Everything worthwhile originated in Britain!

Note how the non-Western inventions dried up more than half a millennium ago.

The value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana...

India, while it may not have been more advanced than Britain or France in the year 1800, was at least on par with them until around 1750, before the Carnatic/ Seven Years War. Britain had a presence in India dating back to the early 1600s, but was not able to establish a firm foothold until the Battle of Plassey. The fact that Britain gained control of India speaks more of the terrible situation in India at the time. Both the Maratha and Mughal Empires had collapsed leaving India a pathcwork of feudal states and Principalities, with the odd regional power here and there. India was by all accounts in a state of semi-civil-war for at least 100 years before the Battle of Plassey. In fact this state of affairs left Indians actually asking the British to invade despotates and liberate them, as did occur with the Battle of Plassey.

This is just daft. I mean seriously. Japan is western? How about China, India and Korea?

Heck, even Iran has a quite decent science record, despite being a brutal theocracy with little regard for human rights.

Seriously...

Britain rules.

Bismark, I would be concerned that your idea of teaching history as facts rather than teaching students to analyse sources, when combined with seeing it as necessary to citizenship, causes the problem of the politcisation of history. This is particularly important as many Americans I talk to seem to see world history very differently from people in Europe (particularly their own history). Also, I would be dubious about how well it is being run as several recent, if fairly light-hearted, surveys seem to show Americans often have very limited understandings of other countries.

Also, your list of things that people should know about included both the American Revolution and Civil War, but not the Russian Revolution which I would consider at least, probably far more, important to the general study of history.

There isn't enough time to teach both the facts and the way to analyze sources, and if someone is to know only one of the two, I'd prefer they knew the facts. Now obviously much of history is in dispute, and there is no definitive way to organize the study of it. But that does not mean that students shouldn't be taught the basics first, and if they have enough interest to pursue history at uni level, be taught historiography at that point. The reason most Americans don't know their history is because passing history classes entails getting 2/3 of multiple choice questions right on most exams, not due to the content of the classes.

The American Revolution produced a superpower that still exists 230 years later, while the Russian Revolution produced a superpower that disintegrated. Anyway, I was listing some of the things that should be taught but aren't. I wasn't going for a comprehensive list.

Problem is, teaching 'facts' is probably inevitably biased in many cases.

This is exactly the point I am getting at through my original post, if students are taught what the "facts" are and in addition not given the analytical skills to try and discern the reliability and context of these facts then there is something very wrong with the way history is being taught.

The very fact that classes are tested by multiple choice shows the shallowness of this approach: are these just 'facts' like dates and figures, or do you get questions like 'which of these factors was a proximate cause cause of the American Revolution?

But the Russian Revolution has had all sorts of knock on effects.

I just thought your list showed a rather American and to a degree West European bias.

Note how the non-Western inventions dried up more than half a millennium ago.

Not really. I'm studying IB History, for example, and we manage both quite well. Learning how to analyze sources is not that difficult, and it mostly depends on the method of teaching. If you teach history the way that encourages discussion and include a few lessons dedicated to analyzation of sources and the period in general, it's quite possible to teach both, especially if the course span is several years.

Teaching facts, especially limited collection of facts, doesn't lead anywhere if you lack the understanding of what they were good for, and the general bigger picture to put them into context. Analysis is interconnected with mere facts, and is probably more important.

Problem is, teaching 'facts' is probably inevitably biased in many cases.

The very fact that classes are tested by multiple choice shows the shallowness of this approach: are these just 'facts' like dates and figures, or do you get questions like 'which of these factors was a proximate cause cause of the American Revolution?

This is exactly the point I am getting at through my original post, if students are taught what the "facts" are and in addition not given the analytical skills to try and discern the reliability and context of these facts then there is something very wrong with the way history is being taught.

I think it's fairly obvious that most people don't have the talent or the willpower to take IB classes, and for all intents and purposes, those classes are at near university level. Sure, when you have a small class of students that are dedicated to learning history, you'll be able to teach them quite a lot. But that isn't the case in most classrooms.

I'm sorry, but most people will never have to use that type of analysis for the rest of their lives. As much as I'd like for all people to question their sources and the type of bias involved, it just isn't practical to have everyone learn that skill.

I'm sorry but after studying in three different systems of teaching history (at least to some extend), I have come to conclusion that teaching facts doesn't lead absolutely anywhere. Such system ensures that the students will forget all they learned pretty quickly (for it's awful lot to rememeber), don't know how to employ this knowledge in everyday life and lack any kind of general picture of history as such. If you think that learning how to analyze things is useless, how is knowing randfom facts without being aware of any relationship with the rest of history and the world any better?

If you are foing to learn history anyway, you might well learn it in a way that is remotely useful.

That's a problem with any class and any type of teaching though. I'm fairly sure I'll forget whatever it is I learned about Der Derian and his brand of postmodernism within a few weeks of my exams. You just have to try to present the information in an interesting and prefeable interactive way. Have different people take the roles of the different countries in WWI for instance. I think that will go much further than telling them that Professor X believes that Austria didn't want war for reason A, Professor Y thinks that Austria wanted war for reason B, and Professor Z claiming that countries don't think about their long term prospects. It's useful information, but not something that more 17-year-olds will comprehend. In fact, instead of memorizing dates and names, you'll have them memorize the dates of publication and the names of professors.

You should first know what happened before you can learn from it.

So what? Everything is biased to some extent. There usually is some kind of a consensus on historical events (it's much harder to find it for more recent events, which is why recent history is rarely taught), and if there isn't, students can be taught that there are two possible explanations for the events. They don't need to be taught why a structuralist approach is likely to lead to different conclusions than an individualist one.

No, that shows the sad state of the American primary and secondary education systems. One can teach thorough explanations of events without stooping to the lowest common of denominator of simply teaching dates and names. You usually get the latter type of questions, but there are obviously usually more than 4-5 factors contributing to an event and many have importance nuances that a multiple choice question misses.

I think people in Iraq and Afghanistan right now would make the same case. As I said, the effects of the Russian Revolution wore off after 70 years; American revolution is still having a significant effect in world affairs.

That's because I was listing the type of information a typical British student wouldn't know. Why would I include something that usually is taught in Britain?

There isn't enough time to teach both the facts and the way to analyze sources, and if someone is to know only one of the two, I'd prefer they knew the facts.

I'm sorry, but most people will never have to use that type of analysis for the rest of their lives. As much as I'd like for all people to question their sources and the type of bias involved, it just isn't practical to have everyone learn that skill.