US: Christopher Columbus Was a Bad Guy

It reminds me of a literature professor who told ua in grad school (he was American, too, mind!) that the Americans didn't actually "win" the American Revolution because the English had already signed a treaty in Europe before the last battle took place, but didn't have a way to get the message to the soldiers in time. My DH loved hearing that one when I came home from class. 

While the philosophical nature of should we or should we not be applying 20th century ethics to 15th century event might be a great essay questions for high school or college...I don't believe it's age appropriate for young children.  

I had these types of discussions with family and friends at a young age. - Could it be because I am Jewish and Judaism has a tradition of learning through discussion and debate?

Isn't it better for children to learn to think critically at an early age, rather than have to unlearn things when they are older?

I had these types of discussions with family and friends at a young age. - Could it be because I am Jewish and Judaism has a tradition of learning through discussion and debate?

Isn't it better for children to learn to think critically at an early age, rather than have to unlearn things when they are older?

Well I think it depends on your definition of "young age".  I don't know anything about Jewish traditions, but where I come from, children are not taught to debate anything with adults.  I would have been in serious trouble for that because it is considered highly disrespectful.  As an older child (teenage years), we debated things all the time in school...and I did find this a very helpful learning technique.  I know there are advanced children in the world, but in general, if you walked up to an 8-year-old and said "Do you think we should apply modern ethics to past historical events?"...I believe they would have a hard time grasping the concept, even if you worded it differently.

Also, I don't think there is anything to be "unlearned", unless you (or the teachers) are actually lying to your children.  Children are taught a "basic" history, which is elaborated on when they are old enough to comprehend the more intricate details.  I grew up being taught that Columbus was an explorer...that is a fact whether he did bad things or not.  I don't think my daughter at 5-years-old (or 9 or 10) needs to know that he raped children and enslaved natives.  If these kids were in high school, I don't think it would be such a big deal. 

Also, I don't think there is anything to be "unlearned", unless you (or the teachers) are actually lying to your children.  Children are taught a "basic" history, which is elaborated on when they are old enough to comprehend the more intricate details.  I grew up being taught that Columbus was an explorer...that is a fact whether he did bad things or not.  I don't think my daughter at 5-years-old (or 9 or 10) needs to know that he raped children and enslaved natives.  If these kids were in high school, I don't think it would be such a big deal. 

Totally agree with that.  There's just certain things that younger children shouldn't be exposed to.  However, there's still quite a bit of history in high school education that is historically inaccurate.

And this goes for many countries, my sister was an exchange student in Latvia.  Their education about the Cold War.... yikes.

I still think though that if history education was completely accurate, students might actually enjoy it a bit more.  When you paint the picture that some of those that we learn about in history (Christopher Columbus, Founding Fathers, etc) are such exemplary people it doesn't make them real anymore.  If education included some of their mistakes, and failures it makes them more human.  And far more interesting to learn about.

And this goes for many countries, my sister was an exchange student in Latvia.  Their education about the Cold War.... yikes.

We had a German exchange student when I was in high school.  You should hear what they were taught about WWII.  It honestly is scary.

Unfortunately, a lot of people take history at face value, believing it is all factual...when in actuality, it's very subjective.

Absolutely true.  But so many students (especially Elementary and somewhat with Secondary) believe everything that comes out of their teacher's mouth.  It's really unfortunate that the education system is doing such a disservice to students...

Perhaps we should drop him by name and have Explorers Day, similar to no more George Washington days.

I heard they were going to change it to "Fall Holiday"!

I heard they were going to change it to "Fall Holiday"!

Haha.  A friend of mine on Facebook just said something about how it should be "Foliage Day" in the Northeast and it should be mandatory for everyone to take a hike. 

And how many condensed versions of the history portray "Honest Abe" as the great emancipator?   Read beyond the grossly distorted versions and you find that Lincoln was nothing of the sort.   When you get the full story, it becomes clear that his sole aim was to keep the Union together at any cost, and he was quite happy to trample on the Constitution and start what in all probability was an illegal war to do so.

Indeed.  Not only did he preserve slavery in the border states that aligned themselves with the Union.  But Lincoln was actually incredibly racist.  He wanted black Americans deported to Liberia and ranted at how "troublesome" he found them.  Slavery was merely his "WMD pretext" to invade the South and force them back into a Union they didn't want to be part of.  But of course, as a school child north of the Mason-Dixon I was brainwashed into believing that he was a great man who freed the slaves and saved the Union.  They never taught us about the criminality behind Lincoln's actions to allow us to make up our own minds as individuals and decide whether his actions were justified or not.  We were told what to believe.

Would be really good if there was a much more honest approach to teaching history to children in US schools.

Horrible Histories

 They never taught us about the criminality behind Lincoln's actions to allow us to make up our own minds as individuals and decide whether his actions were justified or not.  We were told what to believe.

Would be really good if there was a much more honest approach to teaching history to children in US schools.

Exactly!!! This is why I stopped being an education major for awhile.  This is a major shortcoming of the system!!!  I want to teach the truth, and let students make up their own minds.  However I'd probably have to wait to have tenure to really do that...

Wait, is there tenure in England?  (this may be a question for another thread, haha).

Exactly!!! This is why I stopped being an education major for awhile.  This is a major shortcoming of the system!!!  I want to teach the truth, and let students make up their own minds.  However I'd probably have to wait to have tenure to really do that...

Wait, is there tenure in England?  (this may be a question for another thread, haha).

What is and who determines the 'truth'?

Taking JM's example, Lincoln may or may not been a great man depending on one's point of view but the truth is he did free the slaves and he save the Union.

What is and who determines the 'truth'?

Taking JM's example, Lincoln may or may not been a great man depending on one's point of view but the truth is he did free the slaves and he save the Union.

It's possible to be a great man and still do bad things. Just because you know more, doesn't always mean the end conclusion will be changed too. As per Torn's earlier example, you can teach about all the good that Hitler did for Germany (that is before he destroyed it completely) and still conclude he was a monster. And you can teach about Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the questionable legal basis for the Emancipation Proclamation, his illegal detentions, and still, on the whole, conclude that he was a great man.

Besides, it's not like the concept of a flawed hero is unfamiliar to lots of kids: I mean, they do have parents, right?

Well said Ms.Mort, your comment sums up my opinion as well. When I hear arguments arguing for the ‘truth’ my first thought is always whose truth? I’m inclined to think of teaching and education less as a quest to present the ‘truth’ and more as a process to promote critical thinking and discussion.

Well said Ms.Mort, your comment sums up my opinion as well. When I hear arguments arguing for the ‘truth’ my first thought is always whose truth? I’m inclined to think of teaching and education less as a quest to present the ‘truth’ and more as a process to promote critical thinking and discussion.

Sorry by truth I meant both sides to the story.  It's quite a disservice to not teach everything in it's entirety.  Most kids know Helen Keller for her handicaps... what about her radical socialism?

I definitely shouldn't have said truth.  Should have said that it should be an educator's job to present as much information as possible on a subject. However that's not always the case as States and Boards of Education dictate what's taught in the classroom more than the actual teacher.