History lessons

Hello everyone,

I'm a high school student in Hong Kong, China and I'm just curious in what other students elsewhere learn in their history classes and what common mistakes there are. In our school, our topics over three years are in chronological order:
1. Basics of History
2. Ancient Civilisation
3. Middle Ages
4. The Renaissance and Enlightenment
5. The French Revolution and Napoleon
6. WWI and the Age of Imperialism
7. The Treaty of Versailies and the Great Depression
8. The Rise of Hitler and WWII
9. The Cold War
10. Globalisation

I remember that our textbooks stated that Hannibal won the Battle of Cannae with 200 elephants... And Rome fell in 476 when the barbarians stormed the city. They also managed to skip Caesar and Augustus so it was Hannibal (they rolled all three Punic Wars into one and said that he was killed when Carthage fell) then the fall of the WRE and the Legacy of Rome. This year, our textbook stated that China was a major combatant in WWI among similar mistakes and absurd claims. Anyone else have similar experiences?

We've had: Denmark during ww2 (very, very boring subject which took the better part of 2 months), interwar period, ww2, very shortly about the renaissance, middle ages/Denmark in the "viking" age and ancient civilizations, revolutions.. and that's about it.

And yes, that was in chronological order.

ancient pre-history comunitarian societies art in the neolithic the appearance of writting inventions and the sumerian influences on all of that then egyptians indians chinese and the appearance of the new world 1st civilizationswich goes around saying it all started to happen 6.000 years ago due to climate changes population increase and sedentarization wich resulted in a shift from comunitarism into social stratification and the advent of the gods

then there´s ancient iberia social and ethnic diferences (if we where spanish the text books would probably ignore that part and claim that they where all iberians ... ) the roman conquest the age of heros who opposed them (quintus sertorius is included as someone who fighted against rome and for the iberians ... ) there´s not much discussion about the roman times except a few lines saying now and then there where revolts and people died then the suabian and visigothic kingdom the barbaric attack of the berbers and arabs and then the reconquista (beteween the requonquista and the maritime expansion we discuss the anti unification policy against the castillian crown) the maritime expansion the loss of the empire due to the lack of kids by some kings ... the restauration wars and the wars against the dutch thiefs who took the far east but that got defeated in india africa and south america (nicely forgetting the dutch thiefs where actually the expelled jews from iberia ... )

then a few more wars peace treaty´s the giving of the north african possesions to the british as dowery for a weading the spanish biatching (i mean civil wars in spain) the industrial revolution and how we lost it because we where the richest people in the world thanks to the brasilian gold (for 120 years the only tax in the entire empire was 1/5 of all the gold mined in brasil ... ) the division of africa and how we got screwed in the process the british ultimatum and how tha ended in the republican revolution the 2nd industrial revolution the republican era with ww1 the facist dictatorship and the democratic revolution (it´s interesting to learn that the society forced a fasist dictatorship on the country and a military coup forced democracy ... ) the lack of blood in the revolution interestingly forgetting that as pilates we washed our hands out of africa leaving what where at the time the most advanced sub saharan countries in civil war and the fact that we originated 2million refuges from the decolanisation process however it´s praised how we adapted and received those refuges (i guess winners write history to their advantage ... ) then the european union and thats how we end our history texts with our backs turned to africa and south america and with our hands out for the rest of europe to pay for our elites extravaganzas ...

at least thats how it was when i went to school and a few of those opinions are quite personal interpretations of the events

I live in canada so we spent 5 years on 300 years of history.

Well history lessons here in the US are kind of all over the place, up till high school...here's the history courses I am taking now:

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/...worldhist.html

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/..._eurohist.html

Holland:

Primary school was mainly general history.

Middelbare School (HAVO) (High School):

Year 1: Prehistory - Ancient Egypt - Greek and Romans (IN ONE CHAPTER OMG, my teacher already complained that you could do at least one chapter about one of them) - Middle Ages (the crusades I think)
Year 2: The Eighty years' war (Dutch Revolt) - Louis XIV, the sun king - French Revolution and Napoleon - WWII.

I enjoyed these general histories, of course I liked to learn more and thougth very important parts of history were omitted.

Year 3: We talked the whole year about the three major rising ideologies in the 20th centruy. We talked about Communism (Russian Revolution and Cold war too), Fascism and National Socialism. Quite enjoying and specific.

Year 4: We started all over again, this time faster. Prehistory - Ancient Egypt and the fertile crescent - Democracy from Athens - Roman Empire (as always with school, you only hear about the empire and the punic wars, thats all there is to say about the republic in school). - Charlemagne - Rennaissance - Enlightenment - Industrial Revolution and the Interbellum and finally a history about the independance of Indonesia from the Netherlands.

More general history, quite easy but enjoyable.

Year 5: The year was split in two, one part was about Republican Netherlands, all there was to know about it was discussed. Golden age, colonialism, Silver age. The english wars, GO CHATHAM!!! and a small part about the Spanish war of sucession. At last Napoleon's establishment of the Batavian republic and the establishment of the house of Orange-Nassau with Willem I on the throne.

The second part was VERY interesting, it focused on modern wars. First we had the Napoleontic war, followed by the Crimean war, then the French-Prussian war and finally the First World War.

Well thats what Dutch History education was about on HAVO High School. I have no time to point out any inaccuracies.

~Fluvius

I wish i was in the netherlands :/

War history has always interested me, but besides ww2 we've never covered any war whatsoever :/

Heh. In the Netherlands they vary the subjects from year to year, nowadays. We didn't get any military history and instead focussed on the decolonisation of the Dutch empire and the industrial revolution.

I wish I could've traded with Fluvius. Though at least I caught up later at university level.

my intro Humanities class trumped my entire high school history education, and history is just one facet of Humanities. Spent a lot of time on Magna Graeca, Republican Rome, Pyrrhic Wars, Syracuse, etc. Though these were all just taught to be used as context to explain arts and literature of the era.

American education is infamously bad, so naturally the history is the same. I think we talked about *Greeks* 'inventing' democracy and other superficial factoid nonsense

My High School history classes were all over the place, but I moved and changed schools partway through. I seem to recall at least one year of "Ancient History", desperately trying to cover every major civilization up to Rome (most getting very little time). We spent longer on Rome and Greece. I'm not sure we had much of anything in the way of Medieval History, and quickly went ahead to around the Renaissance or so and then the U.S. Colonial period. From about the 17th century to the 20th was pretty well covered, although with a strong emphasis on the history of the U.S. and its wars.

I actually don't recall any terrible "facts" in High School classes. The closest was probably things that were overly simplified to fit into a curriculum, like the "Romans and Greeks invented democracy" stuff. In College, on the other hand, I had a professor who was otherwise very good when it came to her expertise (Medieval History) tell us chainmail was a Medieval european invention.

Going to school in Texas I also had to take a year of Texas History and government, one U.S. government class, and a sociology class or two that delved into history.

Here in Brazil we study a lot about history but focusing west. We divide in Brazil History and General History.

General History

Pre-History:
stone age, metal age

Anciet Civ:
Mesopotamia, Rome, Greece, Israel

Medieval:
High Middle Agre,
Low MIddle Age
Franks
Feudal System
Crusades
Renaissanse in Italy and rest of Europe

Modern:
End of Feudal
First Central Powers (examples: England Revolution, French and Louis XIV, Portugal and Spain.)
Enlightment
Grand Navigations (Portugal, Spain and American colonies)
Independence of Spanish colonies (San Martin and Bolivar)
Absolutism and French Revolution + Napoleon Period
Industrial Revolution (England and the world)

Contemporany
XIX Century (Neocolonialism of Africa and Asia: China, India)
Russian Revolution
WWI
Between Wars Period, 1929 and the crack of NY, Totalitarism
WWII
Descolonization
Cold War
Modern World: Vietnam, Israel, Cuba


Brazil History

Pre-History and Pre-Colombian people (Astec, Maia and Inca)
Brazil Colony (1500-1822)
Brazil Empire (1822-1889) and independence from Portugal
Brazil Republic (1889-...)



I would like to study a more east history. More about Persians (we almost dont study, just know about Cyrus). In fact, everything i know about east people I learned playing EB

I've been a student of the public education system in the United States. By the way, there isn't one 'public education system' in the States, so my previous statement is actually very inaccurate. I'm from California, so my schools had to conform to Californian standards of education and curricula. How successful my particular schools were in doing this is up for debate. Here's what I can spill, and I'm not one known for his memory:

Elementary School (sometimes called 'primary') [K-6]
--age 4 to 11 (now age 4 to 10 in most places)

History here fell under "Social Studies". It was, as in some university campuses, treated as a social science and not as part of the humanities. As such, much of anthropological work showed through in the lessons prepared for us. Although I was in elementary school for 7 years, more than I probably will be at any other educational institution, I can recall very few main points from social studies. This might tell you something! I remember learning about cave art and the first men and being fascinated by them. Then I remember learning about Christopher Columbus and how he 'discovered' America. I don't remember much on the 'classical' Mediterranean but I'm sure we had a chapter or two. There certainly was nothing of substance on the indigenous of the Americas. Remember Columbus and Hispaniola? No mention of Tainos, Arawakans, and others. The most I remember was learning about more Great Men in History (a concept; I don't recall who wrote first on this), such as all the presidents through Clinton. The texts wouldn't include 9/11 until a year after I finished elementary, if I'm not mistaken. Nothing of critical substance ever came up. No globalization, dependency theory, modernization theory, no Richard Syme, no nothing.

Middle School (sort of intermediary; 'junior high' in some places) [7-8]
--age 11 to 13 (now 10 to 13; used to be age 12 to 14)

When I went, the school only had two grades, not three. In the 7th grade we had "world history" from ice age migrations to classical age to 'dark ages' to medieval Europe to beginning Americas. 8th grade was all about US history. 'Nuff said.

High School (secondary) [9-12]
--age 13 to 18 (formerly age 14 to 18)

9th grade = no history. 10th grade = formerly world history (this is what I had); now european history (a pity, IMO). 11th grade = US history (yay, more of this). 12th grade = no formal history but you can put government and even economics in the same category (if you're into the social sciences). The world history I took used an infamous book that was very much hated by all of us mini-scholars. One word: SPODEK. Teachers of the world, do not use this book when teaching AP World History in the United States; think about the children! US history and later government were similar for me. I was never fond of US history. I learned about how the country works and how it got the way it did, but I never learned about major/minor subversions or interventions by the USA overseas. I didn't learn about any genocides (same with world history), especially of natives. I didn't learn why the Spanish incorporated the natives while the United States-ians drove ours out. And economics never discussed why the US seems to be building up debt as opposed to eradicating it. Y U NO TEACH THIS??

Postscript: I study at a UC now, so if you have any knowledge or notion of what that entails, you know the contrast to the above. Basically, as one of my professors put it, if liberal professors in all the States were to be imprisoned at once, there would be no classes left at the UCs.

Vartan, you think that curriculum is bad? I call you privileged. Compare it with what German students have to go through:
Grades 1-3: Um I don't recall - probably mostly fair tales.
Grades 4-7: A superficial outline of the Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Germanic cultures.
Grade 8: National Socialism. Also, the French Revolution.
Grades 9-11: Some more modern stuff, such as Industrialization, more of the French Revolution, and National Socialism.
Grade 12: Mostly National Socialism.
Grade 13: Well, you'd never guess...
Graduation topic: ... :wall:

And that was one of the better schools, with mostly non-liberal (in the American sense) teachers and a fairly "balanced" schedule. Most of the interesting topics were covered in the foreign language lessons anyway, though again with a heavy dose of "white guilt" and whatnot.
Most Gymnasia just teach National Socialist History in real time. They don't even make an effort to teach the kids the foundations of our culture and civilization, which are far more important than the 20th-century perversions thereof. Let alone an overview over other cultures. This is partly because the ones studying to become teachers are often the dumbest of history students (with a few notable exceptions), who're just interested in modern history.

Wow... I always thought that the study of history in Europe( not US, never had any delusions about history there) would be more advanced and in-depth. Apparently not...

I find the history curriculum in Finland somewhat biased, but not too bad.

Roughly it goes like this:

Primary: Rough outline ranging from stone age to the defeat of Napoleon
Lower Secondary: Continuing from Napoleon to modern day
Upper Secondary: The two aforementioned combined and taught with slightly more detail

So quite much "everything" is covered, but the allocation of time used is very unbalanced. For example the period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the French Revolution is taught focusing on social changes, even major events such as the Ottoman wars or the Spanish domination of what is nowadays the Netherlands are not even mentioned.

As a trade we get ridiculous amounts of Finnish history starting from becoming an "autonomous" part of Russia in 1809. (Hell, some books even go so far to compare 15th-18th century Sweden with Poland-Lithuania or Austria-Hungary... )
And not to forget the slow rising of Finnish identity and post-WWII brown-nosing the Soviets described in tedious detail. Gotta love over-zealous nationalism! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strategos roma

Wow... I always thought that the study of history in Europe( not US, never had any delusions about history there) would be more advanced and in-depth. Apparently not...

---

Don't count on it. I would look at the curricula in higher education and not bother with the secondary. What can you expect?

I actually feel we have an advantage studying European history here in the US, since we lack a degree of nationalistic bias about European affairs, as they are "over there." At my high school you have two excellent European history options, AP European History and (the more popular) IB History.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

we lack a degree of nationalistic bias about European affairs

---

Thanks Monroe Doctrine!

mein gott ich wusste das nicht!

i've always been under this doey eyed naive belief that European and in particular German public education was quite good. Europeans at least proficient in a few languages though yeah?

Quote:

---

I was never fond of US history. I learned about how the country works and how it got the way it did, but I never learned about major/minor subversions or interventions by the USA overseas. I didn't learn about any genocides (same with world history), especially of natives. I didn't learn why the Spanish incorporated the natives while the United States-ians drove ours out. And economics never discussed why the US seems to be building up debt as opposed to eradicating it. Y U NO TEACH THIS??

---

Gee, I'm also from California, but I had the opposite experience with this. My high-school teacher probably gave us the most cynical view possible about American and World history, complete with hilarious self-depreciating humor. I suppose it really depends on the teachers you get, as much as the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

Gee, I'm also from California, but I had the opposite experience with this. My high-school teacher probably gave us the most cynical view possible about American and World history, complete with hilarious self-depreciating humor. I suppose it really depends on the teachers you get, as much as the country.

---

Shup, you're from the north; that doesn't count :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

mein gott ich wusste das nicht!

i've always been under this doey eyed naive belief that European and in particular German public education was quite good. Europeans at least proficient in a few languages though yeah?

---

We do learn those.
And on the plus side, I never got the impression our history classes were much biased. Then again, that might have been because we didn't get much Dutch history and no Dutch military history.

I actually learned more general facts about Dutch history from this (slightly more biased) history comic-book than from classes.

1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a (1, 2, 3, 4, 5): haziness XD
1a, 2a, 3a (6, 7, 8): superficialization of the next five years.
1a (9): Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mycenaean Culture, Greek Colonization, Spartan and Athenian Systems, Persian Wars, Hegemonies, Alexander, Hellenistic Era.
2a (10): Villanovian Culture, Roman Monarchs, Roman Republic, Caeser, Roman Empire, 3rd cent crisis, Constantine, Eastern Empire, Christianity, Fall of Rome, Barbarian Kingdoms.
3a (11): Papacy, Monasticism, Longobards, Charles Magne, Feudal Period, Year 1000 and changes, Crusades, Heresies, Investiture Controversy, Black Death, Comunal Period, Spanish Reconquista, Renaissance, Charles V, Colonialism.
4a (12): Reforms and Counter-Reform, Absolutism, English Civil Wars, Louis XIV, American Revolution, Illuminism, French Revolution, Napoleon, European Restoration, Italian Unification.
5a (13): Industrialization, Classes struggles, Imperialism, Nationalisms, World War, Russian Revolution, Totalitarianisms, World War II, Cold War, Italian Years of lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randal

We do learn those.
And on the plus side, I never got the impression our history classes were much biased. Then again, that might have been because we didn't get much Dutch history and no Dutch military history.

I actually learned more general facts about Dutch history from this (slightly more biased) history comic-book than from classes.

---

Van Nul tot nu? Which one was it? I didn't get actual battle accounts, more a overview who won what and what it changed. The structure and the composition of the Dutch army and navy were also left out, we only heard their sizes in respective years.

~Fluvius

Slovakia

I won't write a detailed sylabus now as I don't remember it (perhaps later when I'll return home from college), just some general clues:
- middle school and high school classes focus on the same subjects, just the high school ones are deeper and contain more politics (we were said that high school classes contain more system thinking, but didn't notice it), I attended 8-year secondary school, which joins middle and high school and this plan was still followed, I believe that in such school, it could be reorganised
- chronological order
- world history first, then the same era in our region
- we study world history shallowly, but we manage to go through many topics
- non-European history is weaker than European
- we study local history in great detail (that is Great Moravia, medieval Hungary, Habsburg empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, nationalist movements, Czechoslovakia, Slovak state, Slovak national uprising, socialism, development of Slovak republic), which is good, but sometimes I don't see the effect when I speak with people
- we focus on politics, government systems, everyday life and things that change those: revolutions, wars, religious movements
- the more modern era, the more deeper we study it (which is the opposite of what I'd like)

Fulvius: I meant about general Dutch history including what wars were fought when, not particulars of battles and military history. The comic included the former but not the latter.

In our history classes even rather important events like the Anglo-Dutch wars or Napoleon weren't covered. There was some stuff on the revolt and then the political history skipped right on to the 20th century. (As I said, we did get industrial revolution and colonisation. Though not colonial wars.)

Interesting, as an unemployed high school teacher of history, to see basically how different in content and quality it is. Not that I did not suspect, but still.

Get me a job and EB will be used for teaching.

Sweden:
Primary school, years 1-6: Almost exclusively Swedish history. Mostly kings and such pointless stuff.
Primary school, years 7-9: General European history, from ancient Greece to modern times. Much focus on the French revolution, industrial revolution and WW1 and 2.
High school, year 1: Yet again general history, but more advanced than earlier. More focus on modern history (IIRC)
High school, year 2: Method, and theory of history (mainly idealism vs structuralism). Not everyone take this course. Depends on what high school program you've chosen.
High school, year 3: Mainly method, I think. The course is optional

Overall, I think Swedish history teaching is quite basic. It's not until second and third year in high school that it gets more advanced. And quite few take those courses (especially the third one).

In our country, the government has the bright idea of having world history seperate from chinese history, so we actually have two different subjects. The latter is slightly more in depth, but it's still really lacking in details.

Quote:

---

I didn't learn why the Spanish incorporated the natives while the United States-ians drove ours out

---

I don't know for sure how north american natives organized themselves, but I can write about brazilian and spanish.

Afaik the natives of spanish america used to make war against each other, so when Pizarro arrived he made alliances with some natives and destroyed others, later he conquered all of them. He didn't killed them all because the natives knew the slavery work, so they weren't so rebels when captives as brazilian natives when captives to slave work. Brazilian natives used to flee to the deep forests because they never knew the concept of slavery, they did not submit themselves to this. That's because of this portguese brought slaves of Africa. So portuguese killed natives but not so much as europeans in north america.

Maybe North America natives were hostile against european occupation. I think it is because europeans wanted to live in america, so they needed to kill natives to occupy the lands.

The differing ideologies of the British immigrants as compared to the Spanish speaks great lengths with regard to their approaches.

Ross Hassig does a good job of explaining why the conquest of Mexico was 'not the conquest of a Spanish juggernaut,' but much more complicated than that.

P.S. Nobody needed to kill anyone. Those who immigrated to N. Am. did not want to assimilate the natives, hence their pushing them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

9th grade = no history. 10th grade = formerly world history (this is what I had); now european history (a pity, IMO). 11th grade = US history (yay, more of this). 12th grade = no formal history but you can put government and even economics in the same category (if you're into the social sciences). The world history I took used an infamous book that was very much hated by all of us mini-scholars. One word: SPODEK. Teachers of the world, do not use this book when teaching AP World History in the United States; think about the children! US history and later government were similar for me. I was never fond of US history. I learned about how the country works and how it got the way it did, but I never learned about major/minor subversions or interventions by the USA overseas. I didn't learn about any genocides (same with world history), especially of natives. I didn't learn why the Spanish incorporated the natives while the United States-ians drove ours out. And economics never discussed why the US seems to be building up debt as opposed to eradicating it. Y U NO TEACH THIS??

Postscript: I study at a UC now, so if you have any knowledge or notion of what that entails, you know the contrast to the above. Basically, as one of my professors put it, if liberal professors in all the States were to be imprisoned at once, there would be no classes left at the UCs.

---

Actually probably the best history class I ever took was a early US History class in college. Part of that was likely because that was where the professor's scholarly work was focused.

My US History professor in high school was disappointing. He was very fond of Native Americans and rock and roll, so we spent a huge chunk of the course covering pre-Columbian America and the cultural changes of the 1960s. WW1 and WW2 and their impacts on the US were hardly touched, and I can't even remember anything around the Civil War or its lead-up.

Private School - U.S.

6th grade - One semester of prehistory, Egypt, India, China, One Semester of Greece and Rome
7th grade - From the Fall of Rome to 1492
8th grade - U.S. History from 1492 to present; combined with a lot of state history (big focus on Native Americans, U.S. Civil War, Civil Rights era)
(also in 8th grade, one year required of Latin, where they get some Roman history, but not much - more mythology than history)
9th grade - Geography for one semester; American Govt. for one semester
10th grade, 11th grade, 12th grade - Lots of variation due to some students taking Advanced Placement (AP) courses and some not. AP and non-AP courses in European History, American History, Vietnam, and a couple of others. Also, third year Latin students have a big focus on Roman history for the year. Also, senior Ancient Greek students have a big focus on Greek history up to 272 BC (;-)).

Germany, Lower Saxony, G8:

Grades 1-4: History is not an own subject. We dealt once with medieval ages, but very superficial (it was more about folding castles from cardboard).
Grade 5: Egypt, Greece. The only thing I can recall now (6 years later) from it, is not much. Something about poleis and democracy and we had to learn the Greek alphabet. We had an old teacher who also taught art, I guess that is why she gave our marks mostly for nice folders and learning things by heart, not for thinking. That was simply not part of it.
Grade 6: Rome. If I recall correctly, we dealt mostly with Rome. This was the time when they tried to introduce us carefully into a more "professional" level, like working with sources, and even a bit critical thinking, though the largest part of the class did not understand the point of it. (I recall one occasion when we dealt with the difference between the triggers and the reasons for the punic wars.) We learned quite a lot about Roman history, although we did not care so much for reasons for e.g. the development of the principat.
Grade 7: After skipping the dark ages, we started dealing with the Middle Ages. Nothing to complain about. Here we clearly focused more on general patterns than on single events/states/whatever, for example on what made the cities attractive at that time or serfdom. Not to much depth, though.
Grade 8: We dealt quite a lot with the person of Martin Luther, his ideas and the peasant risings in the 16th century. Also Mercantilism, Absolutism, French Revolution, but I guess some of this was also in year 9.
Grade 9: Age of Restauration (sp?), Industrialization, Imperialism, WWI. We had a good teacher who taught us to think.
Grade 10: Weimar Republic and only a bit(!!!) of National Socialism, and more about the beginning. Yes, we visited the KZ Neuengamme, read the Wannsee-Protokoll but WWII was a thing hardly dealt with (one or two lessons). Our teacher seemed to recognize the overcoverage of the topic in other subjects and the general public.
Grade 11: Division of Germany, Reunification and the GDR first half of the year, currently we are dealing with the Renaissance, this time on a much deeper level. Focus are early capitalism, humanism and art (why ever).
Grade 12: First semester will be something about the United States' economy in the late 19th century, 2nd semester will be repetition.

All in all, I am mostly content with it, though I would have wished FAR more depth such as economy, world order, etc. in all those eras, yet I understand that there is far too less time for this. But I always sad, sometimes even shocking how little some of my classmates just KNOW about most times. Only Nazis and KZs seem to last. o.O I also dislike the skipping of many aspects (Alexander was iirc never even mentioned; I never even heard of the hellenistic monarchies in the east before Rome TW Vanilla).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

And that was one of the better schools, with mostly non-liberal (in the American sense) teachers and a fairly "balanced" schedule. Most of the interesting topics were covered in the foreign language lessons anyway, though again with a heavy dose of "white guilt" and whatnot.

---

Oh yes. It is a common joke along us, that any novel we read at school will either deal with mobbing or discrimination/ the holocaust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Most Gymnasia just teach National Socialist History in real time. They don't even make an effort to teach the kids the foundations of our culture and civilization, which are far more important than the 20th-century perversions thereof. Let alone an overview over other cultures. This is partly because the ones studying to become teachers are often the dumbest of history students (with a few notable exceptions), who're just interested in modern history.

---

We seem to quite good teachers (mostly) who are actually interested in their topics, not the kind which became teacher because they did not know what else to do after they got their Abitur with main subjects German and arts/ history and geography, whatever.

Grades - 1-5 - No shit

6-8 - Two chapters on Rome and greece respectively, were not taught, had to read them, pirate books and learn myself. Alexander, Persia, Maurya, Gupta, all the rest of the gang.

9-10- Independence of the Subcontinent.

Suddenly it seems that the history I get is not bad at all...and I'll have IB history next year. Anyone studying it out here?

I watched TV. I remember when TLC had a 3 day, 12 hours a day marathon of nothing but Rome Documentaries from the early Republic to Gothic North Africa. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I watched TV. I remember when TLC had a 3 day, 12 hours a day marathon of nothing but Rome Documentaries from the early Republic to Gothic North Africa. :D

---

TLC?

Vandal north Africa btw.

~Fluvius