• emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    you’re probably right that I overstated my case and exaggerated a bit but what was taught a couple decades ago was thin and pretty dire

    • charlie [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nah, you’re exactly right. And I’m tired of people coming into these threads saying “my bare bones high school level ap course covered this because I recognize the topic you’re saying.”

      If you think that’s true, go read a bunch of actual history books and see how complete you think that education still is.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If i had to say what they dont teach very much, it would be asian and african history before the 1500s for the most part, unless they had interacted with european settlers at some point in history.

      • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ironically I went to a good high school and we did cover that, but when it came to relatively recent US history, the curriculum was spotty and superficial. I got the sense that teachers wanted to avoid controversial topics and debates.

        It’s like with ancient African/Asian/American empires, you have a certain psychological distance and can discuss it casually. With recent American history, especially when the history curriculum is necessarily half economics, it can get “controversial”. And I’m sure there was more one “gifted” kid aching to do the bit from Good Will Hunting…