Posted on 07/13/2005 8:32:15 PM PDT by CaptIsaacDavis
Many years ago my friend Robert Wible was stationed in India with the United States Information Agency. He returned to the U.S. with a textbook "Modern History" which was had been published in the Soviet Union. Translated into English, the book was being used in Indian schools.
What is interesting about the book is that it tells a very different story than is usually presented in American textbooks. As the book covers the period from Middle Ages to the 1870s, various chapters of the book can be used to contrast the traditional American and the 1960s Marxist-Leninist interpretations of major historical events.
Over the coming months I will be placing chapters from this book, including pictures, maps, original source documents, and student questions, on the Internet. The first chapter posted is on the American Revolution, the second on the Civil War.
If you wish to comment on "Modern History - A Soviet Viewpoint," please fill in the comment form. These comments will soon be posted on a separate page
(Excerpt) Read more at mcps.k12.md.us ...
That is what it sounds like this teacher is doing based on his comments.
He isn't praising the Soviets, just saying it is interesting how they viewed history differently. He never said he was ditching the American book.
New York was originally New Amsterdam. That is common knowledge....
As a person studying to be a history teacher myself, I am rather disturbed at your failure to understand the need for students to gain critical thinking skills.
That is what this teacher is doing. He isn't indoctrinating kids in Soviet thought.
It is a great way to teach and much more interesting than having a kid read a textbook and call it good. That is lazy teaching. Dates are not important in most cases except for context.
There are some dates are that important: Dec. of Independence, D-Day etc. But, most are not something that people must know.
Sounds very ambivalent. "Differing interpretations" is a lot like failing to make value judgements--there is no black or white, right or wrong, but just "different interpretations" of history.
The teacher may be okay and may just have successfully mastered Montgomery-speak, in which we are very, very careful not to make any statement that suggests some viewpoints, people, political systems, or faiths are better than others.
I understand and depending upon how he approaches it could be a quite funny part of the class.
For additional fun, go lookup the Soviet Constitution. You wonder how they could write such a document and then carry on like they did with a straight face.
From the small amount I have read of the on-line text I was surprised to find that the facts were straightforward and true. I would go so far as to say that having been in school in the mid to late 60's, this textbook was even a damned sight better than the ones I remember using. The differance lies in how the facts are interpreted. There is a political spin put on the how and the whys of things like the American Revolution, etc. if you take away all the workers and masses bullshit, it is a pretty good history textbook.
Let me get this straight, you are calling Marxist interpretations of U.S history examples of "critical thinking?"
This is a classic...
"Most are not something that people must know."
NET: This approach trains students to be skilled in applying dogmatic Marxist approaches to critically thinking about U.S. history -- and leaves them utterly clueless about "most" facts of U.S. history. And you are posting to a conservative web site?
Yes. But being that it's from:
Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, Maryland
I can't keep from wondering which book they say is propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.