zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
Knowledge of history has gone down, year over year. Students are more likely to get a propagandized and highly skewed caricature of history that leaves out certain "inconvenient truths." This is also an overcorrection.

>>stcred+Zp
Which students, and where? I don't see that happening locally, but perhaps it's different where you are?

>>onepla+Gu
Yeah, I see the opposite around me too. I literally had textbooks that referred to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression" at the turn of the millennium.

>>monoca+jv
That's not the opposite of what I wrote above. That's merely another kind of overcorrection!

>>stcred+vv
I'm seeing a much more nuanced and complete understanding of history out of children these days than what was taught to me is my point, in contrast to what you're saying.

Can you give some specific examples?

>>monoca+9x
Not the parent but I can see where you're both coming from. I think there's a lot more in depth look at US history, specifically the warts, than when I was a kid but I also think there's a lot less pre-US American history where the focus would be on _why_ the founding fathers were (partially) great men.

That seems like an over correction to me and I think that it shows in the push to tear down monuments of great people in American history who were largely products of their time.

For example, it's hard to overstate how important it was that George Washington gave up the presidency. He set the stage for the peaceful transition of power in the US and even the world. But he also was a rich guy who owned slaves.

It's not nuance that's missing, it's the concept of duality.

>>parine+XB
What makes you think they're not being taught that still?

>>monoca+VF
I generally don't hear it acknowledged in the conversatioms about these figures by people who criticize them. Anecdotally I don't hear it from some younger reltives of mine. It's just a feeling I get.

I don't know that it's not being taught but the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged or that those contributions are taken for granted.

>>parine+1Y
The disagreement is on one side of the argument, so it's not surprising that the other side isn't brought up in your casual conversations. Taking that to mean that kids aren't taught anymore that the founding fathers had positive qualities is a misjudgement of the situation on your end.

>>monoca+G61
My younger relatives are early 20s so I'm not talking about children here and we're not having casual conversations.

A symptom of what I'm talking about about is the example I gave of George Washington. A great majority of the admiration I have for him is vested in his decision to relinquish power after two terms as President when many feel he could have gone on to be a life long President and how that set the precedence for the peaceful transfer of power. I've found that aspect of his character to be completely disregarded and taken for granted. It's not that they think owning slaves is a bigger negative than that positive, is that they don't even entertain that it's a point in his favor, like the peaceful transfer of power was a foregone conclusion.

I really do think that's an over correction. Some correction of his myth was definitely needed so I'm not saying this is completely wrong but I think the correction is more needed in the way we think of historical figures as good guys and bad guys instead of some mix of both, as we all are. Instead, the founding fathers seem to have just been moved from good guy to bad guy.

Now, I don't know what's actually being taught but I do see the result, which is all I'm speaking to.