@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
failures art wrote:I think that the domination of European history in world history classes is a means to place greater emphasis on the contributions of Christian nations.
What makes you think that? The ancestors of today's Americans come mostly from Europe, and the purpose of history classes arguably is to familiarize the students with
their historical roots. So why
wouldn't "world history" classes in America's schools be tilted towards European history?
Your emphasis on "their," is the exact assumption we should be avoiding.
Black, Asian, and Latino students are not learning about their historical roots. They are learning about their white classmate's ancestors. Where their ancestors are mentioned is only in the most demeaning of ways if at all.
In the American school system from K - 12th grade you get the same history of the USA every year. Certainly by time we are talking about world history, we don't need to redundantly make US history the history of the world.
The history of Europeans is important. We will both agree on that. However, why not just call the class "European History" if that's going to be what is almost exclusively taught? Call it what it is, not what it pathetically is not: World history. A world history class would be more broad.
In HS, all of Asia got a 2 week unit. Africa and south America got a week a piece. Students don't need yet another year of history classes that redundantly talk about the achievements of European "explorers."
A
R
T
