Do you think that history classes today are biased in their view of historical events or not?
by 
themightythor
ANSWERS: 8
-
I think it really depends. Even though I didn't like my A.P. U.S history class my teacher taught us the facts. Like how the white settlers weren't jolly folk, but that they murdered tons of indians and that they resorted to canabilism in Jamestowns first winter when they ran out of food. But I have also had history teachers that tell us how great the american settlers were. Also i've had teachers that said Lincoln care so much about slaves but in reality he just wanted to preserve the union. So I think it all just depends on who your teacher is.
-
Like it was above stated it depends on who's teaching you. I've found that mostly while you are young the teachers try not to make things out to be too bad, hence why they don't tell us how cruel the white settlers were. Plus they want to give us the image that Lincoln was a great guy, which isn't exactly true. Adults seem to want to protect the younger generations from the harshness of the real world. The down side is we don't get the actual facts til later, if at all. Another downer is that we believe we know the real facts, but we don't, we only know what we were told. Those who are not retaught could go around ignorant because their teachers didn't want to teach them the down sides. As you get older the teachers know better than to try to bulls**t you again. That's when the real knowledge comes out. From there it depends on how much the previous knowledge was ingrained into their memory, they could completely blow off the truth, or they could accept it.
-
I think history classes are becoming less biased and ethnocentric; however, some measure of bias will always exist. The facts pass through a person with an opinion before they reach a class. That is true of any subject.
-
History is always biased according to who writes it. And always has been. For example in my 8th grade History book when they talked about the slaves being freed they almost made you feel sorry for them because their masters who had fed them and taken care of them for so long was being forced by the federal government to turn them out on their own to fend for themselves. This was my United States history book approved by the state of Texas. I would imagine a United States history book approved by the state of New York said something different. Another example. If you could pick two of the most honest of men to be found to write a history of the middle east, one being a Jew and the other an Arab there would be an almost completely different interpretation of events, and even a reporting of events. History is always biased to favor the interest of those who write it, and those who approve it for publication.
-
(rotflmao) History has always been biased in its view points in favor of the country or persons that write it. I'd like to see a Native American history book on the Jamestown colonies and western expansion. Read Mexico's views on the battle of the Alamo. How about Cuba's historical views on US foreign policy or India's views on British imperialism? I'm afraid history, like beauty and religion is often in the minds of the beholders.
-
They are in Australia.... history begins here with the landing of the white settlers. We completely ignore the previous 40,000 year aboriginal history.
-
Absolutely. My teacher preaches Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Whether you agree with its viewpoint or not, it's content is presented in an unquestionably liberal manner.
-
history is always biased, either to the winners of a conflict, or the present political climate. So I would have to say yes, they are.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC