Founding Father's as wanting some form of a theocracy I would ask them to study what they were witnessing and writing about from the European experience. Theocracy and union between the church and state was the LAST thing they wanted because they saw the corruption in England, France, Italy and the other European powers.

 

If we are talking about relations between America and Mexico, start at looking at the events that prompted the Texas Revolution of 1836 from both sides of the issue. Recognize who such little time had passed since the Mexican natives had overthrown Spanish rule when Americans who had settled in Texas then decided to take the province for themselves because of a distant government in Mexico City, American ideas about government and slavery, and racial divides. Then see how the Mexican War broke out, was fought and more provinces lost to the Americans. Now some wonder why there are tensions?

 

It's always best to teach "why" rather than just dates and even events without background and results.

 

Just my take.

What a great turn to this thread! Thanks to those responsible. Hatz, I agree. History is not only interesting because of what happened, but because of why it happened.

 

What are we to learn from history? Who we are, where we have been and how that affects the future. Cultural implications should be a fundamental part of history classes. It shouldn't need to be a separate class.

Clyde and Habib, if I may, I'll respond to both of your posts in this post. Habib, I fully agree with you that to the extent something in one's ethnic heritage is known to have played a role in that history maker's action, it by all means should not be whitewashed. For example, in studying the Irish immigration to the US in the late 1840's caused in large part by the potato famine, I'd think it would be reasonable to discuss and explore the impact of farming on the Irish at that time. I wouldn't expect a full blown review and study of the ethnic culture of Ireland however.

 

We have to be reasonable here. There have been history makers in the US from about every ethnic background on the face of this earth. Are we going to teach the culture and heritage of every history maker in the US during US History classes? Aren't the teachers already glossing over lots of US History in the rush to just get through the subject matter during the school year?

 

As a practical thing I agree with you. There's only so much that can be taught in one class and there may not be resources enough to offer additional classes. Though, I still have no issue with a separate, more critical course if it's feasible. But what I find most troubling about this isn't that they are getting rid of the classes - which I would understand from a practical perspective - it is the language used by the board's representative quoted in the article. Coupled with their removing of these books it is almost villainous. He says they did away with the course over fears of racial resentment toward whites and now wants to suppress access to the information by getting the books out of the school (including Shakespeare?). I find that type of language and those actions troubling and the exact kind of thing that sort of class addresses - that those with power can control the information, often to their advantage. I wonder what discussions of US history he would approve.

What a great turn to this thread! Thanks to those responsible. Hatz, I agree. History is not only interesting because of what happened, but because of why it happened.

 

What are we to learn from history? Who we are, where we have been and how that affects the future. Cultural implications should be a fundamental part of history classes. It shouldn't need to be a separate class.

 

It also makes it a lot more interesting, I think.

John Huppenthal, Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, says somehow the district's "Mexican-American Studies Program" went rogue because the curriculum, lesson plans and textbooks stopped being approved by the school board at some point.

 

The state's top school chief says that makes it in violation of state law because all materials being taught in Arizona classrooms must get the local board's seal of approval. In fact, his office launched an investigation that found that erroneous facts were being taught to the students and the classes promoted "racial resentment."

 

"We have no problem with a history class talking about historical injustices. It becomes problematic though when you take every historic event and you interpret it in racial terms, in a radical context and you use that to inflame a low income Hispanic minority against a white Caucasian majority. Then you're not talking about injustice. You're not talking about how each of us has individual rights and responsibilities for a better future. Now you're talking about getting even,"

 

 

 

So, if the local board regains oversight of the material, the program is ok to go? If that's consistent with other school programs that seems reasonable.

So, if the local board regains oversight of the material, the program is ok to go? If that's consistent with other school programs that seems reasonable.

 

Agreed.

Great conversation from most on this thread and good job by Habib and Leatherneck. :thumb:

 

I think a good History teacher/student wants/needs to know "WHY?" something happened that leads to something else.

 

For example. When people talk about the Founding Father's as wanting some form of a theocracy I would ask them to study what they were witnessing and writing about from the European experience. Theocracy and union between the church and state was the LAST thing they wanted because they saw the corruption in England, France, Italy and the other European powers.

 

If we are talking about relations between America and Mexico, start at looking at the events that prompted the Texas Revolution of 1836 from both sides of the issue. Recognize who such little time had passed since the Mexican natives had overthrown Spanish rule when Americans who had settled in Texas then decided to take the province for themselves because of a distant government in Mexico City, American ideas about government and slavery, and racial divides. Then see how the Mexican War broke out, was fought and more provinces lost to the Americans. Now some wonder why there are tensions?

 

It's always best to teach "why" rather than just dates and even events without background and results.

 

Just my take.

 

I totally agree with your take as well as True blue's. If that's what was being taught in the Arizona school, and the manner in how the material was presented, I've got zero problem with it.

I think we would benefit greatly from studies of outher countries and cultures. It is too easy for us to live in our bubble not understanding that people of different cultures, ideologies don't necessarily process information or communication in the same way as our culture.

I think we would benefit greatly from studies of outher countries and cultures. It is too easy for us to live in our bubble not understanding that people of different cultures, ideologies don't necessarily process information or communication in the same way as our culture.

 

I agree too, but not teaching Latinos about Latin heritage when they should be studying U.S. History, since they benefit more from the U.S. Most kids in the US dotn even know about US History, let alone having to know about another country. Shouldnt Latino history be taught in Spanish class, which is usually mandatory to take anyway.