Why do people skip modern history for elementary children?

[Kathryn]

I've seen many comments over time about people skipping modern history because their children were "sensitive" or they didn't think it was appropriate. I don't understand that at all and was hoping someone could explain it. To me, nothing in modern history is particularly worse than in ancient or medieval history; the only difference being that it's closer to our own time. Is that why? Do you/your children identify more with "modern" people, making those atrocities seem worse? Or am I entirely off base? I can't figure this out!

[dbmamaz]

Well, modern warfare is a lot more deadly than ancient warfare, idk.  My kids dont much like history.  I did a quick run through world history when my youngest was in 2nd, but only through the renaissance, and then used History of US for the next 2.5 years.  My 9/10 yo actually handled the violence of the wars (which we covered, obviously, in more depth in US history) than his teenage brother, who is very sensitive.  Because we went through world history so quickly, we really didnt get in to any real detail about violent deaths.

[Teneo]

I've thought about this too.

When we study modern history we focus more heavily on the wars. It's easier to focus on cultures and interesting individuals when studying further back.

[MinivanMom]

Well, I don't teach my younger elementary children about the atrocities in ancient or medieval history. We might talk a lot about how the feudal system was set up, but I'm not going to describe medieval torture techniques to them. We'll talk about why and how castles were built, but I don't feel the need to explain what it meant to be "drawn and quartered". I find it harder to do this with modern history. It feels intellectually dishonest to talk about the Nazi's without mentioning the Holocaust.

 

And, yes, my children have had much stronger emotional reactions to recent atrocities compared to ancient atrocities. There's an emotional distance when you talk about something the ancient Sumerians did and the only graphics accompanying the text are an artist's rendition of what he "thinks" an ancient Sumerian warrior looked like and a photo of a piece of pottery. It's different to look at photographs of children in a concentration camp . . . photographs. There is an emotional connection when you look into their eyes and think, "My grandmother was a little girl during this same time." That feels close and personal and real. Not all young children are ready to handle that.

[SwallowTail]

My 8 year old dd loves history, as do I, and it has been our favorite and most intensively studied subject thus far.  I also didn't understand any hesitation to cover more recent material.... Until now.  We recently studied the relocation of the Native Americans and are now entrenched in the Civil War.  She hates it, and honestly, I cry half the time in our lessons. She has had to take the book away from me on more than one occasion.  (cute girlie)

 

It is awful what we have done to each other in the past two hundred years.  While humans have always been violent, I think the sheer numbers affected in the past two centuries is mind-boggling.  I do also agree that it is easier to have a detachment from civilizations that existed so long ago as to seem like fairy tales.  It is not easy to do that, especially when your relatives were involvedin or imapcted by more recent incidents.

 

So, we are at a crossroads in my home.  My thought for our family is to continue forward, but to perhaps cover the wars and such in less depth than I had planned for now, and to quickly finish the last SotW book and get back to studying ancient cultures.

[Crimson Wife]

As a Catholic family, I find it difficult to cover the European wars of religion. The ancient wars don't raise those sorts of issues for us. Athens vs. Sparta or Rome vs. Carthage can be studied without it seeming like it has anything to do with my kids. Catholics vs. Protestants in countries that my kids have ancestors from like Ireland, Scotland, and Germany seems a lot more personal.

 

As an adult, I can understand that religion was just a pretext and the real issue was a power struggle between monarchs and their rivals. But kids are less able to understand the nuances.

 

The first time through the cycle, I actually jumped ship when we got to the Reformation era. We moved to American history at that point.

[Paige]

Ancient history involves the "other." It's not our country or our people doing terrible things or having terrible things happen. Modern history involves our concepts of self. It is our country and our relatives- we (generalized) did things in the past. It is harder to process negative things when they involve our self- it forces kids to evaluate whether they need to change their concept of self. Are we good? It's much heavier, IMO. I also think that people shy away from modern history because it is still somewhat subjective and biased. With a greater passage of time, one or maybe two truths tend to win. Right now, people are still processing what the truth about modern history will be. To teach it honestly, you need to present more perspectives and have a more careful conversation. Little kids don't tend to like soft facts. You also should confront your own bias and your own involvement in history. It's easy for me, for example, to say slavery is bad. I never had slaves and wasn't involved. My family history in the US cannot or has not been traced to slave owners. It's harder to speak about civil rights in the 1960s or even the wars in Iraq. I may not have been alive in the 60s and I didn't fight anyone, but my grandparents and parents were there in the 60s. Should I have my children ask them about their actions and positions during the Civil Rights Movement? Perhaps we don't want to know yet. I don't know myself what they would say.

[TracyP]

I never planned to skip modern history... I ran into two issues. 1)My dd simply couldn't handle it. Things like NA relocation, slavery, and the civil war (it broke her heart that the civil war didn't = equality) deeply upset her. It only got worse with modern times. 2) Because of her hurt over inequality, she spent a lot of time studying civil rights on her own. When I realized that she had a great grasp on that portion of history (and current events because they are an ongoing discussion in our home), I decided that it wasn't worth going any deeper with her. We dropped out between WW1 and WW2. I did give her a very basic overview of WW2/Holocaust.

 

Now to answer why? I am not sure. She is somebody who feels deeply in general. She was very upset the other day when she heard that a plane crashed 7 years ago on her b-day. "People were mourning their family, and we were having a party." Like the pp, I also think  that the focus seems to change. The early years were much more a study of people and cultures. Somewhere in there history became a study of "bad stuff." It was too much for her.

[mamaraby]

I never planned to skip modern history... I ran into two issues. 1)My dd simply couldn't handle it. Things like NA relocation, slavery, and the civil war (it broke her heart that the civil war didn't = equality) deeply upset her. It only got worse with modern times. 2) Because of her hurt over inequality, she spent a lot of time studying civil rights on her own. When I realized that she had a great grasp on that portion of history (and current events because they are an ongoing discussion in our home), I decided that it wasn't worth going any deeper with her. We dropped out between WW1 and WW2. I did give her a very basic overview of WW2/Holocaust.

 

Now to answer why? I am not sure. She is somebody who feels deeply in general. She was very upset the other day when she heard that a plane crashed 7 years ago on her b-day. "People were mourning their family, and we were having a party." Like the pp, I also think that the focus seems to change. The early years were much more a study of people and cultures. Somewhere in there history became a study of "bad stuff." It was too much for her.

My ds is 9 and he never really seemed to bat an eye up until very recently. He had a very difficult time with the Spanish explorers and cried when we watched the first episode of "Cosmos" yesterday when Bruno was imprisoned and the burned at the stake. The later was in cartoon and rather gentle. My younger two didn't bat an eye. We still plan on moving forward, but I can see why others might skip it.

 

I think as a general rule, though, American students tend not to get adequate coverage on modern history so I would not be comfortable skipping it beyond the first spin through.

[Sherry in OH]

My children must be ghouls.  :001_smile:  They are more interested in modern history than they were in any other time period. They love all the inventions and advances in technology.

 

I chose not to focus on war for our first cycle.  We read about them, of course, but spend more time on culture and technology.   

[Crimson Wife]

They love all the inventions and advances in technology.

 

I chose not to focus on war for our first cycle.  We read about them, of course, but spend more time on culture and technology.

We did that as a big part of our study of U.S. history. Lots of focus on inventors and technology of the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

I personally felt it was easier to keep U.S. history positive. Yes, there are some darker elements but the way we dealt with those was by focusing on the fight to overcome injustice (like Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad).

[My3girls]

We plan to study it. My kids were appalled by Bruno being burned, too, but I'm not going to sugar coat things for them. I will handle topics and issues in ways appropriate to their age, but to say the world is a happy and fair place is inappropriate in my opinion. They should be appalled and upset by what people have done for power, money, and in the name of religion. I want them to always be aware of the world around them and be willing to fight for themselves and for those who cannot. Maybe, this comes from being raised in a military family and having served in the Marines. I won't raise my kids In a bubble.

[Paige]

2.  The world is more complicated in recent modern history than it was during the time of the ancients.  An entire hemisphere is now very much populated, when it wasn't even on any map during ancient times.

To be fair, both hemispheres and North America were very much populated in ancient times and have history that could be studied.

[SFM]

We didn't skip it. We have enjoyed this year although there has been a lot of sadness, wars, illnesses, and devastation. There still seems to be a lot to learn from that time period, the people that did stand up courageous, those who ignored and silenced justice. I want my children to take a lesson from history because those who do not know are doomed to repeat it.

[IsabelC]

I think that some of the simpler reasons include that it's just more hurtful when it's closer to home (temporally speaking). A war/massacre/famine/epidemic that your grandparents experienced is harder to talk about than one that happened 1000 years ago. I still remember how confused and horrified I felt as a kid to think that my two grandfathers actually fought on opposing sides in WWII (It mucked up my ideas about 'goodies' and baddies' lol). And it's more emotionally difficult to contemplate ideologies that are still around now.

[Dmmetler]

My DD started panicking and got really, really upset when we tried moderns last time. We spent a year basically doing "special topics", and then she wanted to try an online World history course, which will put her getting to moderns next Spring. I'm hoping that being 10 vs 7 will make a big difference.

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

To be fair, both hemispheres and North America were very much populated in ancient times and have history that could be studied.

 

True! I'm guessing the pp just had a brain fart moment, there, and didn't really mean that an entire hemisphere's worth of citizens of ancient days, their lives and times, heroes and villains, governments, religions, arts and music, architecture, civilizations, families, nations, wars and battles, etc., just didn't really count as, you know, history.

[boscopup]

I don't skip it. I just use age appropriate resources and focus on age appropriate topics. We just did WW2 recently. My 7 year old knows that it happened, and he knows that Jews were killed (though he doesn't know how or all the atrocities involved). We didn't sit on the topic and go deep though. It would not be appropriate for him at this level of maturity. Most of our modern history studies this year have focused on famous people and inventions, from the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford in the early part of the century to Walt Disney, Bill Gates, etc.

 

As the teacher, I choose how deep we go into a topic and which topics we hit. This child will get modern history two more times if we follow the 4 year cycle. He doesn't need to know all the details of the Holocaust right now.

 

Also, there are plenty of atrocities in ancient history and even in the Bible. I didn't go deep into those atrocities at a young age either.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

For me, the desire to skip or selectively teach modern history has to do with a desire to maintain my child's sense of horror over the events. 

 

I think history could be like violent video games- the more you see and the younger you see it, the less sensitive you are to it. 

 

I WANT my children to back up in horror over some aspects of modern history.  I WANT them to maintain that sensitivity.  And I think limiting exposure to an age where we can truly jump in, feel the power of the atrocities, and then jump back out again with a lasting impression is better than dabbling our toes for 8 years until it no longer feels too horrible to study. 

 

Of course ancient times were bloody as well, but the technology for mass destruction just didn't exist, and the feeling of proximity with these ancient places and peoples is not nearly as strong.  As already mentioned, it's one thing to read about what happened in Ur, and another to read about what happened in Germany, a day's drive away for us. 

[Anacharsis]

You can teach history either way, really. Begin at the beginning at work your way forward, or begin in the present and work your way backwards. It really depends mostly on temperment and interest level. It feels better to do it the first way because most people are less familiar with the awful things that people did to one another in ancient times, so avoiding those parts for the time being is easier.

[RootAnn]

I agree with many that my 'sensitive' child/children didn't react quite as badly to events from a long distance & time away from the present. (However, they do still react.) My dd#2 was reading a supplemental book about Pizzaro's perfidy with Peru's Inca ruler in 1532 today and became rather upset and indignant about the whole situation. She was in tears (when younger) several times during our year-long US History survey as her first exposure to Native Americans was through American Girl books where she got very attached to the characters (and horses). I'm hoping it won't be as rough covering modern times with her in two years as it was covering US History when she was younger. (We skipped Story of the World 4 to do US History.)

 

I have to be careful what historical fiction & history-related movies we watch - no matter what time in history - as dd#2 will have nightmares for months. Bubonic Plague, hangings/burning-at-the-stake, violent religious persecution, polio, massacres, or just about any kind of injustice will cause her much grief and she asks many questions over weeks of thinking/worrying. I'm not really looking forward to introducing the atomic bomb or chemical warfare with her at this point.

[Dana]

 I'm not really looking forward to introducing the atomic bomb or chemical warfare with her at this point.

 

The Green Glass Sea is a neat fiction book that is from the pov of two girls whose parents work at Los Alamos.

My son also enjoyed some of Feynman's essays.

[fdrinca]

I agree that the scale of warfare is so much greater in the modern era, but my kids have been troubled by the photographs (as opposed to illustrations) in the modern history books we've encountered. 

[kiwik]

I can't remember who the quote is from or the exact words but it is something like "the past is a foreign country, they did things differently then".

 

When we read about an atrocity 3000 years ago we can think to ourselves "haven't we improved since then?", it is a lot harder to say that about things that happened within living memory. It isn't TRUE anyway but my kids don't need to know that yet.

[Tanikit]

I will teach my child modern history - in fact we speak a lot about what is going on in the news with her - trying to simplify horrific things. We live in a violent country and she knows how to read and has read many headlines in the paper that she then asked about. At age 6 I think hearing about the Malaysian aircraft disappearing could actually have terrified her more since we boarded a plane a couple days after it disappeared. 

 

Part of the problem with modern history is that children are often called on to decide whether decisions were good or not or to compare with ancient history or even to make predictions. This isn't suitable for the elementary crowd - they aren't able to. I think covering modern history through stories, kids newspaper articles etc would be fine. Another reason it may cause trouble is that parents might be tempted to show actual footage videos which is something you cannot do for ancient history - this actually probably would not affect elementary children as it would teenagers because understanding from a video what is truely real and what is a portrayal is difficult.

 

My DD6 asked me yesterday how Judas died - I told her he killed himself and she again asked how - I told her without going into any details and then we discussed why he might have done such a thing and about separation from God. This is not a topic I would want to discuss with a 6 year old and nor is it a topic from modern history - but she asked and I do not believe in hiding the truth from my children. 

[LucyStoner]

Bruno being burned at the stake probably disturbed my son more than anything else he has studied in history. It was especially difficult for him to understand. That and reading about cannibalism at Jamestown. We haven't done much very modern history outside of topical units yet by that is because we are taking our time in the early modern period. He is in the 5th grade now so that means he will be grade 6 and 11 when we get to most recent times.

[FO4UR]

"A Long Time Ago" can't hurt me...but 10, 20, 50 years ago is too close for comfort.  Drawings & artifacts have a different effect than photographs and personal testimonies.  

 

 

I've thought about continuing on into Modern with my oldest and taking my 2nd two dc back to Ancients for this very reason.  I haven't decided what I'll do.  If they all do Modern, I will give a much lighter view to my 3rd child, who will be 8yo. I have let them all watch America, The Story of Us, which covers some gruesome topics.  

 

 

I knew of the Holocaust in elementary school, but I vividly remember watching Schindler's List in high school..and Life is Beautiful...and hearing personal testimonies...and understanding what happened on a whole new level.  I think that's possible, to teach a young child "a bad thing happened"...an older child "bad things happened b/c_____"...and then the rhetoric student can really grapple with the ideas.  

 

 

Still thinking this through...