History is a joke

[ScatterKitty]

AIBU to wish History lessons focused less on Henry VIII (or British monarchy in general) and more on the history which led to current conflicts and issues which affect current affairs?

Was anyone taught about the Israel/Palestine situation? Or the history of India or Pakistan? Or even Windrush and UK Black history?

How am I meant to explain to my kids what's going on in the world when we were never taught and all they learn about is British monarchy, Romans etc?

I've been trying to find a decent explanation online with no luck. Can anyone help?

I didn't say that the national curriculum doesn't teach any of the world's history or conflicts, just that it doesn't teach everything. I will check out your recommendation though, so thanks for that.

We covered Russia, the Middle East and China in sec. School can't teach everything. Pop some documentaries on.

There's some unpleasant sneering on this thread towards people who don't know the background or context towards certain important events/situations or who remain confused about the detail.

People will have learned at school as per the syllabus and many have probably forgotten a great deal they were taught. If a child or teenager isn't engaged by the teaching or has other distractions, the facts really aren't going to stick.

Good history teaching both at school and university should teach students how to think critically, view the past objectively and be conscious of the provenance of sources and bias in what they learn. This then equips then with some skills to continue learning post education.

So, why do adults remain in ignorance of situations like Gaza or the of Irish & Northern Irish history?

Well, it isn't always easy for people to find simple, unbiased explanations of complicated and highly emotive histories. Without objective sources, there's a lot of research for individuals to do. Unfortunately, life doesn't always allow the time and energy for people to apply themselves to proper research.

Which is why it's important for news outlets to provide simple, potted explanations.

Atrocities and suffering are happening all over the world, every day. People don't have the emotional capacity/resilience to expose themselves to all of it through the news (let alone going into wider reading for educational purposes).

Why then do people remain ignorant of conflicts that have been in the news consistently most or all of their lives?

Because when someone grows up with it, it can become background noise and when they seek to learn they need to start off with simple guides as to the context and to provide a framework for self-education. Otherwise, they're seeking in the dark...Where do they start? How do they identify the different viewpoints and how do they recognise where the bias' is?

Often this requires learning about additional conflicts and the history of international politics of other countries.

How do they know which books to read? The Internet is full of inaccuracies passing themselves off as facts (even the brilliant, easy-to-watch Horrible Histories got its facts wrong at times).

So, why don't they just ask someone then?

Firstly, they might do but then may also get an incorrect or highly prejudicial narrative. Or they might be wary of how personal and emotive current conflicts are to so many and be wary of causing pain, offense or arguments.

Secondly, they open themselves to condescension and mockery from people who think they're better than them because they've have an advantage of knowledge and access to knowledge...

People like some of those who've sneered on this thread.

And, really, for people to feel so confident in their own eduction, curiousity and intelligence, it's a wonder you havent considered some of this yourselves.

>>> To those looking for 'bitesize' information: the radio and news podcasts are often a great place to start.

>>>> For those looking for an accessible explanation of the latest between Israel and Palestine, try yesterday's episode of the Global News Podcasts from BBC World Service.

@StBrides beautifully put

I agree with loislovesstewie on this. History is about passing on a country's culture thus its main focus should be that of the country the children are living in. Thus, British history ought to be about what happened in Britain and what Britain has done. I dislike constant HVIII but that era is important, as is the one before, generally called the Wars of the Roses, and how this, and the Barons' wars in the thirteenth century have produced the political settlement we now have, a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy. Our children need to understand our own culture and history, the people who have moved it, and the sort of country/people we are before looking at other cultures and their histories. One thing I do think needs expanding is the teaching of Scottish and Welsh history in English schools, but I realise this is difficult.
So, no I do not think history lessons should be about current affairs - besides which, the events of thirteenth century England and Scotland are still playing out in current affairs, ditto Wales and England and Northern Ireland, and those are what we need to understand...from our understanding of those conflicts we can enquire and search out the causes of other conflicts elsewhere, but it is impossible for schools to do all of this.

Also many people just don't watch docs or the news.
In my house I love the 24hr news plus politics programmes and science docs, my husband is a history and archeology nut.
If our 3 boys haven't absorbed a huge knowledge base from some of this I'd be surprised even though they don't actively watch all the time.

But many people find that boring or challenging and have no interest on the news / find it overwhelming or depressing. They listen to heart radio not r4.

Happy to see a mention of Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time. Now that is a book that teaches some critical thinking (about the Princes possibly In The Tower).

I took it down off the bookshelf after Alice Worsley's dreadful recent documentary.

We did the Arab Israeli conflict when I did GCSE history, many years ago. The other history class did the Irish problem. Maybe they've stopped doing these options now but you could search for old resources on BBC Bitesize etc.

I do, thank you. I don't know who was more shocked when I passed, me or the teacher.

My DD is currently doing GCSE history and one of their main topics is, guess what, immigration. So you've got your wish.

I didn't learn much history at school at all, most in fact I still only know from Blackadder, but my primary school library had a lot of children's fiction based on political events of the last 100 years. I remember books about slavery (Underground to Canada?), lots about WW2 (The Silver Sword, Carrie's War, etc.), some about apartheid. We had a lot of children's fiction that taught feminist issues and women's rights and also a lot about nuclear weapons and apocalyptical sci fi based on current political situations. Ursula le Guin is a good for timeless classics. A lot of what I read will be dated now, but there's so much out there. I think fiction is an excellent way to learn about world/current affairs and sociopolitical contexts.

History at school isn't about learning about world history. It's about ensuring all kids have the common building blocks to understand the story around our country: the UK. That's why we study our literature too, until later on.

Without early understanding of the journey we have been on as a country to get to where we are now, we only have a country, not a nation. If we don't have a nation, we don't have a society. I'm assuming the French learn about the Franks and the Révolution and aren't learning about the war of the roses...

I was at school in the 1990s, and we did a twentieth century history GCSE syllabus that covered pretty much every global conflict from the Boer War to the fall of the Berlin Wall — including WWI & II, the League of Nations, the formation of the United Nations, the Arab League, the origins of the Israel/Palestine conflict, civil rights in India and the USA, twentieth century Russian and German history and the Cold War. So everything you would want to know, OP. It was a very good course — if a bit unerringly grim.

This means that when people start going off on Twitter about Palestine without knowing the history of the region, I get a bit fed up. It’s all a lot more complicated than most people who sound off about it really appreciate. The region is a complicated one: nearly all its nation-states were artificially created during the twentieth century, and shaped by the aftermath of the world wars. You can’t really understand it fully without looking at a long and wide geopolitical view.

OP I agree. I gave up history because it was all about James, Charles and Henry. It should be about 20th century history and what has led us to where we are today. I have a massive knowledge gap

I don't know if it's because something as long ago as the Vikings/ Tudors/ whatever is long enough ago to be unproblematic and not ruffle feathers the way introducing kids to recent genocides or conflicts might.

those periods of history are maybe easier to simplify and make age-appropriate depending on the yeargroup.

I can imagine parents complaining about their kids being exposed to images of or information about the Holocaust for example, which is understandable.

It's a lot easier to gets kids to make a model longboat than it is to explain the nuances of the impact slavery has had on modern-day Britain and America.

also should have said- YANBU. Kids appreciate adults being honest and at school I was so disappointed with how much was left out or dumbed down so no one could complain.

Its easier to teach older stuff as its ringfenced- cause and effect can be seen and its less controversial in general.
some of the stuff is too modern/close
I actually studied the middle east in general studies at school and apartheid/US race relations in politics at uni.
My son apparently will study 9/11 in history at school next year- year 9. It seems to soon but its not much closer than studying post war britain in the early 80s

Tbh most of it is bollocks anyway, nuance be damned, unless you study it in detail from original sources it is simplified broad strokes. Look how much current stuff is memory holed and simplified. I don't think at secondary level you are going to get a useful sense of what is going on. For GCSE we did the American west (the whole start of it wasn't really mentioned) many bison. Ireland and the history of medicine.

To actually have a clue about what is going on in any period you would have to read widely, including dissenting voices.

I imagine in the future, the second Iraq war will be painted as all participants willingly supporting USA apart from the million plus people who protested in this country alone. How will Julian Assange be remembered? As a rapist traitor? Even now you have people bleating online that everything was rosy during the pandemic and we were never locked down.

@Phineyj

I read DoT on repeat from when I was twelve - what was this documentary about? (Australian here, don't know current British television at all.)

I think the most egregious is Jan 6, painted as some kind of dangerous insurgence. I think I watched for about 5 minutes before I rolled my eyes and called it a storm in a teacup. Obvious shit is obvious now.

I did European History 1848-1939 for my O-Level in the 1960s, and it has actually been quite useful. I can't say I remember it in detail but it has left me aware that there's a heck of a lot of backstory to current conflicts, eg. the scramble amongst European Nations for colonies - a "place in the sun", the break up of of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 which has brought about a lot of the problems in the Middle East.
OTOH I have acquired most of my scanty knowledge of British history from Victorian novels and BBC4. (especially railways, LOL)

Definitely wrong. Our History A Level spec goes up to Blair and Brown I believe. I know I've spent a lot of time since the new spec came in talking to the historians in my form about how exciting it was voting for the first time in 1997.

I was living in NI doing History A level during the Troubles. My teacher said that he could only teach us Irish history up until 1922, as after that it got too controversial, and whatever way he taught somebody would get pissed off. I could totally see his point.

@Catsmere it was one of those "History's greatest mysteries" type things looking at various episodes in history, of which that was one. Repeating all the same old nonsense that Tey carefully debunks. It was like the intervening 75 years never happened!