Is history education pushing an agenda

Mathias said:

What does the community think?

Click to expand...

Keeping to the twentieth century: Yes, of course there's always at least a basic agenda of teaching a concept of history which supports the status quo. Mostly, teachers and students may be oblivious. All history books have a bias, sometimes more obvious than others. EG in the early 1960's I studied English and Australian history at high school. The English history was pro British almost to the point of jingoism***. We had one thin volume of Australian history, which was treated rather casually, as if we didn't have much history worth while.

That approach certainly changed when I was at university in the 1980's. What is taught and how changes often. At least once in generation as far as I can tell.

***at that time, few people questioned the notion of the British Empire being a good thing, a civilising effect globally.

Mathias said:

I will male this ambigous in hope of keeping it civil. For that reason i will not state what agenda i feel is being pushed, in order to elimanate bias and hear your opinions on the matter. I do, however feel, that in education, certain acts gets an overwheling, one sided and harmfull attention, while others are swept complety under the radar, and that this is to further political agendas. Sometimes it feels to me that events eventet completly turned on its head. And IF this is true, i find it down right demonic.
What does the community think?

Click to expand...

Can you tell me anywhere in the history of state-led modern universal education, in every place in the world, any instance where history education never pushed an agenda?
The very fact is that the modern education system in the 19th century decided to include history in the school curricula precisely because they wanted to push an agenda.
This should not be surprising to anyone, nor is this anything new.

Mathias said:

I will male this ambigous in hope of keeping it civil. For that reason i will not state what agenda i feel is being pushed, in order to elimanate bias and hear your opinions on the matter. I do, however feel, that in education, certain acts gets an overwheling, one sided and harmfull attention, while others are swept complety under the radar, and that this is to further political agendas. Sometimes it feels to me that events eventet completly turned on its head. And IF this is true, i find it down right demonic.
What does the community think?

Click to expand...

The teaching of language is highly political act. Education as a concept was pushed for variety of agendas. Why would history be any different?

It;s the primay mean of socialiization of the young, teaching them how to act , what roles to take in society. It;s impossible to strip it of political consequences/bais.

Mathias said:

The thing is, i dont study history, so i cant. Not because i cant think of any, but because im not aware of academic history.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about, what I understand, as "academic history" (which means the higher learning, research, and scholarship of the study of history).
I'm talking about history taught in schools and as part of the universal and mandatory education system. If you went to school (which you certainly did), you did learn history, and I can bet a million US dollars that the history that you learned in school pushed an agenda.

As has already been mentioned, yes, yes it is.

At least to an extent. The way history is taught in schools, both primary and secondary, is extremely rushed, rudimentary and basic. The ''agenda'' can mostly be categorised as lying by omission. For example, when learning about the Serbs in the Austrian Empire, what is taught is seen from a Serbian perspective while ignoring the Habsburg one and not going into much detail, consequently simplifying a situation that is considerably complex.

Save for an occasional inaccuracy, oversimplification and outdated info, what is said in these books is mostly true... but it's so simplified and rushed that it misses out on the context and the complexity of the situation, meaning that the students will miss the point unless they actively go out to seek the full context themselves, but that's not taught in school.

The textbooks are usually written by university professors and what is included in them is down to their personal opinion. The decision is down to said academic and his colleagues thinking ''hmmm... I think 7th graders should learn this and this about the Austrian Empire and this about the German Unification, while high schoolers should learn this and that about WWII''. When this is done, it goes on to get approved by the ministry of education, meaning that it has to get to politicians who aren't exactly well-versed in the material. There is no rigorous, objective process and it's all quite random, and often politically influenced (there was a controversy over a part of a textbook that covered early ... activism, which enraged the conservatives and they demanded that this part be redacted. The text wasn't factually wrong, it's just that some people have a problem with certain areas of history).

On a university level, academic history is completely different. This is where you get to conduct real historical research and do independent projects. What can happen here, as well as in any other social science, is that your professor might happen to be politically active. While they may know their subject matter and things they're supposed to teach, they might start telling you things that are in line with their own agenda. This isn't something that is systemic, indeed every university is autonomous and has its own education program, but is on a case-by-case basis. Some professors are transparent and objective, while others have clear agendas and axes to grind. It's up to you to filter which is which. Some college students figure this out, some do not.

The way the education system is set up means that everything will be politically influenced to an extent, even natural sciences like math and physics.

Chlodio said:

In America there are traditionally three forces that shape children into adults: the family, the church, and the state. The state exerts most of its influence over children through education. The state has a vested interest in childhood development. The state wants children to grow into productive workers. The state also wants children to become loyal citizens. This is not necessarily a political agenda. Understanding and appreciation of democracy does not automatically imply loyalty to one party over another. History instruction has a major part in teaching children about democracy: how democracy has worked in the past, and how the country has solved past problems, the rise of the two party system, which presidents have been successful and why, which presidents have been unsuccessful and why, the expansion of the right to vote, etc.

I'm not saying that history instruction in America is free of bias. Democracies are subject to human fallibility. People with agendas do occasionally gain control of the education system. Voters and occasionally the courts must remain vigilant against these people.

Click to expand...

Teaching children to appreciate democracy is quite literally pushing an agenda. Political agendas don't have to be only associated with loyalty to one political party over the other, they can also be associated with loyalty to a political system, group identity, or ideology, over the other.
There's nothing positive or negative about pushing an agenda despite that a lot of people like to use that wording negatively.

robto said:

There's nothing positive or negative about pushing an agenda despite that a lot of people like to use that wording negatively.

Click to expand...

Fundamentally pushing an agenda implies manipulation and estrangement from „the truth“. Idk how this is not negative in itself.

Sephiroth said:

Fundamentally pushing an agenda implies manipulation and estrangement from „the truth“. Idk how this is not negative in itself.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The term is defined as "trying to push to make something happen". For example, when I go out for the humane society and speak to a group about overcrowding in animal shelters, my immediate intention is to share information--but the agenda that I am pushing is responsible pet ownership. This isn't an "estrangement from the truth" nor is it negative.

Chlodio said:

Yes, but that's not how Mathias was using the term. We all know he was talking about manipulation. Arguing over definitions is a distraction away from the point Mathias wanted to discuss.

Click to expand...

I was simply responding to the assertion that "pushing an agenda" is (in itself) negative. In the example that I cited, animal abusers and certain anti-shelter groups would regard this as manipulative; still it is not a sneaky negative-absolutely no one (knowing that I was representing a humane society) really thought that my intention was purely informational. . Perhaps it's a matter of prospective.

kazeuma said:

1. the American revolution.

Click to expand...

... There is an overwhelming historical and heritage element. ... ? And what "really ended the war" probably had more to do with the focus of the British-French conflict; the North American colonies were a side show to both.

kazeuma said:

2. the US Civil war.

Click to expand...

Only if the ideology of the Lost Cause is universal. They don't teach that here in Maine.
Please do not perpetuate or resuscitate posts the mod team has deleted for rule violations.

Chlodio said:

Yes, but that's not how Mathias was using the term. We all know he was talking about manipulation. Arguing over definitions is a distraction away from the point Mathias wanted to discuss.

Click to expand...

My point stands: manipulation has always been a feature in teaching history through the education system and popular culture.

duncanness said:

Please do not perpetuate or resuscitate posts the mod team has deleted for rule violations.

Click to expand...

Obviously the post hadn't been deleted when I responded--or I wouldn't have been able to quote from it..