Considering the subject matter, the fact that the first blacks elected to congress were republicans, in 1870 and it wasn't until 1935 that a black democrat was elected to congress. Most people would be inclined to think this is a pretty big deal...not some minutia that got lost in the telling....Tbeck wrote:Herb, I am going to try to clarify the stuff you're mentioning but a conversation requires your willingness to think about what's being discussed, so here goes.
The Japanese have been teaching WWII from THEIR position all along. In fact you posted and provided a link confirming this.You say it's inaccurate, but in their view it's correct. They consider the USA meddling in their China affair's and stopping oil trade acts of aggression on our part which justified the attack on the USA. We obviously see it differently, but that's not revisionism, it's simply another nation's stance on who started what.
The M-H textbook ADDED a section covering the "pleasure women" which has been a sore subject between China and Japan for a very long time. Obviously forcing foreign women to be pleasure toys for an occupying army isn't something any nation would take pride in advertising. So they have been trying to have this removed from the book. Is it history? Yes it is, but one needs to be mindful of what depth we go with a primary grade student. Does the topic warrant a unit in a child's textbook? Or would it be better to simply mention that atrocities were committed by Japanese soldiers in Chinese forced labor camps against women, and save the specifics for a more age appropriate audience? So they aren't revising, they are attempting to get a political and embarrassing event from that history taken out of a child's textbook. I see both sides of the fight as having merit.
Now as to the anti-slave party. EVERY single school that teaches early American history teaches that, and did when you went to school. They teach about how the Whigs basically came apart leading to the formation of the Republican party which started the muttering from southern stated about leaving the union.
You probably don't recall it because the PARTY wasn't the main focus. The main focus was events leading to the election of Lincoln and the civil war.
NO school that I am familiar with teaches that the first black's elected to Congress were Republican, UNLESS they specifically offer an elective course on black history. It just isn't important to provide that topic in a general American history class.
This next paragraph is where we agree and disagree. I cannot speak for all teacher's of history, but my focus has been to provide a narrative and have the students investigate the FACTS. Kind of steering the students to sources to find the truth. It isn't good enough with modern technology to teach because the kid's can go online and find all kinds of crazy assertions that are different from what I might teach. The focus needs to be on finding sources, but finding credible one's. Teaching the kids can also result in leading them to believe what the teacher says without question. I'm not sure that's a great idea, because different teacher's have varying understanding of historical data.
The reality in most schools are that there simply is not enough time to teach everything from our history. As such teacher's have to pick and choose between those parts or events from our history that will give the students the best foundation of the big concepts. Examples might be; what socio-economic factor's led to the colonies declaring Independence from England, or what social and political differences prompted the civil war...
As you can imagine from those two examples a multitude of different historical topics could be discussed, but not every small piece will be covered. It's simply impossible to do so.
Obviously the more classes on any period or event, the greater the details.
But then, when the history is being hidden, twisted, faked, it is easy to lose the facts.