Schools Teaching Too Much Hitler

[Plotinus]

'Hitler Dominates Topics'
Updated: 06:16, Thursday December 22, 2005
Schools are teaching too much "Hitler and Henry" and should broaden their pupils' history lessons, according to an education watchdog.
There has been a gradual narrowing and "Hitlerisation" of history taught to over 14s, said the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
And it said that lessons for this age group were also dominated by topics like the Tudors and the 20th Century dictatorships, giving "increasing cause for concern".
The report said the trend has been exacerbated by dividing up A-level courses into units, which reduced the time for wider reading and reflection.
The criticism comes ahead of new guidelines on teaching post-war German history, being published next week.
An authority spokesman said: "Britain has a long and rich history and there are many interesting periods that teachers can get their pupils interested in.
"We would encourage them to look at the spectrum of history rather than just focusing on a few periods."
The report follows German ambassador Thomas Matussek complaining in May that British people were still obsessed with Nazism.
"Too often, the teaching of black history is confined to topics about slavery and post-war immigration or to Black History Month," the report said.
"The effect, if inadvertent, is to undervalue the overall contribution of black and minority ethnic people to Britain's past and to ignore their cultural, scientific and many other achievements."

Source - http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1206894,00.html (and I only look at Sky because I used to work there, honest!).

I'd agree with this - I remember history at school consisting almost entirely of Hitler. It's part of the apparently unending British obsession with the Second World War. I was never taught anything about the Tudors, but I think I'm an exception there as everyone else seems to have done them interminably.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

English history is tedious. Shockingly tedious. World War 2 is much more interesting to the common student than the Tudors.

If it were up to me, schools would allow choices of study topics ranging from Classical to Asian to the twentieth century. Is that going to happen?

 

[Asclepius]

English history is tedious. Shockingly tedious. World War 2 is much more interesting to the common student than the Tudors.[snip]...

English history is tedious? It has one of the more colourful, entertaining and complex histories of any European nation. I may have more than a passing interest because part of my family came from England but I find the rich and diverse history of England far more interesting than my own Dutch history.

Every nation should teach a rounded history, taking in everything from classical to modern periods. Fixating on the minutiae of WWII is far too narrow. As is concentrating on the PC and glib use of anything "ethnic" to make history more acceptable. There is 2000 years of English (British) history to be taught in only 4 (?) school years and they want to concentrate on ethnic minority contributions as if that is the most significant aspect? ... PC garbage.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, they don't say it should *concentrate* on ethnic minorities, only that it should include them as more than just slaves. So that seems reasonable enough, I'd have thought...

Although I agree that it's odd to say that English history is tedious - is there a country with a more interesting history? But it is true that the average student will find WWII more interesting, for the simple reason that they already know more about it, because everyone seems obsessed with it (eleven scenarios on the subject just on the first page of the scenarios sub-forum, last time I counted).

 

[fing0lfin]

I can't comment the edjucation system in England, but i can say few things in general. What means too much Hitler and too much WW2. First, good or not, Hitler, nazism and ww2 are part of the history and we can't ignore them. And second...well isn't ww2 one of the most immportant(or may be the most immportant) and widespread war ? That is why it is called World war... I think that there should be at least one grade or eyar, during which, pupils should learn about WW2.

 

[Asclepius]

Well, they don't say it should *concentrate* on ethnic minorities, only that it should include them as more than just slaves. So that seems reasonable enough, I'd have thought...
[snip]

Unless one is actively attempting to appear not-racist, there should be no need to teach a special chapter of "ethnic"-history (whatever that is). If there truly is no distinction between Britons of differing ethnic backgrounds then their contribution to British history should be included in the broad brush strokes of the general history being taught, without the need to highlight that they are different and deserving of a separate chapter.

 

[Rambuchan]

I can comment on education in England, for that's what I received.

Although I agree there is a heavy load of Hitler and WWII in England's history lessons, I don't think it is as bad as is being made out here. I remember being taught a great deal about European history during the 18th and 19th centuries. I also remember being taught about the Nordic influence on England's heritage in some charming place names exercises. Plus I remember being taught a great deal of Roman history. When I look back I don't remember being smothered by Hitler lessons.

Some aspects that I would say may play into the prevelance of WWII histories are:

a) Many history teachers, like mine at secondary school, lived and fought through this war and have direct experience of it. Ditto the curriculum setters.
b) It's recent and in some twisted way is therefore considered more relevant than other periods (I don't buy this).
c) It's a story of victory, a British success story. As such it's damn fine 'feel good' history and feeds into a sense of national pride (again, I'd hope we could move on a bit from all this nationalism in education).
d) It's popular. The history channels and history documentaries on TV are awash with WWII programmes in much the same way that the C&C sub-forums are (but popular shouldn't rule the day in the classroom).

I guess it really depends what age group we're talking about and, more significantly, what kind of education one receives in England. There is of course a massive difference in the types of education on offer, largely depending on the size of your daddy's wallet.



Now as an Indian kid being educated in England, I learnt precious little about what Britain got up to in India. And that applies to my fellow little history students. This is something (as Plotinus well knows) that really gets my goat and not just from a personal viewpoint. There seems to be some wilful ignorance in the curriculum concerning Britain's history in India, despite the fact "The Jewel in The Crown" made such a MASSIVE impact on British life for so many hundreds of years. You could say the same about Caribbean history also (see the British 'sweet tooth' during the 17th and 18th centuries). The British Raj and the build up to it has had a MUCH greater, albeit more subtle, influence on the history of Britain than WWII or WWI ever did (see my later comments in the British Empire thread). And it's completely absent from the curriculum. Why!? (I have some ideas but don't wish to go into them now)

On a more personal note and given that there are many British Indians in the UK's education system, I felt this absence about the British Raj in history lessons to be quite a big issue. I learned all about Indian history from my parents and my own reading, despite the fact the relevance to British history is clearly there. I would say that the British education system in this regard has not only failed its British Indian kids but also those whose families have been here for many hundreds of years. They simply aren't being given the bigger picture.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I can obviously only comment on the History I was taught at school which was precious little since I chose Geography as my humanity study dubious: I have no idea why either )

There was a large focus on WWII which, since many student can then go and ask elder relatives about their experience, I think is a good way of getting people involved in history and leads to people doing their own research.

I don't remember being smothered by Hitler (And I thank everyone who fought in the war for that ) although I do remember a chunk of my life, which I will never get back, studying the Agritutural Revolution .

I think there should be more of a focus on local history and then teach how that interacted with history on a larger scale.

 

[Rambuchan]

I don't remember being smothered by Hitler (And I thank everyone who fought in the war for that ) although I do remember a chunk of my life, which I will never get back, studying the Agritutural Revolution .

Hehe. Your comments and emoticons here are revealing wrt to the whole topic Prince. I would say the Agricultural Revolution (Enclosures Act etc) made a very big impact on Britain's history. Yet it is distant to us now and, as a result, potentially very boring.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, all I can remember of GCSE history is vast amounts of WWI and a bit of WWII. Presumably we did other stuff too but I can't remember what it was! Then for A Level we did nineteenth century European history, and Nazi Germany, in astonishing detail. So in my case there really was more Hitler than anyone really needs. Obviously Fingolfin is right to say this subject is important and should be studied, but really, there's a limit. For example, I never studied the Anglo-Saxons, the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors, or anything like that, and clearly anything to do with the Empire is right out, as Rambuchan says. And that's just British history that's not being dealt with.

Still, I did hear recently - and perhaps this isn't true, but really you can never underestimate the general stupidity of a nation that produced "Space Cadets" - that one in ten Britons thinks Hitler was a fictional character. So maybe they should keep him at the centre of the curriculum after all...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Well, all I can remember of GCSE history is vast amounts of WWI and a bit of WWII.

My school did it the other way around. We did very little studying on WWI and only really found out how the war began by reading about it myself and watching Discovery. I think we did about 3 lessons on WWI which, since I missed the last lesson, I never did find out how it ended

Still, I did hear recently - and perhaps this isn't true, but really you can never underestimate the general stupidity of a nation that produced "Space Cadets" - that one in ten Britons thinks Hitler was a fictional character. So maybe they should keep him at the centre of the curriculum after all...

I prey that this is a poll conducted using ten British people dressed in Burberry whilst in line for benefit.

 

[mitsho]

Well, it certainly is a BIG topic. Either...
... you go along the topics chronologically, meaning you will treat all of WWI intensively, then cramp in WWII for many many hours and when you arrive in the 1950's, school is over! OR...
... You jump practically everything else and start very early with WWI and II and then treat nothing else but them.
It's a scurge! Both of these wars can be watched practically every EVENING in television. Why do we have to treat them all the time in school? It's nonsense, because the rest of history is in my humble opinion much more interesting. But well...

I wanted to say as well that I did take a course on English history, as we did practically nothing of it in normal school. And that's the only reason I had the Tudors... (who I think are quite interesting, aren't they?)

mitsho

 

[allhailIndia]

Its for moments like these that one longs for another "historical filth" thread by Kafka....

Trust me, THAT should be taught in schools

 

[Kyriakos]

Sorry, Kafka cannot start another historical thread; he woke up this morning and found himself transformed to a gigantic beetle.

 

[jeriko one]

Sorry, Kafka cannot start another historical thread; he woke up this morning and found himself transformed to a gigantic beetle.

I think talking about Hitler is never too much because if next generation or the generation after that forget or do not even hear about the events, same things might happen again with even more devastating effects.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I went to school in Germany (well-for nine consecutive years at least) and since Grade 8, I have had the Third Reich in history four years; two years in German literature; and one year in religion class.

Since I began my history major courses in university in October this year (!) I have learned more about German history outside of the years of 1871-1945 than in all my history classes at school combined. I have one lecture on Germania in antiquity, one on the Middle Ages and one on the Modern Age once per week respectively. Apart from the first one, none of them focus exclusively on Germany.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

If you think that's bad, you shld come over to Malaysia. In my day, all they were teaching were about the 'glories' of the Malaccan 'empire' (loads of whitewashing) and a bit on the colonial history of Malaya and Sabah/Sarawak in Borneo.

No after independence history. Little on the history of the Chinese and Indian immigration into the country. Nothing on anything foreign (like Chinese, or European history).

:shakehead

 

[privatehudson]

I do remember what I was taught in GCSE and A Level History. GCSE mostly concentrated on the 20th Century and A Levels concentrated on post WW2 and Tudor history. Pretty much everything we were taught was either British, involved the British in some way or was shown primarily from a British viewpoint.

Generally speaking I get the impression that "school" history is a generic, simplistic history taught to people in order to make sure they have even a basic grounding in it. Anyone who has a deeper interest is likely to develop it away from the school and if they wish persue that interest at higher education at which time it's possible to be more specific about your interests. I think the theory is that it's hard enough getting people interested in history as it is without adding topics that a lot of people won't have any connection with, and therefore also likely no interest in. They might be very relevant topics to try and teach people but they likely won't arouse as much interest.

Frankly I found 90% of what I did boring because I like military history. Answering questions on what a letter from the the Queen of Englands handmaiden says about religious practice in 16th century England is my idea of a cure for insomnia.

It didn't help that for 7 years I was taught by a Scotish nationalist who loved spending time talking about Banockburn but glossed over any English victories with barely any comment...

An interesting side topic to me is whether we should teach at school what we are likely to be able to get people to learn, or whether we should teach them what we think they should know. British newspapers always harp on about how in the "good old days" children had to know the Kings and Queens of England/Britain in order. Whilst I'm sure that's an achievement I can't envisage it being crucially important information that every child simply must know. In fact when I asked my Father if he ever came across a time that such an ability came in handy he couldn't think of one. He'd also forgotten the order shortly after leaving school too so in other words it was usless to him.

Sometimes I suspect that the education system in general is too rigid, determined to teach every child exactly what some high up says a child has to know when half the time such information will be useless to them in their life.

 

[plarq]

If you think that's bad, you shld come over to Malaysia. In my day, all they were teaching were about the 'glories' of the Malaccan 'empire' (loads of whitewashing) and a bit on the colonial history of Malaya and Sabah/Sarawak in Borneo.

No after independence history. Little on the history of the Chinese and Indian immigration into the country. Nothing on anything foreign (like Chinese, or European history).

:shakehead

You'd better come to Mainland China, we don't teach historical facts, we only teach "conclusions".

 

[Atlas14]

Frankly I found 90% of what I did boring because I like military history. Answering questions on what a letter from the the Queen of Englands handmaiden says about religious practice in 16th century England is my idea of a cure for insomnia.

Ditto. History in all school levels should be military history based. Im sick of people in my school prancing around like they are history geniuses because they know generic history we've been taught since 5th grade. Too much emphasis is placed on load of crap BS that I could care less about. Military history is more fun to learn.

It didn't help that for 7 years I was taught by a Scotish nationalist who loved spending time talking about Banockburn but glossed over any English victories with barely any comment...

Its cool to teach more about the historical underdogs, but to not teach about English victories is pathetic.