On Our Mind: Ignoring history education
As the General Education Council and Faculty Senate mull a change removing the required history course from the general education curriculum, we feel that this is a drastic mistake. At best, it is an attempt to make the college curriculum more “palatable”; at worst, it is a blatant ploy to coddle those unwilling to fulfill one of the cornerstones of higher education.
There are two main assumptions behind the new proposal.
First, it is assumed that bits and pieces of history from other courses will come together to give the student the full picture of history, none of which can be put into its historical context.
Our historical timeline is an outline for understanding the past, addressing events in the present, and avoiding repetition of mistakes in the future.
Second, it is assumed that students can deal with world events using the skills and proficiencies which we teach. The Center on Education Policy surveyed schools across the country; 62 percent of those schools polled had added at least three hours of math or reading instruction at the expense of history, a direct result of the No Child Left Behind act.
A recent New York Times poll asked 1,200 17-year-olds from across the country questions about history. A quarter of those surveyed could not identify Adolph Hitler as the leader of Nazi Germany. If this sample is representative, one quarter of the 2008 presidential election’s youngest voters may pull the levers without even the smallest bit of understanding of such recent and important history.
I am not comforted to know that ESU, a major institute of American educators, would let its graduates progress into workplaces and classrooms across the country with such a crippled understanding of history.
We require students to take multicultural courses, giving them the ability to put their culture into context. Why is it any less important to require of our students the ability to put current events into context?
Small glimpses of history without the awareness of the bigger picture do not substitute for history. Without a broad knowledge of our past, we cannot draw upon past solutions to age-old problems or learn from civilization’s many mistakes.
Those who are ignorant to history are doomed to repeat it.
Latest Comments
- Hornets add two more wins - 2 comments
- Jazz duo to perform at Albert Taylor Hall - 1 comment
- The F Word: What Does Feminism Mean to You? - 20 comments
- Secret ballot may have broken state law - 25 comments
- Tweaksters perform variety show, mesmerize audience with visual, auditory elements - 2 comments
- Retiree scolds ESU over Sunshine law - 7 comments
- Blaufuss, Schulte win ASG elections - 13 comments
- On the road with the team to Texas - 4 comments
5 Responses to "On Our Mind: Ignoring history education"
March 16, 2008 7:08 pm
We need to ask, in a genuine way, why?
Those who financed, funded and guided A. Hitler were the 'New World Order' industrialist located in America and Britian and, to a lessor extent, France. Their aim was for A. Hitler to disrupt the 'Old World Order', which was, then, named by such names as: The Old Hapsburgs, The Ottomans, The Krupps, The Romonoffs and The Rothchilds.
A. Hitler succeeded in disrupting the order and holdings of these European Families. Once his goal was complete, the New World Order in America stopped the financing. Hitler did not have to funds to continue the war effort, so he went underground and eventually killed himself.
Point is that it is the same New World Order that is financing the current campaign we see in the middle east, i.e., George Bush's assault on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and soon Pakistan.
In fact, the New World Order' came to be 200 years ago in Southern Germany, and by WW1, it was firmly in place in America and Europe. So that all the wars since WW1 were a bout between who would dominate between the new world order and the old world order.
Our mistake of the present is not recognizing that those who sponsor the genocides are the same people whether in 1930 or 2008--Which is the Masonic order of the day-the Freemason and Builderburger Societies, not really the Hitlers and Bushes, they are only the spokesman for the Society's aims.
March 16, 2008 8:09 pm
In my opinion, education in history is vital. From recent history, approx. 15 years ago, Ex. Pres. George W. Bush Sr. had weapons inspectors go into Iraq and for the following ten years, those inspectors did test to ensure that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. They reported to George W. Bush that there were, in fact, absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. When it was certified that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, George Bush Jr. invaded Iraq. The stated reason for the invasion was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In short, prior to the invasion, the sponsors of the war were ensured that they would not be met by an enemy with weapons of mass destruction.
Osama Bin Laden and his Al Queda organization then flew two plans into the twin towers of Manhatten in New York City.
Osama Bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian Family. Saddam Hussien, one of his staunches enemies were the royal families of Saudi Arabia, including the Bin Laden family. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were enemies.
The Bush administration stated, after Al Queda attacked America, "Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda have attacked America". Bush then went after Saddam Hussien, stating "he has weapons of mass destruction".
First, we have to ask, "why did Bush attack Iraq and go after Saddam Hussien". Saddam Hussien was an enemy of Osama Bin Laden and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Today nobody is looking for Osama Bin Laden. We were able to find Saddam Hussien in a hole in the ground in a country as large as California with 40 million people, and we found him in about two months after we started looking.
We know where Osama Bin Laden is. We know that he is in Warzerstan, a small village in Western Pakistan, but we don't go get him, and he stated that he was responsible for the attack on America.
Why are we not going after Osama Bin Laden, why did we go after Saddam Hussien and Iraq.
This New World Order spoken of above has the agenda of domination of the entire world, unlike the agenday of the Old World Order, which was regonal domination, i.e., to dominate separated small countries,
http://www.donaldscorner.com/herbert/index.html
A one world currency, one world govnment and one world order are elements of an agenda for world domination.
To dominate the world or to control the world you must control the worlds oil prices and it flow. If you control its prices, you control other countries economy, if you control its flow, you control who will have the capacity to fight against you, i.e., you control whether they can get oil and gas to move their tanks, planes and military vehicles.
If you look closely at the scenario, you will realize, from history, that The United States must invade and occupy Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan for control of the oil reserves of the world.
March 16, 2008 8:21 pm
When a president attempts to deviate from the agenda that he was hired to move forward, what happens to him is what happened to the late President John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
http://www.donaldscorner.com/kennedyassasination/index.html
For a lesson on history, the assassination is a must read.
March 16, 2008 9:40 pm
When a president attempts to deviate from the agenda that he was hired to move forward, what happens to him is what happened to the late President John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
http://www.donaldscorner.com/kennedyassasination/index.html
For a lesson on history, the assassination is a must read.
March 16, 2008 9:50 pm
Today, we, the United States, is sending warships, the USS Cole and others, attack submarines and aircraft carriers to the Meditarrainian Sea to attack Syria, the Persian Gulf to attack Iran.
At the same time, the President, G. W. Bush is telling us that Iran is centrifusing urainiam to build a bomb to attack the United States.
The history shows us that if Iran does not produce a bomb soon, they will certainly be attacked by the United States just as Iraq was attacked and occupied by the United States as soon as it was clear that they had not viable way to defend their country.
On the other hand, if Iran gets the N. bomb before they are attacked and also get a viable delivery capacity, that might just prevent the US from launching an attack on Iran.
Or, that just might speed up a US attack on Iran triggering a third world war with a large probability that nuks will be used.
What could be avoided by our children learning the causes and effects of events through a study of history?
It is this:
"After the nuclear exchange throughout the world, when the smoke clears and the bodies are dragged from the rubble of the world, what will american children say when the little remaining of the world ask--
WHY, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT!