Is it imperative that we study 1965-present for World History?...

[Rhondabee]

(This is somewhat related to my other question, but a different angle.)

 

If I knew for certain that I didn't *have* to cover 1965-present this year in World History (because maybe it will be covered in American History?), then I would have time to continue reading our narrative history, read from Spielvogel's Human Odyssey and answer the Section Review questions, *and* assign the "once-a-week paper" that SWB talks about in WTM and the high school writing download. I would *love* that! (And I keep thinking of SWB saying everyone has gaps.)

 

BUT...if you tell me that I *have* to do 1965-present because that's just too important to "gap" intentionally, well... then we'll muddle though. LOL! But, please tell me what you might use in place of the Spielvogel. I am not looking forward to using it exclusively for that time period.

 

Thanks!

[regentrude]

My personal opinion: yes, I find it absolutely necessary that a student is acquainted with world history after 1965.

It is impossible to make sense of the current political situation of the world if one is not familiar with the Cold War and the breakdown of the communist regime in Eastern Europe, and its subsequent ripples throughout the world. It is necessary to understand this also because it puts many things about the American society in perspective and gives students a better appreciation of their civil rights.

It does not matter whether these things are studied as World History or Politics or American History - but I would expect of an educated young person to have a certain knowledge about this time period. I cringe when I talk to college students who have no idea what the Berlin wall was.

[bugs]

My personal opinion: yes, I find it absolutely necessary that a student is acquainted with world history after 1965.

It is impossible to make sense of the current political situation of the world if one is not familiar with the Cold War and the breakdown of the communist regime in Eastern Europe, and its subsequent ripples throughout the world. It is necessary to understand this also because it puts many things about the American society in perspective and gives students a better appreciation of their civil rights.

It does not matter whether these things are studied as World History or Politics or American History - but I would expect of an educated young person to have a certain knowledge about this time period. I cringe when I talk to college students who have no idea what the Berlin wall was.

:iagree:

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

My personal opinion: yes, I find it absolutely necessary that a student is acquainted with world history after 1965.

It is impossible to make sense of the current political situation of the world if one is not familiar with the Cold War and the breakdown of the communist regime in Eastern Europe, and its subsequent ripples throughout the world. It is necessary to understand this also because it puts many things about the American society in perspective and gives students a better appreciation of their civil rights.

It does not matter whether these things are studied as World History or Politics or American History - but I would expect of an educated young person to have a certain knowledge about this time period. I cringe when I talk to college students who have no idea what the Berlin wall was.

:iagree: This is also why I teach American History chronologically with World History.