Most college American history courses are divided into two parts, with the separation being 1877, the end of Reconstruction. There is just too much material to cover in one class. It appears that NC high schools are just following suit.

While I can appreciate that the founding of the country gets left out, it is really hard to make the connection between lives lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, and lives lived in the 21st. No electricity, horse-drawn transportation, little travel between states, no sports heroes to worship; it is hard for students to relate. Here is even a bigger one, no capitalism.. While you bemoan losing the battles over democracy, I will miss the arguments over this new economic system the government was promoting in 1800, and the mobs of common folks who opposed it at rallies.

Here is an interesting question back. College historians want to break up the time line again and make a third chapter. When is the logical break? WWII? 1976? 911?

Mark

Mark: "It appears that NC high schools are just following suit."

It would be better in high school then to teach the first 100.

"it is really hard to make the connection between lives lived in the 17th and 18th centuries, and lives lived in the 21st."

Are you saying that the goal of teaching history is to make sure kids can relate? Somehow making them comfy with the past seems an inadequate goal for a teacher. No stretching involved for student or teacher.

"Here is even a bigger one, no capitalism."

There was capitalism. People owned and traded or sold goods and services with one another based on private decisions:

an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market

Capitalism existed! It existed on a much smaller scale for most Americans then but it worked in the same way.

People who oppose capitalism today simply confuse it with the criminalism that some capitalists and politicians sometimnes practice. Human beings are, sadly, given to such behaviors regardless the system they live under. That is the reason we also have a legal system in America.

When is the logical break? WWII? 1976? 911?

If patterns are developing of course that would be 1976. The point of the article wasn't that the class would be divided into two or three parts but that the first 100 would not be taught at all, but then it's clear that those years haven't been sufficiently taught for some time.

Tina,

It is just as interesting that you start American history in 1776, as it is that NC wants to start it in 1877. What about the 170 years before 1776? Jamestown? Plymouth Rock? Stamp Act? The Tea Party? Is nothing sacred? (smile)

As for capitalism, you missed the first part of the definition; "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods." Today, if you want to produce something, you need buildings and machines. In 1776, there was little in the way of capital goods. Everyone had a few tools, and made what they needed at home. Some made a little more than they needed and traded it. By definition, that is household economy, and in 1776, most of the economy was still a household economy. Large investments, to buy ships for example, were made by individuals or limited partnerships. Corporations were suspect. Things began to change in the 1820s and the rise of industrial capitalism was contested, both in this country and abroad. Howard Zinn just passed away. He was the author of "The People's History of the United States" a best selling book that describes many of the battles. Railroads, with their large capital costs, led the way to this new economy. The Civil War was our first modern war, and coming out of Reconstruction, the United States was a modern nation with a flourishing capitalist economy.

Let me also be clear that I think teaching about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is important in high school just in government class where they have some relevance, rather than a history class where the topics would get mentioned briefly as the teacher tries to cover four centuries on four months.

Mark

That is one of the most misleading articles I have ever read in my entire life.

According to the North Carolina Public School's website,

"Students would build on that study in high school Civics and Economics and in U.S. History. The high school Civics course includes LEARNING ABOUT OUR NATION"S DEVELOPMENT AND FOUNDATION (emphasis mine). The high school U.S. History course would begin with 1877, the end of Reconstruction, in order to give students and teachers time to study our nation's history in more depth. The years prior to reconstruction would have been covered with students three times before - in fourth grade (as part of North Carolina history) in fifth grade and in seventh grade.

A wide range of elective U.S. History and other history courses also would be available to students who wish to continue history study in high school."

Like Mark, my first reaction was to ask the painfully obvious question of whether or not American history prior to 1877 was being taught in another class, before students' senior years. It is a very common practice to split up different parts of history into different classes. Teaching all of American history in one year is just not wise. Yet the Heritage article doesn't acknowledge this obvious fact at all, nor did most of the commenters there, nor did you, Tina. The Fox News article it links to is slightly better, as it at least acknowledges that the civics class exists, but it doesn't say what it teaches. That so many conservative sources ignored this obvious question pretty much sums up the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality of the current conservative movement, and it's almost pathological need to stir up an hysteric controversy over the smallest thing. Not to mention the article contains several logical leaps. The statement "By implication, nothing before 1877 has any meaning to students" is simply false. Choosing to focus on one aspect of a subject instead of another does not mean that one thinks other aspects are completely unimportant. And then to blame it all on progressives, with no basis whatsoever? It's all just terrible journalism.

Any credible source would have looked up this readily available information and presented it to their audience. Then they would have been able to argue using all the facts. And you, Tina, had a responsibility to look these facts up yourself before furthering this ill-informed propaganda. It's clear now that Heritage is willing to ignore inconvenient facts in order to further their point, and thus has no credibility. I hope that you will be more vigilant in the future.

Mark: "It is just as interesting that you start American history in 1776, as it is that NC wants to start it in 1877. What about the 170 years before 1776?"

US history does begin in 1776...the years prior would be colonial history...but in any case the article's main point was that the most relevant historical event, our founding, would not be included in high school history class not that the years prior to 1776 shouldn't also be included.

"...you missed the first part of the definition; "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods."

I did not miss it. Private ownership was not what it is today, but people did have property and they did trade or buy and sell from each other. (They did not, generally speaking, take from others or sit and wait for government distribution and they did not rely on collectives.) Farming was the natural first means of making a life for a family but those who were not farmers found other ways to be industrious. They created communities and stores, livery stables, and boarding houses emerged, albeit crudely by later standards. Some offered services from their homes...midwifery, dentistry and doctoring. The people were proud, they may have paid in chickens but they offered compensation. That is the essence of a free market and private ownership.

"Let me also be clear that I think teaching about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is important in high school just in government class where they have some relevance, rather than a history class where the topics would get mentioned briefly as the teacher tries to cover four centuries on four months."

"Mentioned briefly"...my Lord! While I agree that the founding documents and the three branches of government are appropriately taught in civics class I disagree that the period wherein these documents were drawn should be left out of history classes. The historical events, and especially the thinking, that motivated the founders to write the Constitution are invaluable and necessary when teaching American history. How are students ever going to appreciate the gift of the American Constitution if they know little of our founding and early history? There can be no explanation other than a desire to diminish and make irrelevant both the documents and the incredibly brilliant thought and discourse that should be attributed to the men who wrote them. What is it that leftists love to say...something about old (bald) dead white men? What incredible arrogance and bigotry!

"Things began to change in the 1820s and the rise of industrial capitalism was contested, both in this country and abroad. Howard Zinn just passed away. He was the author of "The People's History of the United States" a best selling book that describes many of the battles."

Ah yes, Howard Zinn. The roots of the hate America and free market capitalism mantra so prevalent in the teaching of American history can be laid at the feet of Howard Zinn...a true progressive’s progressive. Selective history was his specialty and greed his only point of perspective, as if human beings had only one motivation. Howard Zinn’s idea of history is to uplift the Marxist model and is taught for the purpose of social engineering. He wrote of Castro’s Cuba that it: “had no bloody record of suppression.” That is an out and out lie. The only battles he finds worthy of mention are those that might bring disgrace to America (My Lai); he ignores those battles that brought liberation (D-Day). He was apparently a cynical human being as reflected in his “one note” efforts as historian.

K: "That is one of the most misleading articles I have ever read in my entire life."

Is it? The North Carolina Public School's website as quoted by you does offer an explanation with references to teaching the founding and early history in civics and in prior years but it also reveals the intent of the "new curriculum". From the FOX article:

Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward. ** Critics say the state's decade-old high school curriculum may need an update — but not like this. ** "The answer isn't to throw out fundamental portions of U.S. history," said Mike Belter, a U.S. history teacher and social studies director. "This is not preparing our kids to have a deep historical perspective that can be used to analyze modern events for themselves." ** Educational policy analyst Terry Stoops agrees. "I'm all for a global outlook, but it should not be at the expense of American history and learning about American institutions and ideas," he told Fox News.

Another article I found had this to say:

"North Carolina Changes in HS History Standards," by Michael Streich

Referring to the traditional, narrative approach to teaching history, Dr. Rebecca Garland, spokesperson for the NC Department of Instruction, speaking on Fox News February 3, 2010, stated that students would still receive that instruction in the middle schools. The high school focus in Global Studies is on relevant, contemporary issues. Proposed “Essential Standards” include: •20th and 21st Century conflicts •Human Rights •Access to Resources •Quality of Life •Environmental Modification •The Effectiveness of “organizations established to maintain peace and security”

American History from 1877
Juniors studying American History would begin with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. The traditional narrative approach would be replaced by thematic modules such as:
•Changes in international relationships
•Struggles for power and human rights
•Changes in the power of the Federal government
•Changes in the physical environment and technology
•Changes in lifestyles
The last time students might study American independence, slavery, Manifest Destiny, Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and Reconstruction would be in the elementary grades or middle school. Critics point out those younger students cannot fully comprehend the concepts associated with, for example, Manifest Destiny or Jacksonian Democracy.

The point of contention is based in perspective and intent. Education has been "transforming" for some time as historians like Howard Zinn have been seen as the go to guy for what is relevant. There are many highly educated people who despair at the direction our educational system has taken. Instead of a classical liberal education they are receiving a form of Marxist/socialist indoctrination. The times may change but basic principles and ideals remain constant. The principles and ideals of our founding deserve preservation and in depth treatment, especially in high school since not all students go on to college.

"Teaching all of American history in one year is just not wise."

Bologna. It could be done if the focus was on history rather than environmental issues...a subject more suited to science classes by Marks yardstick, or "quality of life" (depending on what that means and how "in depth" it is)...a subject "more suited" to "social studies". What do suppose is the importance of learning "access to services" in the "global studies" portion? (social engineering...dependency on government?)

"That so many conservative sources ignored this obvious question pretty much sums up the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality of the current conservative movement, and it's almost pathological need to stir up an hysteric controversy over the smallest thing."

“So many conservative sources”? I realize in your mind conservatives may be a fringe group but I assure you we are not.

Your own lack of curiosity that an organization like Heritage, an organization filled to the brim with very well respected and highly educated individuals, is showing intellectual concern about our educational system could just as easily suggest a "pathological need" to be knee jerk dismissive of anything that varies from what you expect and accept per your own education.

"Any credible source would have looked up this readily available information and presented it to their audience. Then they would have been able to argue using all the facts."

I should have looked at the North Carolina website. But had I done so, I would have found exactly what I did find. The purpose of this change is to continue to teach social studies (read social engineering) and pass it off as history, to teach radical environmentalism and pass it off as US history, to teach a marxist/socialist perspective and pass it off as US history and to teach that the evil industrial/corporate age spawned by greed has been destructive. (Add greaqt dollops of guilt, something which all Americans should feel). Pardon me K, but this is BUNK!

Good call by the Heritage article.

Tina,

“The people were proud, they may have paid in chickens but they offered compensation. That is the essence of a free market and private ownership.”

Agreed, but what you described is not capitalism

As for teaching, 180 days of instruction, divided by 500 years, leaves teachers about one hour to cover every three years. If you want more instruction on revolutionary America, what years would you leave out?

And when covering the revolution, what should we focus on? You suggest the motivations of the founders? The founders feared Monarchy. What high school students fears that? What exactly do you want taught?

I also believe that retired 2nd Lieut. Army Air Force Howard Zinn would have found it interesting that he hated America. It appears your respect for servicemen is selective.

When covering the revolution, Zinn would have us focus on Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty, rather than John Adams and the Continental Congress. Zinn focused on the struggles of common people, not the machinations of the elite. Your characterizations of him are highly are insulting and demean you more than him.

Mark

Oh, and thank you, Jack.

Tina,

Your posting raises an interesting question. What do we need to teach our young people about their country’s past? I can appreciate, given your politics, that you think it is important for young people to know about the founding of their country, and the ideals that guided them. I now get your point that United States history starts in 1776, not 1877.

It is equally obvious that there are certain parts of our nation’s past that you would be fine with avoiding (social struggles, for example) because they cast us in a bad light, or are divisive, pitting one group against another. I would connect this notion to an earlier post from Jack asking if disclosing terror operations was promoting fear. I see the two as different sides of the same coin. If we need to know about Al Qaeda operations, we also need to be told about the Ludlow Massacre.

So we return to the question, what do we need to teach our young people? I believe the history of the founding of our country is important because the documents they produced are the documents we live by today. Again, civics is a great place for that. The lives those founders lived, however, is far from anything a 17 year old could imagine and all context would be lost. 1877 is still a reach, but at least that was a modern world, with large cities spread across a nation that stretched from sea to sea, but still connected by fine wires of communication. I think NC’s decision to focus more intensely on that part of our past when teaching soon-to-be-adults makes sense.

Mark

Ps. for PS.

1877 is the classical dividing point in US History, and most textbooks are two volumes, 1500 to 1877 and 1877 to the present. Most teachers are now saying that 1877 to 2010 is too much ground to cover, and there should be another break. WWII is the most common date mentioned. In the days after 9/11 some historians argued that 9/11/2001 was a watershed moment, and everything after in the world was different.

I am interested in when Post Script readers think volume 3 should start, and why?

Mark

Mark: "Agreed, but what you described is not capitalism."

What do you think it is? I have a farm. I raise grain and vegetables. I also raise chickens (I have invested time and money to grow the crops and raise the chickens; they are my property). I then pay for a service you offer with some of my chickens. That is a capitalist transaction. You may think it too simple or crude but it has all of the elements of capitalism.

"180 days of instruction, divided by 500 years, leaves teachers about one hour to cover every three years. If you want more instruction on revolutionary America, what years would you leave out?"

This is the way you think about teaching history? In segments of years (as if every minute has to be covered)? You can do better than this.

"The founders feared Monarchy. What high school students fears that?"

The point isn't that they can relate...this isn't an encounter group or chat session...it's a history class! The point is developing in future adult citizens an appreciation for freedom and the rights we are guaranteed. We enjoy these inalienable rights because of the wisdom of the founders. These are things that are too easily taken for granted and through careless neglect could easily be compromised and lost. Our Constitution is unique in all of the world. The founders didn't just "fear the monarchy" they developed an urge so compelling that they risked everything to give birth to a unique free nation.

"What exactly do you want taught?"

US History...all of it! The most important part being how our nation came to be and how that founding created the basis for what followed.

(Anyone with a sincere interest should check out the free seminars offered right now by Hillsdale College on the Constitution.)

Mark I realize that depth plays a part in this and time limits the ability to go deeply into every part of our history. Were kids getting better instruction from grade school through middle school the necessity to repeat information in high school would be lessened offering greater depth. Same for high school with respect to college. Professors complain that students arrive unprepared for college level work.

"I also believe that retired 2nd Lieut. Army Air Force Howard Zinn would have found it interesting that he hated America. It appears your respect for servicemen is selective."

I can appreciate the mans service to the country and still find his progressive perspective and ideas distaseful and against the grain of American ideals as introduced by our founders. I can see that they are more closely aligned with the principles of Marx. I said he was an inspiration to those who chant a hate America/capitalism mantra so prevelant today. I don't know if he loved America or not but I do know he wanted to refashion it and that he viewed America from a much different (negative) perspective than she deserves. His idea of America was perhaps more important than the rights and freedoms that obviously allowed him to succeed and prosper.

"Zinn focused on the struggles of common people, not the machinations of the elite."

Exactly...class warfare...division...with an eye toward Marxist revolution and the socialist state. The productive people that created opportunity through their investment of time, money and personal sacrifice contributed nothing. The entrepreneurs and builders, those who worked hard and took risks, are seen only as greedy, selfish oppressors and destroyers. It's a travesty and a lie.

Incomplete pictures are bad whether they be of those who struggled or those who made a fortune. People are people and people make mistakes. Zinns view was lopsided and therefore in total represents a profound lie.

The "struggles of common the people" is the old worn out phrase of the Bolcheviks.

Name another country where the middle class has had a greater chance at wealth and the poor a greater opportunity to move into the middle class. The only needy people left in America are those who were sucked-in to the mindset of socialism through War on Poverty programs. Those who said, "no thanks," are doing pretty well for themselves. The Howard Zinns of the world would have us think that successes of so called "common people" only came because of protest, organizing, unions, activism and government....the eternal mindset of the Bolsheviks. They did not. They came because of freedom, including the freedom to own and grow a business, and the opportunity that springs from individuals making their way in that freedom to offer greater opportunity to others.

"Your characterizations of him are highly are insulting and demean you more than him."

One man's opinion and you are welcome to it! I believe Zinns voice went unanswered for far too long and as a result we have a huge segment of the populatiuon that has no sense of appreciation for the freedom and opportunity that our founding inspired or the greatness of the American system of government.

Mark: "It is equally obvious that there are certain parts of our nation’s past that you would be fine with avoiding (social struggles, for example) because they cast us in a bad light, or are divisive, pitting one group against another."

I never suggested that we should avoid any part of our history. I have suggested that history should include the most important parts of our history. (1776-1876 contains a lot of important information) I also suggest that for the past fifty years or so we have focused completely on class struggle and done an extremely poor job of teaching anything else. As I said in my last response a partial picture becomes a lie no matter what part of history is being left out or skewed. You assume I want to turn a blind eye to things like slavery or the evil way that coal miners, for instance, were treated. I do not but neither should the good things that resulted from capitalism and individualism be ignored or painted in a negative light as it has been.

"The lives those founders lived, however, is far from anything a 17 year old could imagine and all context would be lost. ** I think NC’s decision to focus more intensely on that part of our past when teaching soon-to-be-adults makes sense."

Oh give me a break! You're honestly saying that the point of teaching history is to make students comfortable by focusing on recent history because students lack the capacity to imagine other eras? What you describe isn't education it's babysitting with a good dose of socialization tossed in for effect. Of course they can imagine! Of course they are capable of grasping the significance of a prior age...that is, they can if teachers are well schooled themselves.

Perhaps this is the root of the problem. Has teaching become a retreat oriented endeavor? Is it now a profession of therapy and activism? Is the point to inspire socially conscious clones who eschew capitalism and the republic in favor of global socialism and green technology? (Your own interest in global warming theory may be coloring your point of view.) Do you honestly think a middle school level understanding of the founding, the move westward, and the civil war is sufficient for adults going off to work or college? And by the way how easy is it for middle schoolers to "imagine" the founders lives?

Have we reached the point where acceptance of low expectations rules the day?

Mark I do appreciate the time constraints you bring up and I realize too that teachers face monumental problems in today's classrooms. Preparing young people for adulthood is a tough job.

I agree with Jack that WWII would make a logical beginning for a "third volume"...most appropriate for college level classes and history buffs.

"What do you think it is? I have a farm. I raise grain and vegetables. I also raise chickens (I have invested time and money to grow the crops and raise the chickens; they are my property). I then pay for a service you offer with some of my chickens. That is a capitalist transaction. You may think it too simple or crude but it has all of the elements of capitalism."

What you describe is a simple market transaction, and it could occur in a number of economic systems. Let's stay in 18th century America.

You raise grain and vegetables and sell/trade/barter them, and then you give the money to your master, either because you are a slave, or an indentured servant.

You raise grain and vegetables and sell/barter/trade them, and then you take the other half of what you raised and give it to the property owner because you are a sharecropper.

You raise grain and vegetables and sell/barter/trade them and then give the proceeds to the owner of the tools, land, wagons, i.e. capital, and then she gives you a wage. That is capitalism. Workers called it wage slavery because they saw a connection.

The transition from owning your own means, to working for a wage, was a struggle in this country, and the "other side" was not Bolshevics because they were 100 years in the future. Both sides were Americans.

The Lowell Mills in Massachusetts are a perfect example. To gain acceptance, the mills opened with only single women employees (no competition with free men) and the factory was modeled after a college campus meant to uplift young women who would spend only a limited time at work before they married. If capitalism was so universal, why all the extra effort for acceptance in America?

Capitalism is a Marxist term, used by Marx to describe the new economic system that began in the Neatherlands in the 17th century and spread throughout the world. Others can debate whether that was a good thing or not, but it is ahistorical to claim that capitalism has always existed.

Mark

"Oh give me a break! You're honestly saying that the point of teaching history is to make students comfortable by focusing on recent history because students lack the capacity to imagine other eras? What you describe isn't education it's babysitting with a good dose of socialization tossed in for effect."

Tina,

I am Mark, not Libby. Please refrain from putting fighting words in my mouth. (smile)

Every teacher’s goal should be to reach his or her students. Teachers need to make the subject relevant to the students so they can integrate what they learn with what they know (basic cognitive theory). American prior to 1877 was an agrarian nation with agrarian concerns. Regionalism was paramount and the country was deeply divided. After 1877, almost everything was different. We became an industrial nation during the Civil War, and shortly after that we became an urban nation, and shortly after that we became a world power.

Again, in my opinion, teenagers on the cusp of adulthood need to focus their limited time on studying a world that is, rather than one that has passed.

Respectfully,

Mark

Mark: "What you describe is a simple market transaction, and it could occur in a number of economic systems. Let's stay in 18th century America. ** You raise grain and vegetables and sell/trade/barter them, and then you give the money to your master, either because you are a slave, or an indentured servant. ** You raise grain and vegetables and sell/barter/trade them, and then you take the other half of what you raised and give it to the property owner because you are a sharecropper."

Mark thank you for making my point in spades! You have missed the major reason US History should be taught to students going out into the world today. Students need to have an appreciation for what makes independence and their future opportunities possible. You seem to take it for granted.

The difference between your description, which I admit could also be described as a market transaction, is ownership. I invest my time, my money and I benefit from the transaction personally. The transaction is not for my master or the landowner or king. Property rights and private decisions made in freedom are the very things that have made prosperity and growth, innovation and progress for all possible. It is the very thing that has made higher education for anyone who wants it possible. It is the thing that made it possible for Microsoft to be started in a garage in Silicon Valley! It is what allowed America to become the prosperous, charitable leader of the free world!

"The transition from owning your own means, to working for a wage, was a struggle in this country..."

Life is struggle. Freedom, property rights, and the rule of law are what allowed the struggle to have a positive result worthy of note. The formation of unions was a necessary part of that struggle made possible because of freedom. The hardy folk that crossed the plains to settle the West were also part of that struggle and offer lessons in the kind of character and persistance it takes to be a self-sustaining citizen. The introduction of the war on poverty has set huge numbers of people back several hundred years creating the antithesis...dependency and a sense of being oppressed. The bullying, extortive demands of unions made a point of freedom but taken to extreme has also contributed greatly to the collapse of the car industry, placed unworkable upward pressures on wages and benefits and contributed to inflated prices for everyone. All of these represent struggle that are part of the fabric in our free nation and can be tied together and made relevant to whatever struggles students will face as they become adults. But none of it has any meaning without the basic understanding of the value of freedom. The founding doesn't have to be the only thing studied but certainly if we want to encourage independence and strength and a sense of civic responsibility it is important to tie that part of our history into the mix and make it relevant to today.

"the "other side" was not Bolshevics because they were 100 years in the future. Both sides were Americans."

I wasn't using the term as a point of historical reference, I was using it (cynically) to describe a mindset.

"If capitalism was so universal, why all the extra effort for acceptance in America?"

I didn't claim capitalism was universal. I claimed that freedom, as articulated by the founders and made resolute in our Constitution, made benefiting from personal efforts, capitalism, possible.

"Capitalism is a Marxist term, used by Marx to describe the new economic system that began in the Neatherlands in the 17th century and spread throughout the world."

Spit through his teeth, no doubt. And that too is the point of adequate education regarding our founding and early struggles and freedom. The differences between countries that continue to oppress individuals and property rights and those who embrace them is important ansd striking. Knowledge and understanding of our founding and early years create the stark contrast that is required to have a deep appreciation of freedom.

I apologize if I have become a bit contentious. This is something I feel very passionately about and since I know you to be an educated, thoughtful person my frustration at failing to make the point became quite intense.

Our founders warned that keeping this republic would require constant vigilance. I believe "enemies from within" can be represented by something as simple as indifference. This country was not founded on socialism and dependency. I would hate to see it die for lack of passing on an adequate sense of what makes living in a republic in freedom valuable. Civics is the study of government and how it works. Students will get a good sense of the importance of our founding from those classes. But the founding also has historical lessons that form a basis, or should, for citizens of every era. These lessons of history form the grounding that prepares students for responsible adulthood.

Tina,

I appreciate and share you desire to have students better understanding the foundations of our government and the creation of our constitution. An American history class may just not be the best place, because to begin 1776 means you also have to teach 1796, and 1816, and 1836, and 1856. None of those years have the same relevance, nor importance, to the lives of young adults.
That is all. NC thinks so, and I agree.

Mark

I blame the liberals!
Who else would want to hide the awful truths about North Carolina's abysmal human-rights record before 1877?
Who else would seek to quash knowledge of our nation's founding and it's liberal roots?

Mark, Why bother to teach history at all!

Quentin: "I blame the liberals! ** Who else would want to hide the awful truths about North Carolina's abysmal human-rights record before 1877?"

All the more reason to teach that period!

"Classical liberalism" Quentin...it's a different animal from the Democrat decendents of slave owners that might want to hide early history...try to stay current with the terms...or is there something you wish to hide?

"Why bother to teach history at all!"

Tina,

You can't tell where you are going if you do not know where you have been. The questions is, how far back does one need to go? Placed in context, what is the balance between depth and breath?

I think all history is important, and that students should be exposed to all of it. With limited time, however, I support NC high school history teachers wanting to focus their time on the modern era.

Mark

Thanks Mark. I got your position a couple of comments ago. It wasn't a question but an emphatic statement in response to:

"to begin 1776 means you also have to teach 1796, and 1816, and 1836, and 1856. None of those years have the same relevance, nor importance, to the lives of young adults."

"You can't tell where you are going if you do not know where you have been. The questions is, how far back does one need to go? Placed in context, what is the balance between depth and breath?"

There are, as Jack pointed out about WWII and the dawn of the nuclear age, some points in history that carry very significant weight and others that are less relevant. Both depth and breadth can be achieved if more emphasis is placed on those more significant events and less on the events in between. You not only can't tell where you're going if you don't study history but you also can't acquire a solid grounding to prevent mistakes of the past with wisdom. The founding period of history is the heart of America. These students will very soon be voters; some will serve in the military others will go on to college or work. A solid grounding in our early history is essential for all of those adult endeavors.

One thing is for sure, Mark, NC will do what they have chosen to do. I thought this would be a good article for discussion and I thank you for making it interesting.

I've tried posting this twice, and both times the captcha wouldn't appear so it wouldn't submit. One more time:

Tina: "“So many conservative sources”? I realize in your mind conservatives may be a fringe group but I assure you we are not."

I'm not sure how those two sentences relate together. I was referring to three different conservative sources, two of which are influential on a national level and all of which left out important facts and contained falsehoods. I do not think conservatives are a fringe group.

"Your own lack of curiosity that an organization like Heritage, an organization filled to the brim with very well respected and highly educated individuals, is showing intellectual concern about our educational system could just as easily suggest a "pathological need" to be knee jerk dismissive of anything that varies from what you expect and accept per your own education."

Lack of curiosity? Lack of curiosity is what causes someone to take a claim at face value without asking any questions, even when the question to ask is extremely obvious. Lack of curiosity typically does not lead someone to check out all the facts before reaching a conclusion, which is what I did. Knee-jerk dismissiveness also does not tend to lead to doing that.

Your concerns about what is being taught are somewhat understandable, if based on scant evidence. I don't agree with you that mentioning the word "environment" in a curriculum makes one a Marxist, but at least I understand where you are coming from on that issue. But those are seperate issues from the one brought up in the headline of the Heritage article and repeated several times throughout, which is that NC won't teach high school students the founding at all. This claim was a lie.

K, sorry you're having trouble posting. Others have too and we are once again "looking into it". It's very frustrating I know and we will do our best to get it sorted out as soon as we can.

I will apologize to you as well for my contentiousness. I think some of it had to do with the stress caused by limited time and some of it a misunderstanding of your point.

The Heritage Foundation is not a group anyone would call careless and your shot at them really plugged me in. Your reading of the article is different from mine. I will attempt once again, hopefully with less "knee jerk" and more clarity, to reply.

"Your concerns about what is being taught are somewhat understandable, if based on scant evidence."

This wasn't an evaluation after the fact. Expecting more evidence than I was able to supply in my initial response to you is asking more than anyone could reasonably give.

"...the headline of the Heritage article...repeated several times throughout...is that NC won't teach high school students the founding at all. This claim was a lie."

The Heritage headline doesn't say what you claim it says and the content from the article that I posted refers specifically to the particular class it questions:

"'It Will Be as if the American Founding Never Happened' - Heritage Foundation"

The headline doesn't even mention the school, students or the curriculum. It is provacative and creates interest in what the article might be about...a smart title if you ask me. Teaching requires first that you create interest.

"Forget George Washington, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln--nothing meaningful happened in America before 1877. ** That's the lesson North Carolina public high schools may start teaching.(emphasis mine)

It's quite possible that one of the unintended lessons will be that nothing of importance happened prior to 1877. It is a certainty that in this class nothing about the founding will be taught.

"Under proposed changes in their high school history curriculum, the U.S. History course (which seniors take) will cover events from 1877 forward only. ** It will be as if the American Founding never happened."

These two sentences refer specifically to seniors who will take ths course...not the entire high school experience.

Heritage did not LIE!

My own title may have been a smidgeon misleading...I failed to specifically state it was one class. Nothing devious was in my mind at the time, I assure you. Since this is a forum that hopefully invites full discussion and debate I find my title to be sufficient for the purpose of engaging our readers to direct their attention to the content of the Heritage article.

"Under proposed changes in their high school history curriculum, the U.S. History course (which seniors take) will cover events from 1877 forward only."

Presumably the founding to 1877 will have been covered during the first three years of high school. You think?

Such suckers. Why do you let them wind you up like this?

"K, sorry you're having trouble posting. Others have too and we are once again "looking into it". It's very frustrating I know and we will do our best to get it sorted out as soon as we can."

Not your fault, I know you guys are in the same boat we are on this issue.

"I will apologize to you as well for my contentiousness. I think some of it had to do with the stress caused by limited time and some of it a misunderstanding of your point."

Oh, I don't think you were being contentious. No worries! :)

"This wasn't an evaluation after the fact. Expecting more evidence than I was able to supply in my initial response to you is asking more than anyone could reasonably give."

Oh, I agree. I don't expect you to give more evidence for this evaluation of the curriculum, because it doesn't exist. That's my point, that I feel like you are jumping to conclusions on what this curriculum is about and intended for based on very little information.

"The Heritage headline doesn't say what you claim it says"

"Forget George Washington, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln--nothing meaningful happened in America before 1877. ** That's the lesson North Carolina public high schools may start teaching.(emphasis mine)"

"It's quite possible that one of the unintended lessons will be that nothing of importance happened prior to 1877."

How can that possibly be true if other classes, before students' senior years, WILL be teaching events prior to 1877? It won't be "as if the American Founding never happened," because students will already have information about the founding that the school has given them. That's like saying that a class on 19th century literature implies that 18th century literature has no importance, or that it makes it so it's like 18th century literature never happened. It may not be a lie in the strictest sense, but is so misleading that it is essentially a lie. Important information was left out of the article in order to paint the North Caroline school district as attempting to erase the founding from our student's knowledge of history. This is simply not what is happening.

"Under proposed changes in their high school history curriculum, the U.S. History course (which seniors take) will cover events from 1877 forward only. ** It will be as if the American Founding never happened."

"These two sentences refer specifically to seniors who will take ths course...not the entire high school experience."

But again, it can't be "as if the American Founding never happened" to those seniors if they have already learned about the American founding!

"My own title may have been a smidgeon misleading...I failed to specifically state it was one class. Nothing devious was in my mind at the time, I assure you."

I believe you, but I think the Heritage article you got the information from was intentionally misleading and false. Heritage is a much bigger organization than Post Scripts and I have no doubt that the writer knew what information she was leaving out to make her (absurd and untrue) point.

I also stand by my belief that teaching all American history in one high school history class is not necessary or desirable, and that the content should be spread throughout two or more classes. I think you'll have a hard time finding a teacher (or student, for that matter) who disagrees with me on this.

I also think it's strange that you believe that liberals don't want the founding or the Constitution taught in our high schools...I have never heard a liberal take this position.

"Important information was left out of the article in order to paint the North Caroline school district as attempting to erase the founding from our student's knowledge of history. This is simply not what is happening."

Are you certain about what ias happening or is it something you assume? Lets turn the tables a bit. They call the class "US History" and yet the founding of the United States and the first 100 years are left out. In addition the stated goal of the class is:

..."to teach what students will feel connected to, 'where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.'"

That is a goal better defined as a social exercize. The fact that the curriculum includes "Changes in the physical environment and technology" and "Changes in lifestyles" also indicate social studies rather than history.

"But again, it can't be "as if the American Founding never happened" to those seniors if they have already learned about the American founding!"

It will in that class. The article was designed to make readers consider whether placing less emphasis on the first 100 in a "US History" class for seniors is wise or advisable.

"I think the Heritage article you got the information from was intentionally misleading and false."

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The debate I was hoping to have would be based on the merits of teaching US History based on the foundation and principles that made this nation and everthing that followed possible, as opposed to "what students will feel connected to". It seems to have become instead a forum for condemnation of the HF, a curious response.

"I also think it's strange that you believe that liberals don't want the founding or the Constitution taught in our high schools."

Liberals (progressives) don’t announce their intentions.

The article contained many links with pertinent information to demonstrate that the assertion has a grounding in fact and could be true (the word “may” was used). I gave a couple of examples which you and others have completely ignored. Here’s another:

Progressives Sought to Remake America

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding - Shortly after the end of the Civil War, a large majority of Americans shared a set of beliefs concerning the purpose of government, its structure, and its most important public policies. Constitutional amendments were passed abolishing slavery and giving the national government the authority to protect the basic civil rights of everyone. Here was a legal foundation on which the promise of the American Revolution could be realized in the South, beyond its already existing implementation in the Northern and Western states. ** This post-Civil War consensus was animated by the principles of the American founding. I will mention several characteristic features of that approach to government and contrast them with the new, Progressive approach. Between about 1880 and 1920, the earlier orientation gradually began to be replaced by the new one. In the New Deal period of the 1930s, and later even more decisively in the 1960s and '70s, the Progressive view, increasingly radicalized by its transformation into contemporary liberalism, became predominant. ** 1. The Rejection of Nature and the Turn to History - The Founders believed that all men are created equal and that they have certain inalienable rights. All are also obliged to obey the natural law, under which we have not only rights but duties. We are obliged "to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves" (Jefferson). The main rights were thought to be life and liberty, including the liberty to organize one's own church, to associate at work or at home with whomever one pleases, and to use one's talents to acquire and keep property. For the Founders, then, there is a natural moral order--rules discovered by human reason that promote human well-being, rules that can and should guide human life and politics. ** The Progressives rejected these claims as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not "something that individuals have as a ready-made possession." It is "something to be achieved." In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology."

“Limited government, Unlimited Administration: Is It Possible to Restore Constitutionalism?”

The third element is the most critical of all, and here is where it becomes important to understand why the Constitution is so much out of favor these days. James Landis displayed open contempt for the Constitution, but in order for Landis and his associates to gain power, a lot of people had to agree with him. Indeed, in a metaphorical sense, James Landis soundly beat James Madison in the election of 1936. A similar election today would yield a similar, or even more dramatic, result. There just are not a great many people who care very much about the Constitution. Politicians, in turn, will not care about the Constitution until and unless enough people care about it to make a difference. Right now, the Constitution has no constituency. It needs one large enough to compete in the political marketplace with other interest groups.

It all comes down to intention and purpose. I don’t think it is at all ridiculous, or fraudulant, to question what educators intend when they make these decisions. The answer given by the spokesperson for NC indicated the decision was based on “how kids could relate”…not a very compelling (or educated) purpose IMHO and on time constraints…which seems a convenient cover having nothing to do with the stated goal.

"I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill."

That's ironic. There is a firestorm of comments on the Heritage article from people angry about this curriculum because they believe that North Carolina high school students will not learn about the founding of our nation at all. This is what the Heritage article led them to believe. It is they who are making a controversy out of nothing.

"The debate I was hoping to have would be based on the merits of teaching US History based on the foundation and principles that made this nation and everthing that followed possible, as opposed to "what students will feel connected to". It seems to have become instead a forum for condemnation of the HF, a curious response."

Unfortunately, when you start out by posting an article which omitts important information and misleads their audience, you kind of sabotage the debate you want to have. Yes, the points you bring up are interesting, and I am willing to discuss them, but that's hard to do when you're unwilling to admit that there was any error on the part of the article's main premise. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree on that point.

I do understand your concern that students are not being taught everything they need to know about our country's history. I think both progressives and conservatives agree on this point. Is teaching the founding in social studies, rather than history, wise? I don't know. I would have to have more knowledge of how this curriculum is taught in order to reach a verdict on that. I do believe that the founding is a broad area, and should take at least a significant portion of any class no matter the title. Perhaps it should even be taught as a separate course in and of itself. We simply don't know how much time and effort is being spent on this area in the social studies class, but we do know that it is being taught. If there is evidence that it is being taught badly or not given enough time, then I will have to reconsider my position.

As for what you perceive to be the larger progressive agenda at work here, I disagree with you, although I do see where you are coming from. Progressives do see the constitution as a "living document." To me that simply means that while the core principles are sound, there is a lot of room in the details. Progressives and conservatives agree that free speech and gun rights should have some limits. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and you can't just sell any kind of weapon to anyone. Where we differ is on how strict these limits should be. Is it OK to allow businesses to donate unlimited funds to political campaigns? How long and arduous must a background check be for someone who just wants to take their kid hunting? These are questions that high school classes should address, although teachers should not answer them for their students. Topics such as environmental and lifestyle changes are absolutely important for students to learn, however, hopefully they will be taught in such a manner as I mentioned above, without teachers allowing their own beliefs and agendas to dictate ideologies onto their students. (I have less of a problem with this in a college setting, because no one is forcing anyone to go there, as opposed to public schools. But sometimes I do wish my liberal professors provided a little more balance, even though I agree with most of them.)

"There is a firestorm of comments on the Heritage article from people angry about this curriculum because they believe that North Carolina high school students will not learn about the founding of our nation at all. This is what the Heritage article led them to believe. It is they who are making a controversy out of nothing."

There were also a lot of comments that were very reasonable and quite calm! The people making the so called "angry" comments (I'd call them impassioned) probably bothered to read the links, incuding the link to the FOX story that states the High School history curriculum will NOT cover the first 100 years. That will be taught in Middle School:

Under the proposed change, the ninth-graders would take a course called global studies, focusing in part on issues such as the environment. The 10th grade still would study civics and economics, but 11th-graders would take U.S. history only from 1877 onward.

The founding and first 100 will last be taught in middle school. A possible exception is the civics course which deals primarily with how government works.

"...but that's hard to do when you're unwilling to admit that there was any error on the part of the article's main premise."

The article is not misleading. The title is not misleading. They simply expresses an opinion about what the school has proposed offering evidence that there is reason to be concerned. So yes, we can agree to disagree.

"Progressives do see the constitution as a "living document." To me that simply means that while the core principles are sound, there is a lot of room in the details."

I wouldn't call you a progressive...you are at least trying to be reasonable. You approach an issue with logic and and can see the other side. The leaders of the progressive movement in America are not aligned with the founding principles and have sought, quite successfully, to undermine the Constitution and move America toward the Marxist/fascist/socialist model. They never compromise and they never give up...nibble, nibble, nibble. They believe strongly in socialism. They do not value freedom. The individual must sacrifice for the collective. They use issues of individual rights as a means to an end..in the end they won't matter because individuals will have no power left.

My enthusiasm for this article is based on my love for this country as it was founded and in my concern for your future, K. My generation has seen an excelleration of this socialist revolution from within. My perspective differs from yours because I see the changes that have taken place over my lifetime and I have watched how progressives work.

The Heritage articles are very good, especially when you follow the links and read the background information. They are meant to offer a point of view that you might not hear in college classrooms or even in general conversations with peers. They are an educational organization dedicated to our American heritage...something I think is sorely needed for balance if not the preservation of this great country.

"But sometimes I do wish my liberal professors provided a little more balance, even though I agree with most of them."

You don't have to respond if you don't want to but I would be curious to know how many conservative professors you've had as opposed to liberal ones and how you know what they are. I imagine some are better at hiding their politics than others. The stats show that there are more progressive or liberal professors on most college campi with some institutions being known for their liberal bias.

I think that most students (indeed most Americans) not only don't know much about what conservatism is, they also don't know what true progressivism is. As you have said with regard to specific issues the differences are often a matter of degree. The underlying big difference, however, comes down to government control and power as opposed to individual control and power. Teaching about our founding has been too much about the nuts and bolts and not enough about the heart, the ideals, and the value of freedom. Conservatives get impassioned because we see freedom being chipped away. We see more and more citizens unable to care for their own needs, we see young people with little direction or motivation beyond shallow wants and desires, and we see nearly half of Amerricans totally dependent on government and not required to pay taxes. A nation cannot thrive without strong, independent, contributing individual citizens and strong families. Education plays an important part in ensuring that kind of strength and an in depth understanding of the founding is vital to that end.

Thanks K, as always it's been a pleasure.

"Teaching about our founding has been too much about the nuts and bolts and not enough about the heart, the ideals, and the value of freedom."

Tina,

Before you get too carried away with this 'value of freedom' stuff, remember that the founders and their constitution believed in suffrage for white males only and blacks were considered three-fifths of a person.

Mark

"Before you get too carried away with this 'value of freedom' stuff, remember that the founders and their constitution believed in suffrage for white males only and blacks were considered three-fifths of a person."

And before you dismiss this "value of freedom" stuff please remember they could have written those things into the Constituion...and they didn't. Obviously the ideals and principles they believed in were of the highest most fundamental truth and trumped the traditions and morays of the day. A distinction that should be taught and understood!

"they could have written those things into the Constitution...and they didn't"

What things? Universal suffrage and civil rights were left out of the Constitution, and had to be added later, and you are saying that is good and shows a fundamental truth they believed.

I don't think you are saying that so please clarify what you are saying.

Mark

Thanks again Mark for the opportunity to be clear.

Article IV would have easily lent itself to a section more harshly devoted to the idea of slavery and more oppressive of women. Consider section two which states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Why was the word citizens used instead of adult white males? If oppression of women and minorities was uppermost in their minds why not write something into this section that would ensure the continuance of white male domination?

The portion of section 2 that is now obsolete recognized that states (where more power resided at the time) had differing attitudes regarding slavery:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Power resided with the people not the federal government. Individual states had authority in such matters. The purpose of this part of section 2 was to recognize states rights regarding a disputed practice. The section covered black slave owners, that is the ugly truth of the matter, but it would also have applied to indentured laborers who were white, another practice of the times.

These men were living and thinking in the context of the Declaration of Independence when they very seriously considered every word in the document that would stand as the foundation of the country: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Men (people) that write words like that have something higher, “more perfect”, in mind...something worth preserving and containing by insinuation goals worth reaching for whether or not they are ever completely achieved by every individual citizen in his heart.

The thirteenth amendment was enacted less than 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. That seemed like a lot of years when I was younger...now I can see it’s hardly any time at all, especially when you consider the thousands of years of tyranny and slavery that came before this remarkable pair of documents were written.

Our founding documents made this incredible leap forward toward “a more perfect union” with “freedom for all” possible. The words were chosen carefully and well. If we don't give students of every age a clear understanding of these unique and precious documents and the thought that went into writing them how can we ever expect to preserve the ideals in our society? We can't and the evidence of our failure to do so is already apparent in the divisiveness and discord that now colors so much in our daily lives.

Tina,

You appear to be saying these ideas sprang forth anew from the minds of these men, but we both know that not to be the case. Surly, we cannot understand what the Founders were thinking with out reference to John Locke and the Enlightenment. Agreed? And you really can't understand the Enlightenment without understanding the Renaissance. You get where I am heading. Where do we have to start?

You also seem to be defending the founder's limited notion of freedom because it could have been worse. Really?

I have kept at this thread through 34 comments because you seem to be pushing an "agenda"; you want a certain period of time to be taught from a single (glorifying) perspective and focus on a narrow set of events. I am trying to understand how that is different from those nasty leftist college professors?

Mark

Mark: You appear to be saying these ideas sprang forth anew from the minds of these men, but we both know that not to be the case. Surly, we cannot understand what the Founders were thinking with out reference to John Locke and the Enlightenment. Agreed? And you really can't understand the Enlightenment without understanding the Renaissance. You get where I am heading. Where do we have to start?"

World history is where you start; a subject also taufht in High school...hopefull, preceding US history. If ever there was a "time" issue with respect to teaching it would be in world history but no one has suggested there isn't enough "time" to adequately teach that in one year.

As for original thinking your point is well taken, however, all the philosophical thought in the world is worth little unless or until it is made manifest. What was fashioned by these men as a result of past wisdom was remarkable.

"You also seem to be defending the founder's limited notion of freedom because it could have been worse. Really?"

Limited notion of freedom? Could have been worse? I think you are twisting my words. The founders have been slandered as evil slave owners and oppressors of women in order to push an agenda of diversity and socialism. They have been portrayed as less thoughtful than they were. I wouldn't need to be saying anything at all were it not for these egregious distortions.

"...you seem to be pushing an "agenda"; you want a certain period of time to be taught from a single (glorifying) perspective and focus on a narrow set of events. I am trying to understand how that is different from those nasty leftist college professors?"

Mark, if patriotism and an appreciation for this free Republic and how the founding shaped the events that followed is an agenda, then yes, I have an agenda. As a citizen I'm proud to have that agenda. I wouldn't feel the same if I lived in Cuba or Venezuela as they are today. There is a reason so many students wear Che t-shirts and spout collectivist ideas. They have not been taught except by a leftist agenda.

I prefer freedom, our system of government and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution over any other form of government and I deplore the slide toward socialism that we have experienced for the past sixty or so years. There will come a day when the republic is lost if we continue on this path and for that reason our children do need, once again, to be trained to appreciate the superiority of living free and independent lives. It is one thing to teach them about other systems of government and quite another to criticize or diminish this form in favor of socialism or globalism. The history from our founding through the present is remarkable for it's short span. Free individuals took this big expanse of land and made the most prosperous and charitable nation on earth in just over two hundred years. Had we held to the original vision, instead of veering off into socialism even more of our citizens would be enjoying the fruits of their own labor and needing little from government except for those things which were intended originaly. All of this happened and is the history of the United States...I'd like it taught in context.

There has been an agenda in our schools to diminish the relevance of freedom and to serve up a platter of global collectivism. There has been an agenda to place an emphasis on the few "failings" of these "old bald white men" who happened to live in a particular age and yet had the ability and good sense to rise above their own age when writing this important document. There has been an agenda to diminish the successes, progress and industry that sprang from that original vision. If it sounds like I'm glorifying those things I am. It has become necessary in order to counter the damage done by "leftist professors" and other teachers who have failed in their obligation to present information and encourage critical thinking, and discussion.

Young people are the future as you well know. They have all kinds of traits, energy, and urge that make the future possible. One thing they lack is the wisdom and experience of those who came before them. I don't expect the future to look like the past. I do hope to pass on that which has proven to be valuable. What we have here in America is incredibly valuable and worthy of more respect than it's been shown. I hope this helps to clarify my "glorified" position.

"If ever there was a "time" issue with respect to teaching it would be in world history but no one has suggested there isn't enough "time" to adequately teach that in one year."

Do you really think that no one has ever suggested this?

"The founders have been slandered as evil slave owners and oppressors of women"

Though I wouldn't call them evil, it is a fact that many of them were slave owners and oppressors of women. That isn't slander. However, they were ALSO great thinkers who set up a brilliant and liberating system of government, and we should be grateful for their efforts in this area. BOTH aspects of these men need to be taught in our high schools. Teenagers are equipped to handle ambiguity. But since we don't give them the tools to deal with ambiguity early on, instead giving a portrait of history with clear, black and white heroes and villains, many of them
enter college and then feel betrayed by the system. This is what usually leads to the "evil white men" extreme leftist idea that makes hipsters think it's cool to wear a Che Guevara T-shirt and to embrace a form of socialism FAR beyond anything Obama has ever proposed. If they are taught early on that our nation's heroes had actual flaws that were common to their time, but still offered tons of basic principles that are worth believing in today, then they will have greater critical thinking skills and a more balanced and healthy understanding of history and of how the world works.

K: "Do you really think that no one has ever suggested this?"

I've never seen any report that it has been officially proposed or adopted.

"Though I wouldn't call them evil, it is a fact that many of them were slave owners and oppressors of women. That isn't slander."

It is when the agenda is to use this information as a means to incite certain attitudes. It doesn't happen in every school in America but it does happen.

"...and to embrace a form of socialism FAR beyond anything Obama has ever proposed."

We know very little about what Obama believes in his heart; he was never properly vetted by our press for the office he now holds. Some of us do know how rdical he was in college. He has shown little indications that anything has changed. It is quite possible that he is still a far left thinking individual and would propose radical changes, if he thought he could get away with it.

The socialists/marxist/fascists in this country are aware of the uphill battle they face. They are nothing if not patient and they are also very tenacious.

"If they are taught early on that our nation's heroes had actual flaws that were common to their time, but still offered tons of basic principles that are worth believing in today, then they will have greater critical thinking skills and a more balanced and healthy understanding of history and of how the world works."

Applause, applause! That is exactly what I want. I have never suggested that any part of our history should be hidden or distorted. I beleive strongly that given all of the facts people make wise and sound choices.

"I've never seen any report that it has been officially proposed or adopted."

I see what you mean now. Perhaps world history should be spread out over the course of many more years. However in the U.S., most people think a comprehensive and detailed understanding of our own country is more important than one of the entire world. Whether you agree with this or not, it's too bad that world history suffers as a result. Ideally, children would be taking history classes every year from elementary until senior year.

"It is when the agenda is to use this information as a means to incite certain attitudes. It doesn't happen in every school in America but it does happen."

That still doesn't fit the definition of "slander," because slander has to be false. But I agree that it should not be taught with any agenda in mind other than the agenda of allowing students to have the full truth so that they may reach their own conclusions.

Have you read the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me?" It does a great job of taking high school textbooks to task for putting forth an inaccurate view of history, and for not including anything that is controversial among historians.

"We know very little about what Obama believes in his heart; he was never properly vetted by our press for the office he now holds. Some of us do know how rdical he was in college. He has shown little indications that anything has changed. It is quite possible that he is still a far left thinking individual and would propose radical changes, if he thought he could get away with it."

But I was referring to what Obama has proposed, not what he might believe or propose in the future according to conservatives.

"Applause, applause! That is exactly what I want. I have never suggested that any part of our history should be hidden or distorted. I beleive strongly that given all of the facts people make wise and sound choices. "

Thank you. I also wanted to say that I agree with your comments on the constitution, in that I think the founders did intentionally phrase things in such a way that would allow people to interpret it to allow more freedom in the future than was available at the time.