School history bias

goose2005 · 21-09-2010 7:23pm #1

Was thinking about my school history education (I only did it up to Junior Cert). It had an incredibly Eurocentric bias - the Muslim world got no mention, nor did China. Africa, the Americas and Australia were treated as if they didn't exist until Whitey arrived. Are there any plans to even out this account?

Denerick · 21-09-2010 7:31pm

'There is only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness' - Hugh Trevor Roper.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I would say the problem is that given the necessarily small scope of history up to Junior Cert level it is impossible to encompass everything. Japanese history is fascinating but we learnt nothing about it in school.

Eliot Rosewater · 21-09-2010 7:46pm

Forget about rectifying omissions - I'd much prefer if the current history syllabus was taught in a more meaningful way, rather in the "this year this thing happened" way I was taught.

For example, until this summer, the importance of the Renaissance never occurred to me, despite learning about it in school seven years ago. I learned that there was an increase in classical interest, but I was never taught why that actually mattered.

Also, rather than just listing events it would be nice if teachers actually engaged with the issues that were present at the time and hand that influenced those events. It would be a great opportunity for debate and it would push out the boundaries of students' minds. Get them to question the assumptions that underpin Irish society, for example that violence is a ethical means of enacting political change.

As regards the bias, I think it's normal and proper that a history course in Ireland will tend towards European history, which is more relevant to this country than the history of Kuwait.

wonton · 21-09-2010 7:47pm

I only done history till the junior aswell and dont recall exactly what the syllabus is like but i do remember doing the aztecs anyway.

but that might have just being an introduction to the spanish invasions, im not sure.

but tbh i would rather the course give people a indepth study in european history and its extensions, than have a wider knowledge of other histories and most likelly less about european as a result.

Manach · 22-09-2010 12:19am

From the Renaissance to post WWI the world history is European Imperial history. How the continental Great Powers shaped the world in the creation of Empires fairly well steamrolled all other powers with the odd exception of Japan - [secondary source, Darwin, J: "After Tamerline"]

LutherBlissett · 22-09-2010 8:58am

There is actually a Leaving Cert option that covers earlier periods in history, and doesn't necessarily have such a Western world centric outlook - the Early Modern course.

However, it must be noted that the course (Early or Later Modern) has to be covered in 2 years (in public schools at any rate), so the amount that can be taught is obviously finite. It is thought that it makes sense to teach from the Land War + in Irish history, and from pre WW1 in Europe and Russia because the kids can relate to these topics more easily - studying, say, African history does not have the same immediacy as studying an Irish topic which is so accessible that the child can walk to a museum or landmark just down the road and really get stuck into its history.

Students also have to do a "research topic", which can be on any historical person or event of their choice, so that somewhat mititgates the perceived bias in the course. If a student is displaying an interest in a topic related to, for example, the Crusades etc., this will of course be encouraged.

Kiokia · 22-09-2010 9:37am

What you guys are looking for is university

speaking from a basis of having done history at all levels, the university approach is what you are looking for.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 1:33pm

Manach wrote: »

From the Renaissance to post WWI the world history is European Imperial history. How the continental Great Powers shaped the world in the creation of Empires fairly well steamrolled all other powers with the odd exception of Japan - [secondary source, Darwin, J: "After Tamerline"]

Very true and its sad in a way that the curriculum embraces the imperial history so unquestioningly considering our own history. People might finish history at JC level knowing all the justifications used by imperialists for their conquests, but knowing little of the human cost to the conquered.

fontanalis · 22-09-2010 1:54pm

I think bias may be an unfair term, after all how many other countries students study Irish History?

Denerick · 22-09-2010 3:33pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Very true and its sad in a way that the curriculum embraces the imperial history so unquestioningly considering our own history. People might finish history at JC level knowing all the justifications used by imperialists for their conquests, but knowing little of the human cost to the conquered.

I cannot in any way identify with a statement of that kind.

If I remember my JC history, it merely pointed out the Spanish conquered the Aztecs, or that the Americans rebelled against British dominion. I don't recall any Imperialism apologia.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 7:41pm

Denerick wrote: »

I cannot in any way identify with a statement of that kind.

If I remember my JC history, it merely pointed out the Spanish conquered the Aztecs, or that the Americans rebelled against British dominion. I don't recall any Imperialism apologia.

Stuff like they were spreading religion, exploring for the lolz, bringing civilisation to the dark continent, etc. I went over this a couple of years ago when I was giving grinds and was able to think critically about what was being taught, unlike the first time I read the stuff.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 8:18pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Stuff like they were spreading religion, exploring for the lolz, bringing civilisation to the dark continent, etc. I went over this a couple of years ago when I was giving grinds and was able to think critically about what was being taught, unlike the first time I read the stuff.

I see what you mean (And I also like the idea of explorers doing it for the lolz!) Unfortunately there is only so much you can teach 14/15 year olds. I'm very uninspired by our secondary education system but there are natural constraints there too.

I like what the Tories are proposing in England, enlisting Niall Ferguson to assist in revamping the curriculum.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 8:21pm

Denerick wrote: »

I see what you mean (And I also like the idea of explorers doing it for the lolz!) Unfortunately there is only so much you can teach 14/15 year olds. I'm very uninspired by our secondary education system but there are natural constraints there too.

I honestly think that the more you challenge a student the more engrossed they will be. And I also think a move away from the old curriculum to something more intimate would be a progressive move. But I know where you're coming from.

I like what the Tories are proposing in England, enlisting Niall Ferguson to assist in revamping the curriculum.

Dear Christ, why don't they just write Britannia rules the world on every single page? That's a huge step backwards.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 8:23pm

Denerick wrote: »

I like what the Tories are proposing in England, enlisting Niall Ferguson to assist in revamping the curriculum.

Talk about an apologia for Empire! But what else would we expect from the Tories?

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 8:26pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Dear Christ, why don't they just write Britannia rules the world on every single page? That's a huge step backwards.

YES! It took me a little longer to type my answer so you beat me to it by a minute or so. But Jeez - Ferguson?? talk about a step backwards!!!

Denerick · 22-09-2010 8:27pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Talk about an apologia for Empire! But what else would we expect from the Tories?

Have you read Ferguson's book on the British Empire? The Guardians headline when he was mooted was absolutely delicious.

Dear Christ, why don't they just write Britannia rules the world on every single page? That's a huge step backwards.

Well not quite. The British curriculum is even more narrow than the Irish one, typically A level students emerge from their history courses with a profound understanding of the Tudors and Weimar Germany, and little else. Personally I think a broad chronological, narrative model is the best, one that seeks to answer the question; 'How did Britain come to rule much of the world, and then lose it?' If you're a British student that is.

You can ask such a question, and answer it, without creating an Imperialism apologia.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 8:35pm

Denerick wrote: »

Well not quite. The British curriculum is even more narrow than the Irish one, typically A level students emerge from their history courses with a profound understanding of the Tudors and Weimar Germany, and little else. Personally I think a broad chronological, narrative model is the best, one that seeks to answer the question; 'How did Britain come to rule much of the world, and then lose it?' If you're a British student that is.

You can ask such a question, and answer it, without creating an Imperialism apologia.

You could ask such a question without apologia, but Ferguson does not, and i don't think he really thinks Britain has lost the world either. Even if the curriculum is narrow he will not improve it in any progressive sense.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 8:36pm

Denerick wrote: »

Have you read Ferguson's book on the British Empire? The Guardians headline when he was mooted was absolutely delicious.

Oh I read it all right - which is why I had the reaction I had.

I have to add I was a student in a UK Univ back n the 70s when they were full of it - Empire rolling, spreading civilisation etc etc. but they had moved away from all this fairytale nonsense - how disappointing that there is now a movement to return to fantasy history.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 8:38pm

MarchDub wrote: »

Oh I read it all right - which is why I had the reaction I had.

I have to add I was a student in a UK Univ back n the 70s when they were full of it - Empire rolling, spreading civilisation etc etc. but they had moved away from all this fairytale nonsense - how disappointing that there is now a movement to return to fantasy history.

Fantasy history is a bit strong, is it not? I was impressed by 'Empire' - history the way it should be; opinionated, ambitious and not afraid to correct popular myths. And well written to boot. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Ye are making far too much out of this by the way. The left wing historian Simon Schama backed Ferguson unequivocally... A teeny weeny bit of exaggeration going on here.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 8:41pm

brianthebard wrote: »

You could ask such a question without apologia, but Ferguson does not, and i don't think he really thinks Britain has lost the world either. Even if the curriculum is narrow he will not improve it in any progressive sense.

I thought his underlying thesis was pretty flawless - Britain built an Empire on trade, protected its Empire with gunboats, and developed its Empire with massive capital inflows. Ah well.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 8:47pm

Denerick wrote: »

Fantasy history is a bit strong, is it not? I was impressed by 'Empire' - history the way it should be; opinionated, ambitious and not afraid to correct popular myths. And well written to boot. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Ye are making far too much out of this by the way. The left wing historian Simon Schama backed Ferguson unequivocally... A teeny weeny bit of exaggeration going on here.

No surprise there - or defence. Schama is cut from the same cloth - have read his stuff. Membership in the Labour party does not mean that he is not an admirer of the British Imperial past.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 8:49pm

MarchDub wrote: »

No surprise there - or defence. Schama is cut from the same cloth - have read his stuff. Membership in the Labour party does not mean that he is not an admirer of the British Imperial past.

Good lord. Must we really discount everybody based on their - in this case, perceived - personal opinions? I like reading from a broad spectrum, I like being challenged from alternate angles from alternate writers. There is quite a bit of intellectual suffocation dictated by overt political correctness implicit in all of this. Quite distasteful.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 8:52pm

MarchDub wrote: »

No surprise there - or defence. Schama is cut from the same cloth - have read his stuff. Membership in the Labour party does not mean that he is not an admirer of the British Imperial past.

I agree and this is almost a tradition in British labour/socialist movements.

Denerick wrote: »

Good lord. Must we really discount everybody based on their - in this case, perceived - personal opinions? I like reading from a broad spectrum, I like being challenged from alternate angles from alternate writers. There is quite a bit of intellectual suffocation dictated by overt political correctness implicit in all of this. Quite distasteful.

Look are we talking about secondary school books or not? You already said that ours are not challenging, do you really think Ferguson has been suggested because he will challenge students? Will there be many alternative angles and writers involved in this project? No instead he's been picked because he has an opinion that suits the Tories. I don't expect my particular politics to be reflected by the school curricula, but going this far right wing and using a historian which such obvious bias is poor form. I think you're pretending to be baffled about Marchdub and mine position, because if you know anything about Ferguson you will know exactly why we object.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 8:52pm

Denerick wrote: »

I thought his underlying thesis was pretty flawless - Britain built an Empire on trade, protected its Empire with gunboats, and developed its Empire with massive capital inflows. Ah well.

And gunboats do what??? Spread goodwill and peace?

Look we can't bumper stick this discussion. If you seriously think that the British Empire spread wealth around to the conquered lands with "massive inflows of capital" without inflicting any violence or taking even greater massive amounts out, so be it - but you do need to read beyond your own current boundaries.

delta_bravo · 22-09-2010 9:39pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Very true and its sad in a way that the curriculum embraces the imperial history so unquestioningly considering our own history. People might finish history at JC level knowing all the justifications used by imperialists for their conquests, but knowing little of the human cost to the conquered.

Actually the end of the course covers the rise of Asian and African nationalism in the 1960s which could tie into the consequences and aftermath of imperialism.

From speaking to people who made the syllabus, the greatest omission is the complete lack of detail on World War One

Denerick · 22-09-2010 10:06pm

MarchDub wrote: »

And gunboats do what??? Spread goodwill and peace?

Look we can't bumper stick this discussion. If you seriously think that the British Empire spread wealth around to the conquered lands with "massive inflows of capital" without inflicting any violence or taking even greater massive amounts out, so be it - but you do need to read beyond your own current boundaries.

I said nothing of the sort; in fact that is a cheap and deliberate misrepresentation.

I think you're pretending to be baffled about Marchdub and mine position, because if you know anything about Ferguson you will know exactly why we object.

And with that offensive remark (Questioning my motives etc.) I'm out of here.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 10:15pm

Denerick wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort; in fact that is a cheap and deliberate misrepresentation.

And with that offensive remark (Questioning my motives etc.) I'm out of here.

If you think that's offensive you need to rethink your use of internet fora.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 10:17pm

brianthebard wrote: »

If you think that's offensive you need to rethink your use of internet fora.

I can handle personal abuse but I draw a line on questioning motives. Distasteful, dishonest and most of all disingenous.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 10:21pm

Denerick wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort; in fact that is a cheap and deliberate misrepresentation.

And with that offensive remark (Questioning my motives etc.) I'm out of here.

You know I meant nothing of the sort. Mine was a direct response to your statement using your exact words.

Of course if you can't answer I suppose the best approach is to claim a foul and cry off.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 10:30pm

MarchDub wrote: »

You know I meant nothing of the sort. Mine was a direct response to your statement using your exact words.

Of course if you can't answer I suppose the best approach is to claim a foul and cry off.

You interpreted my statement that the Empire was defended by gunboats and developed by investment as some kind of defense of the Empire. If you managed to interpret that from what I said then its pretty clear there is no point further engaging with you. You can just imagine what I said and debate with that for the rest of the thread.

brianthebard · 22-09-2010 10:35pm

Denerick wrote: »

I can handle personal abuse but I draw a line on questioning motives. Distasteful, dishonest and most of all disingenous.

Tell you want, stop posting in this thread then. And if you have a problem with what I said, an actual problem, pm BossArky or one of the Cmods about it. Mod.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 10:37pm

Denerick wrote: »

You interpreted my statement that the Empire was defended by gunboats and developed by investment as some kind of defense of the Empire. If you managed to interpret that from what I said then its pretty clear there is no point further engaging with you. You can just imagine what I said and debate with that for the rest of the thread.

I interpreted your defence of such a statement correctly I believe. You ended the statement with "ah well" - tossing it off as if the statement was in fact not outrageous and downright bad history.

I responded to this and the fact that we were in a discussion about what to me is an outrageous intent by the Tories to ask Ferguson to oversee the UK history curriculum for the classroom. A truly outrageous plan - but one which I understood you to be defending.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 11:11pm

MarchDub wrote: »

I responded to this and the fact that we were in a discussion about what to me is an outrageous intent by the Tories to ask Ferguson to oversee the UK history curriculum for the classroom. A truly outrageous plan - but one which I understood you to be defending.

I don't have this instinctively outraged reaction to Ferguson having a role in revamping the history curriculum. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. If it ends up claiming that Warran Hastings was in fact a saint and Edmund Burke a devil you may have a point. At present your reaction is little more than hyperbole. Grievous exaggeration.

MarchDub · 22-09-2010 11:33pm

Denerick wrote: »

I don't have this instinctively outraged reaction to Ferguson having a role in revamping the history curriculum. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. If it ends up claiming that Warran Hastings was in fact a saint and Edmund Burke a devil you may have a point. At present your reaction is little more than hyperbole. Grievous exaggeration.

And your reaction is just that - reaction for the sake of reaction.

I don't post hyperbole - I expect to be taken seriously. I may be wrong but I have formed the opinion that you often post here just to inflame the discussion and what, get attention for yourself? Sad.

I really don't see the point in going any further with this. As the mod said - if you have a problem with my posts report me. I've lost interest in hearing any more from you.

Denerick · 22-09-2010 11:37pm

Wevs. Anyway, here is a link to something I posted on goodreads.com in 2009 concerning Ferguson's book. More curious than anything else is my self description as an 'Irish Nationalist'... But I digress: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6646421

I am commenting on someone elses review. Here is the comment in full:

"I'm somewhat skeptical of your review, considering the fact that Ferguson's penultimate argument rests in his assertion that there are 'degree's of Imperialism'. He wasn't excusing the British Empire, but he was clearly taking issue with the hyperbolic sentiments of some that regard all colonialism as essentially equal and equally repressive. And of course the great battleground of the British Empire was the two world wars, and in especially the second world war the world saw four alternative routes towards imperialism; the genocidal nazi Empire, the totalitarian Soviet Empire, the vainglorious Italian Empire and the massively cruel Japanese Empire. How does the British Empire, with its system of representative assemblies, just law and free trade compare? (And I say this as an Irish nationalist with less than a measured view of the British Empire) Its absurd to compare the British Empire, though flawed, with the totalitarian empires of fascism and socialism. I believe this is what Ferguson was primarily getting at.

I also take issue with your complaint that he doesn't devote much time to native peoples. Fergusons book is clearly thematic and not intended as a comprehensive survey - he didn't even use footnotes for Gods sake. The theme examines how 'Britain changed the modern world' - you can hardly blame him for living up to what he promises in the introduction.

I'm sure cultural relativists will have a hard time comprehending Fergusons book, but personally I thank him for his intruiging arguments and terrific erudition."

(proof, if you like, that I am not 'reacting for the sake of reacting'... I have form when it comes to this)

Eliot Rosewater · 23-09-2010 9:50am

I read Ferguson's book when I was in the teenage throws of Irish nationalism and I disliked it for the fact that it didn't universally condemn something I thought of as the Root Of All Evil. I sent the book to Denerick, incidentally.

Now that I'm more rational in my evaluation of history I think I'd like to read it again. His arguments, which I ignored or intentionally forgot, do sound intriguing. I like people who are willing to challenge cultural preconceptions.

Wolfe Tone · 23-09-2010 7:47pm

self description as an 'Irish Nationalist'

Lol! That made me laugh.

As someone who just finished LC history this is what I studied:

Politics and society in Northern Ireland, 1949-1993(this was a bit of an airbrushed joke tbh)
The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition, 1912-1949
Dictatorship and democracy in Europe, 1920-1945
The United States and the world, 1945-1989

Those where the optionsI chose, but there a few more, but all are very western centric.

grenache · 06-10-2010 4:06am

Denerick wrote: »

I like what the Tories are proposing in England, enlisting Niall Ferguson to assist in revamping the curriculum.

They could start with teaching British students all the random acts of murder their troops committed in places such as Ireland and India. The average British person still views their history through rose tinted glasses.

Einhard · 06-10-2010 5:15am

grenache wrote: »

The average British person still views their history through rose tinted glasses.

Don't we all?

Denerick · 06-10-2010 11:56am

Einhard wrote: »

Don't we all?

The Irish Republican version of history is equally deluded as the English Imperialist one.

MarchDub · 06-10-2010 12:35pm

And French Imperial history is as bad as Romanov dynastic history and Roman imperialism was as deluded as Turkish colonialism and the Nazis are as bad as …whatever your choice on that one. Heck we could just negate all bad historiography by bouncing them all off each other.

Great. Solved that problem.

Denerick · 06-10-2010 2:42pm

MarchDub wrote: »

And French Imperial history is as bad as Romanov dynastic history and Roman imperialism was as deluded as Turkish colonialism and the Nazis are as bad as …whatever your choice on that one. Heck we could just negate all bad historiography by bouncing them all off each other.

Great. Solved that problem.

Whats your point? I don't pretend there is such a thing as 'objectivity' but it is possible to create an approximation, which at least hints at an aspiration towards the said goal.

Fuinseog · 06-10-2010 8:10pm

goose2005 wrote: »

Was thinking about my school history education (I only did it up to Junior Cert). It had an incredibly Eurocentric bias - the Muslim world got no mention, nor did China. Africa, the Americas and Australia were treated as if they didn't exist until Whitey arrived. Are there any plans to even out this account?

the american war of independence is covered in what is a vast JC curriculum. a lot of irish history gets left out.

Fuinseog · 06-10-2010 8:12pm

the kids, well the ones that ponder on such things, must think history repeats itself- 1517 the church in crisis.
10-15th century -wars with the muslims.

ValJester · 07-10-2010 9:19pm

delta_bravo wrote: »

From speaking to people who made the syllabus, the greatest omission is the complete lack of detail on World War One

I would agree with that, and also the lack of emphasis on the Land Wars and their significance in averting a second Irish Famine(a problem which is adressed in the LC curriculum).

School history bias

Comments