Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > History Help Forum > History Teachers
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

History Teachers History Teachers Forum - Resource center for educators teaching History and Social Studies


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 27th, 2016, 11:11 AM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,550

Using Turkey for Asia Minor and France for Gaul helps a high school student understand better what is being talked about, so I like it. Talking about Napoleon invading the Soviet Union with the capital at Moscow is just wrong though.

I listened to a Great Courses lecture where the professor referred to Rome and Carthage as democracies rather than republics. He knew better, but was trying to simplify to make a point. However, IMO that is also going way to far.

He was saying that some of the most prolonged wars have been between republics, like Rome and Carthage, Athens and Sparta, and the US Civil War. He said without a monarch or dictator, it was harder to make peace. The point was interesting, but the terminology too simplistic.
betgo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2016, 09:44 PM   #32
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Utah
Posts: 152

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
I think you're overly-sensitive about such technical geographical misnomers made by students.

Using modern-day names for the various nations and/or city-states helps that geographical location be more recognizable to those reading the students' report or essay. I mean, if read an article that says "Mumbai" and its referring to Bombay in the 1950's, I am totally fine with it. I have been given the information I need and can extrapolate, and then get onto the gist of the article.

Of course a mention of the former name of the area would be nice added information, and would help anybody reading the article know that term for such time when they encounter it again in historical reading. But I still would not get upset or even irritated about somebody using a modern name that technically was not the same during the time period of the essay.

Just me, though. I am not a scholar or a history professor, just a history buff, so if I find the article otherwise enjoyable and informative it's all good.
Using France for Gaul and Turkey for any previous civilization in Asia Minor promotes a complete misunderstanding of people's and time. Saying "modern-day ......" is fine. The Lydia's, Ionians, Aeolians, and the bunch of others who inhabited Asia Minor were not Turks and did not know what Turkey was.
Utah Jay is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 04:47 PM   #33
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,550

Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah Jay View Post
Using France for Gaul and Turkey for any previous civilization in Asia Minor promotes a complete misunderstanding of people's and time. Saying "modern-day ......" is fine. The Lydia's, Ionians, Aeolians, and the bunch of others who inhabited Asia Minor were not Turks and did not know what Turkey was.
The current Turks aren't mostly Turkish either. Asia Minor became Greekified then Turkified. Saying modern day is best, but for a high school student, using the modern term leads to a better understanding than using a term like Asia Minor. I would stress that they should say "modern". I also wouldn't make this a major issue in grading or comments. Terminology is not the most important thing. The teacher should clearly explain what Asia Minor is and was, and what the correct terminology is.

Last edited by betgo; January 2nd, 2017 at 06:19 PM.
betgo is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 05:09 PM   #34
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: Texas, USA
Posts: 111

Just to preface...I'm not a history teacher. I'm a history loving former English teacher who is now a homeschool mom.

In our homeschool I teach about the modern countries at the same time I teach about the ancient areas, because I think it helps my son connect the dots and remember the geography better, and it's fun to know the history of an area when learning about a country.


By the way I hate that they use the term "modern" for things that happened more than 100 years ago. Another term really needs to be used for those eras (though, alas, I know it's hard to change that). Modern is always going to mean "the most recent period" in common vernacular, and common vernacular is not going to bend to academia. It's just confusing for everyone to call something modern that's not recent, and it's unreasonable to expect our language to come up with a new term for "modern" whenever a period passes.

Last edited by ecarian; January 5th, 2017 at 05:17 PM.
ecarian is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 10:55 AM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,550

I just have the image of some teacher writing -5 points. It's Asia Minor, not Turkey. It seems like a gotcha some teachers like to do. The terminology is not the main issue.
betgo is offline  
Old January 13th, 2017, 05:40 PM   #36

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,784

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
I just have the image of some teacher writing -5 points. It's Asia Minor, not Turkey. It seems like a gotcha some teachers like to do. The terminology is not the main issue.
I agree, so long as the student understands that Asia Minor is not Turkey. Losing points for something like 'The Hittites originated in what is now northern Turkey' would seem to be a cheap gotcha.

I think a student would have a legitimate cause for complaint if points were deducted because he or she used Turkey, when the phrasing indicates that the student is using a modern country for a geography reference, but understands the country didn't yet exist in that era.
Scaeva is offline  
Reply

  Historum > History Help Forum > History Teachers

Tags
anachronism



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.