Susan's article on teaching history

[bookbard]

Susan Wise Bauer (just to be clear, haha) linked an essay she wrote on teaching history on her facebook page for discussion. I don't want to write comments on fb, but I did want to discuss the idea, as it was interesting.

Here's the link to her essay: https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/on-history-children-and-the-inevitability-of-compromise/?fbclid=IwAR2TG62jWCK4fxRZtFWOOM68oAdOekkrvNR9QVDiDwvM2DYXpUkiDzges8M

It introduces some well-known overarching narratives in history, including Great Men (history is the story of things that happened due to great men), Marxist (history is the story of the class struggle), and Providential (history is the story of God working in the world). There are some others mentioned.

Now the interesting thing is that she concludes that none are perfect but she goes with the first one as kids like stories about people. 

What I don't understand is this - I thought that nowadays the idea of an overarching narrative was long gone? What I mean to say is that, history isn't some story unfolding or marching forward or whatever. Things happen due to lots of other things including the landscape, diseases, language changes, all sorts of things including famous humans that we know about nowadays because people wrote of them, and people we know nothing about because nothing was written down. (NB, I like asking my kids, 'so what's missing?' eg, we're listening to a CD which has 3 of the Sarah Plain & Tall books, and is all about their connection to the land. But who isn't mentioned at all? The people whose land it actually is - the Indigenous people of the prairies). 

Now I know in the essay she's saying "you may not think you're biased, but you are", and certainly that's true. But I don't know if that's the same as choosing an overarching narrative. I mean, if you study Egypt, you can study famous people, ordinary people, the way the landscape affected the economy, the writing, the art . . . I got a book recently about famous female rulers in Egypt and the unique way they ruled, but does that mean my overarching 'narrative' is Feminist? (I am a feminist of course, but does that mean it's my overarching narrative?)  

I do know that her post was linked to the 1619 project which I don't know much about, not being from the USA. We have had our history debates in Australia, mostly about acknowledging the crimes done to the Indigenous people here - it was derided as "black armband history". But I think our history has always been taught differently - the majority of the population couldn't name the first prime minister (they had to do a TV campaign about it a few years ago) and the no.1 battle that we're taught about is Gallipoli, where we were completely wiped out. We don't have a tradition of triumphant exceptionalism, that's for sure.

Anyway, what do you think, especially if you've read Story of the World? Do you think it's an over-arching narrative of everything linked in together? Do you think I've completely missed the point (haha!)? 

[8filltheheart]

(I didn't read the link, so I am only addressing your question from our homeschooling perspective.) 

I think if you are attempting to get children to understand history that it needs to be presented in terms that are understandable.  Most elementary age kids are not able to grasp abstract historical concepts.  (Ever have a child ask an older person if they were alive when ________and they are off by a century+?  My 9 yr old granddaughter recently asked me if I was alive during the Civil War!  I'm not even that old.  I have a 10 yod!! 😉 )  I don't use the Story of the World (not bc of anything to do with the books, just not my approach.)  We read through whole books on topics, some are biographies, some are on specific historical topics, etc. Through reading whole books on topics, a lot of side topics are incorporated vs. the tidbit focus of a textbook or all-encompasing history book approach.

If you are discussing middle school/high school students, the conversation is different.  But since you mentioned Sarah Plain and Tall, I am assuming young children.  I wouldn't expect too much long term retention or comprehension about  history from young kids.  My kids remember very vague generalities from their elementary yrs.  It is about exposure to ideas.   They might retain a few details, but those may or may not be accurate interpretations of what they were actually taught.  

[caffeineandbooks]

I'm glad you started this thread!  I, too, thought it was a great article.  The very concept of "patriotic history" sounds terrible to me as another Australian and as a history major.  I'm going to throw in a couple of comments sparked by the article and hope they are of interest, even though they aren't exactly a response to what you said.

We love SOTW and are about to begin our second time around.  Having said that, I do find that the later volumes are more... political?... than the earlier ones.  In the first volume there are a few repeating (and non-controversial) themes which kind of tie it together.  One is the idea that ancient civilizations depended on rivers.  This is explicitly stated half a dozen times, eg in chapter 1, 2, 9, 10, 30.  Another is that strong kings built empires, which weakened after their deaths when ruled by weaker kings, and were in turn replaced by new strong empires.  Perhaps a bit of the great man theory comes through in this.

By the fourth volume, though, there's a foreword which frames the history of the 20th century as the story of an oppressed group revolting and becoming the new oppressors.  "Revolution shatters the structures; but the men who build the next set of structures haven't conquered the evil that lives in their own hearts."

What I'm not sure of is *why* it's more political.  Is this a deliberate progression by SWB, aiming to gradually prepare kids for the logic stage thinking that comes next?  Is it because we don't have a lot of information about the politics of the most distant civilizations (or at least we don't have as much skin in the game)?  Or is it simply harder for her to distance herself and account for her own bias as the story moves closer to her own times?  One thing I am happy to grant is that she is *not* deliberately creating a "patriotic history"!

I'm looking forward to the series of articles she's planning to post on her FB page in the coming days.  Great food for thought!

[lmrich]

I would agree with Susan that people like stories so telling history through stories and people is enjoyable and often memorable. Now, if you are really studying history, you would need to take a more mixed approach. 

[Guest]

I feel like the overall arching narrative, if we had one, in my homeschool was "History is the story of ordinary people, in a range of experiences (some of which end up being in big print, most of which are behind the scenes, making choices and decisions that are not always right". And SOTW, with the focus on people and stories, Story of US, lots of trade books, using non-US sources for middle school, a mix of trade and textbooks written in specific countries, US history using mostly trade books and primary sources designed to provide a range of perspectives, and then college classes for additional history and social science topics has all fit in. It wasn't intentional, it just sort of happened. 

[goldenecho]

This made me think a lot about my own viewpoints of history.

As a Christian, I do tend to somewhat have a providential view of history but like Bauer, I'm hesitant to interpret how providence played a roll (ie, I believe God plays a roll in history, but I don't believe I can say that "this and such was part of his plan in this way."   I trust that God has his hands on history but I believe that, apart from where God has revealed it specifically through scripture, it's dangerous for us to look at specific things that are happening and assume we know their purpose in God's plan.

But I think apart from that, I also have beliefs about history, and they don't line up nicely with any of the "theories of history" that she mentioned.

I have said before that I wanted my Children to learn about history because I wanted them to experience how wide and long and  broad and deep it is.   There's a saying that you can't really understand a place until you leave it, and I think history is a way of leaving where we are and seeing how things are different so we can understand "now" better.  I want them to see how things in the past lead up to now, so that they can contemplate how things happening now might lead us in the future.  I want that to one day inform how they live, how they vote, etc.

  I want my children to understand cultures were different from each others, and how even within single cultures people changed over time.   I think that if my kids see how things changed over time in history, this will make them less scared when things change in their lifetimes (will help them accept that in stead of thinking that everything is a certain way and should always stay that way). 

But at the same time I want them to see ways in which people stayed the same.   People loved each other, had children, wanted things, were driven by the same basic wants and needs even if the politics and beliefs around those things changed (need to feel loved, need to be safe, need to feel important, need for purpose).   It's maybe a "nature vs nuture" view of history.   Culture changes and shapes people, but basic humanity does not change. 

I want them to see how people on both sides of a conflict thought they were right, that while there were certainly good and evil, that no person  is wholly good or wholly evil.    I do want them to see how the actions of individuals can be world-changing, but also understand that even the most wise and well meaning among us only see part of the picture.    I also want them to see where small actions by many can also change the world.

  I want to teach humility through the study of history.  And empathy.   I want them to look at people in history and not judge them without first trying to understand them (and this can be practice for how we look at each other now...not judging our fellow man without trying to see things from his viewpoint first). 


And sometimes, I just want to see their eyes light up in wonder at a good story, too. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by goldenecho