Why is history class screwed over?

Jun 2013
432
Connecticut
Not following your reasoning.

According to you, how is “history not important” if “only serves as a basic springboard to study the PRACTICAL aspects of modern citizenship.”

That means that, to you, citizenship is not important?

So are other Social Sciences more important than history? We have a degree of relevance in Social Sciences? Like History in the bottom and Anthropology or Sociology on the top?
I'm reporting the way kids are taught in my area from conversations I've had with them. Theey are in grammar school: grades 4-8. That's it.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,630
Europe
Nope, anthropolgy is, 'the study of human beings, especially society, customs & beliefs'. That implies an overlap that can almost be fully overlaid by history: the history of customs, the history of beliefs, the history of society; all of which and more is underpinned by human nature. What else?

Whereas anthropology includes: 'Biological or physical anthropology studies the biological development of humans.'

History is the study of events
 
Oct 2014
77
Osaka
It was binned in Britain long ago. Ostensibly to make way for a curriculum that made sure people could read and write etc - which they still can't! Learning all sujects seemed to work OK in the old days - sigh

When they do any, it seems to be about Nazis and stuff. Which is barely history anyway!!

Mind you, as a lover of battles and wars even as a kid, I found the history subjects we had to do like the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution horrifcally boring. Could've put me off history for life!!

I guess nowadays some posters/teachers would focus on whether Caesar committed a war crime, or Almanzor showed racism? Or maybe bullying by Atila or Alaric?? Or perhaps homosexuality in the crusades?

Or of course slavery, or slavery, or slavery, or....................
Why are people focusing on 12 years in the 1930s and 1940s? How is that going to help young people understand their culture? Japan has a history going back to 250 with the Yamato period. I wouldn't think it would be a good idea to teach our culture's history only focusing on the 20th century... it would be like eating plain rice with no toppings and no sauce!
 
Sep 2015
1,607
England
Why are people focusing on 12 years in the 1930s and 1940s? How is that going to help young people understand their culture? Japan has a history going back to 250 with the Yamato period. I wouldn't think it would be a good idea to teach our culture's history only focusing on the 20th century... it would be like eating plain rice with no toppings and no sauce!
What a curious approach: picking out a basic contrast. For the record we covered a very broad range of stuff before 14-16 yrs old: and then 1066 to 1603.

And surely we learn from history that a lot of things are/were not a good idea, but they tend to happen regardless?
 

Similar History Discussions