Gove's 'Anglocentric' History Curriculum
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Type 052D
Nor do we talk about the Celts who migrated to Britain from the early 500BC. We don't learn about the Etruscans who had an profound impact on Roman and Western civilization. We don't talk about the Indo-European Aryan migrations as it is seem as too 'controversial'. Our history curriculum does not mention the Shang, Zheng, the spring and Autumn period, the Qin reunification period, the Han Dynasty or even the Late Tang Dynasty of China. They only thing we learn about in the Far-east is the Opium war and the Russo-Japanese. Some schools/College don't even put the Pacific front as part of WW2 history.
A criticism based on the present curriculum is hardly valid in a debate about curriculum reform.
One can project British history back into the stone, bronze and iron ages but I am never quite sure what good it does.
As I said, China prior to 1850 and Japan prior to December 1941 will probably be off the agenda in any course concentrating on British history but however you structure a history syllabus, you cannot cover everything.
don't see the problem with this. in fact, its a shock that britain teaches so little of its own history.
if people want to learn about world history they should do so in their own spare time.
if people want to learn about world history they should do so in their own spare time.
History is such a pointless GCSE anyway, its just a teacher lecturing children with very little discussion of method, historiography, intellectual history etc e.g all the things History is in a good position to impart. Rather than focusing on content, which is largely irrelevant at this point, let's return it to being an intellectually rigorous subject with SOME relation to the discipline at large.
As for Anglocentrism, I'm more concerned about the odd emphasis on contemporary history. Let's push it back a bit maybe? I don't care what part of the world we focus on, my own instruction at school was severely hampered by doing the Victorians and the World Wars over...and over...and over again.
As for Anglocentrism, I'm more concerned about the odd emphasis on contemporary history. Let's push it back a bit maybe? I don't care what part of the world we focus on, my own instruction at school was severely hampered by doing the Victorians and the World Wars over...and over...and over again.
Original post by nulli tertius
As I said, China prior to 1850 and Japan prior to December 1941 will probably be off the agenda in any course concentrating on British history but however you structure a history syllabus, you cannot cover everything.
Not necessarily, since Japan was allied to Britain in the early 1900s, served a key purpose in Britain's competition with Russia, and even entered WWI on Britain's side.
But then in my experience even the WWII Pacific theatre is completely ignored so I doubt that kind of detail would make the cut.
In any case, I think if a country didn't interact with Britain in the period 1800-1950 it had minimal importance outside its own borders. There is only limited time; I don't see the great evil in not learning about the Taiping Rebellion and whatever other nonsense was happening in China in the early 1800s.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
A criticism based on the present curriculum is hardly valid in a debate about curriculum reform.
One can project British history back into the stone, bronze and iron ages but I am never quite sure what good it does.
As I said, China prior to 1850 and Japan prior to December 1941 will probably be off the agenda in any course concentrating on British history but however you structure a history syllabus, you cannot cover everything.
One can project British history back into the stone, bronze and iron ages but I am never quite sure what good it does.
As I said, China prior to 1850 and Japan prior to December 1941 will probably be off the agenda in any course concentrating on British history but however you structure a history syllabus, you cannot cover everything.
What about the Meiji Restoration which had an profound impact on British relations and Involvement in the Far-east? Or the Ango-Japanese agreement of 1900s? What about the republican revolution by Sen-Yet-Sun and it's impact on Britain's and America's attitude to the Sinosphere?
Original post by Glory&Honour
God this is why I hate so much people in this country, when they come on here and say that we shouldn't learn British History in schools. Just to remind you THIS IS BRITAIN, BRITISH HISTORY HAPPENED HERE!!!
God you leftist make me sick.
God you leftist make me sick.
Yes, maybe in year 7-9, but you just learning british history at GCSE and A level is incredibly stupid. No doubt you won't have studied history do a decent standard anyway...
To be fair though, British history does include some world history due to British Empire and so on. Rather than focusing on the slave trade (which actually put me off history GCSE and A level since I've learned about it from Year 3 straight through to year 9) How about learning about The British Raj, or the 1783 Treaty of Paris? British history is interesting but it depends what parts are being focused on.
Some people on here have clearly not studied history.
It is not a propoganda tool, it is a academic subject which needs to be excluded from idealogical administrators
It is not a propoganda tool, it is a academic subject which needs to be excluded from idealogical administrators
Original post by Observatory
Not necessarily, since Japan was allied to Britain in the early 1900s, served a key purpose in Britain's competition with Russia, and even entered WWI on Britain's side.
But then in my experience even the WWII Pacific theatre is completely ignored so I doubt that kind of detail would make the cut.
In any case, I think if a country didn't interact with Britain in the period 1800-1950 it had minimal importance outside its own borders. There is only limited time; I don't see the great evil in not learning about the Taiping Rebellion and whatever other nonsense was happening in China in the early 1800s.
But then in my experience even the WWII Pacific theatre is completely ignored so I doubt that kind of detail would make the cut.
In any case, I think if a country didn't interact with Britain in the period 1800-1950 it had minimal importance outside its own borders. There is only limited time; I don't see the great evil in not learning about the Taiping Rebellion and whatever other nonsense was happening in China in the early 1800s.
Don't forget how the Japanese intellects was educated in Britain and how an Scottish businessman helped Japan modernize into the 19th/20th century! The Imperial Japanese navy followed on the model of the successful Royal Navy and made the UK proud of Japan's victory in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905.
Original post by The Lyceum
History is such a pointless GCSE anyway, its just a teacher lecturing children with very little discussion of method, historiography, intellectual history etc e.g all the things History is in a good position to impart. Rather than focusing on content, which is largely irrelevant at this point, let's return it to being an intellectually rigorous subject with SOME relation to the discipline at large.
You wish to import into history the criticism that can be made of the teaching of languages in the UK?
We teach languages on the basis that we lay the groundwork for being a proper linguist. Most people do not do a degree in languages and most people emerge from school without a practically useful set of knowledge in any language. They can tell a Frenchman his irregular verbs but probably could not write a business letter or have a normal conversation without constrained boundaries of subject. People who become linguists however have had a good preparation. They have picked up few of the bad habits that others learning say, English pick up.
What Gove wants is the person who trains to be a car mechanic at 16 to know is that the agricultural revolution was contemporaneous with the American Revolution and not the English Civil War and that the Reformation preceded the Pilgrim Fathers.
You want him to be able to examine sources and and be aware of the trends in scholarship but what good is that to him?
Original post by Observatory
Not necessarily, since Japan was allied to Britain in the early 1900s, served a key purpose in Britain's competition with Russia, and even entered WWI on Britain's side.
So did Brazil, but realistically that isn't going to make the cut either.
Original post by Type 052D
What about the Meiji Restoration which had an profound impact on British relations and Involvement in the Far-east? Or the Ango-Japanese agreement of 1900s? What about the republican revolution by Sen-Yet-Sun and it's impact on Britain's and America's attitude to the Sinosphere?
If one looks back at school textbooks from the 1950s (so after the events of WWII) when narrative British history was taught, there is virtually nothing on Japan.
You can virtually text any country in the world and relate it to British history but unless for any reason there has been cause to make a re-assessment, the same prioritisation is likely to occur as occurred when history was last taught in this way.
I would say the countries where past British involvement will receive more prominence now than they did previously are Argentina, Iraq and Afghanistan probably at the expense of the 20th century Mediterranean, the founding of Israel and the colonial wars in Southern Africa.
Original post by nulli tertius
So did Brazil, but realistically that isn't going to make the cut either.
The Japanese 13th division has eliminated German Far-East Squadron stationed in China. It also helped the Allies in the mine sweeping operation in the Med sea theater. After WW1, the Britain even requested to borrow the new Kongo class Battleship, which was an very advance naval Destroyer. Also the offer was declined, it showed how far Anglo-Japanese relation went int the Early 1900s. But after the Battle of Mukden, the Japanese also proved itself to be an rival to the British Empire in Asia. The USA, who always feared Japanese naval development in the Pacific rim, pressured the UK to abdicated the Anglo-Japanese treaty thus causing resentment in Tokyo.
Original post by Type 052D
The Japanese 13th division has eliminated German Far-East Squadron stationed in China. It also helped the Allies in the mine sweeping operation in the Med sea theater. After WW1, the Britain even requested to borrow the new Kongo class Battleship, which was an very advance naval Destroyer. Also the offer was declined, it showed how far Anglo-Japanese relation went int the Early 1900s. But after the Battle of Mukden, the Japanese also proved itself to be an rival to the British Empire in Asia. The USA, who always feared Japanese naval development in the Pacific rim, pressured the UK to abdicated the Anglo-Japanese treaty thus causing resentment in Tokyo.
You obviously have an interest in Anglo-Japanese history.
I have an interest in northern European history. If you sit in Stockholm or Christiana or Helsingfors or Reval, the history of events in which Britain was involved over the last three centuries looks completely different. That is not because of propaganda but because individual events have a different significance in those countries to us.
However, if one takes the perspective of significance to Britain, Japan is a minor player until the assault on Hong Kong on 8th December 1941.
Original post by nulli tertius
You wish to import into history the criticism that can be made of the teaching of languages in the UK?
We teach languages on the basis that we lay the groundwork for being a proper linguist. Most people do not do a degree in languages and most people emerge from school without a practically useful set of knowledge in any language. They can tell a Frenchman his irregular verbs but probably could not write a business letter or have a normal conversation without constrained boundaries of subject. People who become linguists however have had a good preparation. They have picked up few of the bad habits that others learning say, English pick up.
What Gove wants is the person who trains to be a car mechanic at 16 to know is that the agricultural revolution was contemporaneous with the American Revolution and not the English Civil War and that the Reformation preceded the Pilgrim Fathers.
You want him to be able to examine sources and and be aware of the trends in scholarship but what good is that to him?
We teach languages on the basis that we lay the groundwork for being a proper linguist. Most people do not do a degree in languages and most people emerge from school without a practically useful set of knowledge in any language. They can tell a Frenchman his irregular verbs but probably could not write a business letter or have a normal conversation without constrained boundaries of subject. People who become linguists however have had a good preparation. They have picked up few of the bad habits that others learning say, English pick up.
What Gove wants is the person who trains to be a car mechanic at 16 to know is that the agricultural revolution was contemporaneous with the American Revolution and not the English Civil War and that the Reformation preceded the Pilgrim Fathers.
You want him to be able to examine sources and and be aware of the trends in scholarship but what good is that to him?
Ah yes the lowest common denominator problem, true. I had indeed over-looked that. None the less, some effort towards imparting how we know things would be useful. I definitely think there is room in our education system for more logic and critical thinking.
Original post by nulli tertius
You obviously have an interest in Anglo-Japanese history.
I have an interest in northern European history. If you sit in Stockholm or Christiana or Helsingfors or Reval, the history of events in which Britain was involved over the last three centuries looks completely different. That is not because of propaganda but because individual events have a different significance in those countries to us.
However, if one takes the perspective of significance to Britain, Japan is a minor player until the assault on Hong Kong on 8th December 1941.
I have an interest in northern European history. If you sit in Stockholm or Christiana or Helsingfors or Reval, the history of events in which Britain was involved over the last three centuries looks completely different. That is not because of propaganda but because individual events have a different significance in those countries to us.
However, if one takes the perspective of significance to Britain, Japan is a minor player until the assault on Hong Kong on 8th December 1941.
Japan had an profound impact on USA/UK modern history than Scandinavia in my opinion. But generally through out history, the East Asians never really influenced the west beyond the relams of technology transfers from the silk road and economic relations. East Asia is really another civilization on it's own. Another World to us westerners.
Original post by tjf8
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/16/historians-gove-curriculum
Michael Gove wants to realign the History curriculum (from primary school through secondary school) such that it would be a lot more 'Anglocentric' and would cover the Stone Age through to the end of the Cold War. But critics have claimed that this new course would make the UK the only country in the western world not to teach world history; that it would appeal only to "white British citizens"; and that it would simply not be interesting enough for children.
Would this change be a good thing?
Michael Gove wants to realign the History curriculum (from primary school through secondary school) such that it would be a lot more 'Anglocentric' and would cover the Stone Age through to the end of the Cold War. But critics have claimed that this new course would make the UK the only country in the western world not to teach world history; that it would appeal only to "white British citizens"; and that it would simply not be interesting enough for children.
Would this change be a good thing?
Yes. People lack an understanding of History, and as the UK has a habit of popping up at some of the most important times in History it'll probably help.
A better understanding of who we were, will help us understand who we are now and who we need to be.
My favorite a-level history topic was been on post-world war two britain so I am not against the teaching of more britsh history. However I think it needs to branch out and connect with other topics. Maybe link different subjects together for example read poems from famous british poets or do a topic on the history of the local area linking it to geography, perhaps linking political elections to politics via how elections work. But lets remember to include wales, ireland and scotland as well, as the united kingdom there are part of our history.
I felt as at school history was always eurocentric. We never covered african or latin american history and south east asia was briefly meantioned. Why not cover these topics? Just because we don't live there does not mean we should gloss over nations like bolivia. Perhaps the lessons could be split - one on british history and one on world to make the weak more interesting. Again the school could link it to the curriculum - trips, foregin langugues, pen pals ect.
I don't think it needs to be british history versus world history. I think we need to open up the course to bring in more variety and chances for people to express their interests.
I felt as at school history was always eurocentric. We never covered african or latin american history and south east asia was briefly meantioned. Why not cover these topics? Just because we don't live there does not mean we should gloss over nations like bolivia. Perhaps the lessons could be split - one on british history and one on world to make the weak more interesting. Again the school could link it to the curriculum - trips, foregin langugues, pen pals ect.
I don't think it needs to be british history versus world history. I think we need to open up the course to bring in more variety and chances for people to express their interests.
I have mixed views about this. Probably my mine concern is, is this going to be focused on English history, rather than Scottish, Welsh or Irish? All four of our nations have strongly intertwined history and it would be an incredible shame if it was given just an English perspective. Another issue is presumably they will be teaching more about the British Empire. Yes, this is British history, but it's heavily influential on world history as well. I hope this isn't going to be something that is only taught about the positives on empire, and rather look at the effects or viewpoints about the natives of that region.
In my opinion changing the topics and focus of what is taught is the wrong way to go about teaching history for students in secondary school. History is a fantastic subject and hugely interesting, and what will probably make more people get captivated is by allowing people to form their own views and perspectives. GCSE history, for me anyway, was read the facts and remember. A-Level, particularly A2, is about formulating an opinion and debating that with evidence. That's what makes history fun.
In my opinion changing the topics and focus of what is taught is the wrong way to go about teaching history for students in secondary school. History is a fantastic subject and hugely interesting, and what will probably make more people get captivated is by allowing people to form their own views and perspectives. GCSE history, for me anyway, was read the facts and remember. A-Level, particularly A2, is about formulating an opinion and debating that with evidence. That's what makes history fun.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Online college for A-levels
- Aqa sociology paper 1
- IB retake or A-level crammer year?
- Is English language a-level good?
- GCSE History resources.
- A question about upper secondary history curriculm in the uk
- PGDE History 2024
- EPQ topic
- If you were the schools minister, what would you do?
- Private Alevels
- Books on statement
- Help with A level sociology question
- AQA A-Level History Flashcards / Revision sources
- Written work/essay submission for Cambridge?
- PGCE History and Teaching Agency work - Seeking Advice
- kcl
- Applying to university
- History or classics a-level ????
- LSE Applicants for BSc ISPP and Econ, BSc ISPP and Politics, BSc ISPP
- Ucas personal statement
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
