ethnic minority

[sniper]

i have to agree with you, my history lessons at school were all kings and queens, and political bills and railways, and that wasn't that many years ago, though quite a few when I think about it [xx(] I don't think I was exposed to anything that was pre-Tudors and Stuarts at all, excepting the odd trip to Jorvik or the New Walk Museum in Leicester. I think I have always been an archaeology nut despite, rather than because of, what I was taught at school, and therefore I can see why people just wouldn't be interested at all. I know archaeology is now being offered as GCSE and A Level, but I shouldn't imagine it is available at many places. I would certainly be interested to find out what types of history is being taught in schools and whether this should be changed. Anyone know any primary school teachers who we could get to do some finding out?

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[rachstebbs]

My GCSE and A-Level history covered
a: WW1
b: WW2
c: The inter-war years

There was one module at the beginning of my GCSEs which covered medicine through time, and about a month of that covered everything from prehistoric to medieval times. we learnt that 'prehistoric' (my argument was that 'prehistoric' covers a lot of different people!) people drilled holes in everyones heads and then that the Greeks invented surgery....

[sniper]

I must have done the same GCSE as you, remember that very well. Quick wizz through all of prehistory - trephanation, short life, nasty - in one lesson and then onto the Greeks. Well, I suppose its not GCSE History for nothing...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[I F Lostmetrowel]

I have to agree with Sniper. I grew up in an area with quite a strong 'ethnic' (I think this is a horrible word) component and only two did GCSE and A Level History and that was because they needed them to go into other subjects at degree level- I think it was law. When I was at University, the 'ethnic' contingent on the MA course were interested in learning the British system and then applying it in their own country.

The fact that a few years ago that thought about introducing an element into GCSE History about the Asian and African countries to try and get more minority groups interested in History of this country.

It does seem that the interest is not there in the majority of people.

[I F Lostmetrowel]

By the way that post was ref to 04/11/05 Sniper comments!!! My A level history was also about Tudor and Stuarts with the added fun of the Hapsburg and Valois kings of Europe! I count my self lucky to have done this period as these days all kids seem to be taught is about 1900-1945.

(Not that I am saying this is without interest/importance but people wonder why kids dont know some of the key dates of history

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by I F Lostmetrowel

....people wonder why kids dont know some of the key dates of history

Aye there's the rub!!

To reduce history to the basis of rote memory of a series of key dates underlines how easy it is to make a wide-ranging subject parochial and predujiced. For who decides which dates are important to learn?

If I were to have family origins in the Indian sub-continent I might believe that a whole series of dates from 3000BC to 1947AD are of some importance to my understanding of a shared cultural past. I probably wouldn't be too concerned however with 1066 or 45AD.

If I were to have family origins in the Caribbean I might find 1832AD a much more interesting date than 1805AD.

Surely part of the role of history (and archaeology) as subjects should be to provide the tools for everyone to study their own pasts and shared pasts; to make people aware that there are several sides to most historical 'tales' and to ensure that no-one should be excluded from the study or promotion of the historical and cultural past.

Learning 'dates' is what the middle classes would have us do to get another useless certificate in academic non-attainment. (Suggest anyone unaware of the historical perspective for fact-learning, read, or re-read, the 'Gradgrind' chapters of Dickens' Hard Times).

[the invisible man]

I recall that my kids spent a whole term on Native Americans in GCSE History - then did it again in Geography! They also seemed to spend the rest of their time doing Nazis.

Given the level and length of the course and the age of the pupils and so on, you can't do the whole history of the whole world. It may be unfashionable but to me it seems perfectly reasonable to cover the basics of your own history in a basic introductiory course like GCSE, and certainly in the pre-GCSE compulsory bit - KS3. Before you start, by "your own history" I mean the history of this country, the one in which you live and are a citizen of, as other countries do. Of course this doesn't have to, and shouldn't, be like the old lists of Kings and Queens, they should cover the one or two other people that were around at the time! I would expect GCSE kids to have a vague idea of what and when Trafalgar and Hastings were though.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Mna]

Mother of god, do you people not realise "Judy" is nothing but a fabrication. A little like the paper that was proposed for TAG on South Africa a number of years ago by a MOLAS man claimimg to be a SA professor. WISE UP

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by Mna

Mother of god, do you people not realise "Judy" is nothing but a fabrication. A little like the paper that was proposed for TAG on South Africa a number of years ago by a MOLAS man claimimg to be a SA professor. WISE UP

If I remember correctly that 'MOLAS man' was also explicitly claiming in the synopsis of his paper to be the reincarnation of Elvis Presley!!. This should have alerted the TAG powers-that-be, sooner rather than later that something was not quite kosher!!

[troll]

Mna-Greetings!Thanx for the heads up. Fabrication or otherwise, discussion is welcome here.Oh, and God does`nt have a mother.