As I was reading over a 1st grade history curriculum and the details inside, I came across an interesting set of information in the first 3 units. Some of it was quite good information except where within the first couple months of the grade level curriculum a significant hypocritical stance was inserted into the content.
In the first unit, they did a very good job detailing the need to learn the compass directions, locations and names of oceans, seas and many basic aspects of what history is. Good job. They teach History is the recorded past we try to piece together with any documentation and hints we can get. The more documentation the more certain we can be of getting the correct picture of something we cannot observe directly.
In the third unit, they begin to delve into the historical records of what we know about ancient Egypt. I would say it might be a bit over a 1st grader’s head but not bad. In all fairness, they do mention the original written or recorded medium used were hieroglyphics carved into stone. Only a select few knew how to do this and it was primarily reserved for recording the issues of the royal court. By unmentioned extension, this means the perspective of the average citizen was largely unrecorded from those times. Fair enough.
In a following lesson, the content points out what is a logical and factual conclusion. The Egyptians discovered how to make and use papyrus (kind of paper) and found it to be far easier to record content on versus using stone. Again, this is a logical and sound point as writing on paper is far better than carving in stone or mud. Doesn’t beat typing up an email or blog but you deal with what you have.
They go on further to make another sound observation and truthful statement. We do not know as much about the ancient Egyptians after they shifted to using papyrus for a very simple reason. Rock beats paper for durability. The papyrus quite simply succumbed to the elements. The stone didn’t. Again, this is an obvious statement. If we do not have the records of the past, then we do not know much of what happened. So where is the problem?
Well, in Unit 2 the content delved into the origins of the first city and civilization by talking about Nomads and the Fertile Crescent. Put on the brakes and stop right there. In unit 1, we deal with current and observed facts. In unit 2, we deal with speculations on the unrecorded past which makes it pre-historic. In unit 3, it admits without documentation our knowledge is incomplete. So from the beginning in 1st grade the curriculum is taking a hypocritical stance. You can and can’t know the past from non-existent recorded media to give verifiable information?
Whenever one person says one thing and does another, we call them a liar and a hypocrite. What more does it make the authors of the curriculum when they insert a belief or opinion instead of a proven fact into the curriculum of 1st graders who believe what is told to them?
History lessons may have some inaccuracies, even if you have a history degree. Signing up for classes at an online college is a great way to learn more about history. Whether you want to get your Bachelors degree or go for your Masters, you can learn about history and even change the way it's taught.
Anonymous
3:39 PM
Hi There! :)
I think I've found my intellectual soul-mate! :D
I can't tell you how many YEARS I've been pounding people's brains about the difference between history and anthropology and bewailing the mixing of the two in schools! As you pointed out here without actually saying, there is a REASON every university that has an Egyptology department has it under the School of Anthropology, and not the School of History!
I've been working in computers for a long time, but my degree work was in anthropology/prehistoric civilizations. As such, I had to know where the line between "historic" and "prehistoric" lies.
History is not events,is the RECORDS of events along with the records of day-to-day happenings that allow us to know WHY the event was important. Everything else is anthropology. When a culture has no records of general, everyday things to refer to, they have anthropology, not history. They are PRE-historic.
The example I always like to use is that of Queen Hatshepsut, a woman Pharaoh of the New Kingdom. Her husband/brother, Thutmose II, was apparently a weakly man who died young, and it was Hatshepsut who led the Egyptian army to put down a revolution in the Sudan while Thutmose II was still alive (but apparently ill). This is very clear in her funerary temple.
But what are the funerary relief carvings? They are PR. They are messages to the gods telling them what a great guy the deceased was. So all must be taken with a grain of salt. The most valuable carvings in the funerary temples are the ones that show lineage, not the events, which could easily be as hokey as most any politician.
The fact is, we have no idea why putting down a revolution in the Sudan was a "good" thing, because we have no idea how it affected the average Akmenhotep Six-Pack. Maybe the Sudanese had good reason to rebel, and maybe the average Egyptian thought so as well. This is the reason it is important to have those everyday records to establish history. The only thing that we can be reasonably sure about it is that there were no further uprisings during the rest of her regency, so she apparently established herself as a kick-ass disciplinarian with the Sudan campaign. But even THAT is speculation. Thus, it is anthropology and not history.
Speculation does NOT belong in history classes! And it certainly doesn't belong in the 1st grade! The particulars of the various Egyptian empires (Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms) are way too convoluted for babies to track!
The ongoing tainting of "history" classes really needs to be named something else, to keep the field of history isolated in its scientific processes.