I'm a Canadian teacher with a background in history, so while I don't have a patriotic stake in this post, I do have a stake in the way people view and understand and debate history.
I agree that it's important to learn the "good, bad and ugly" about history -- otherwise, how would it ever teach us anything about ourselves, which is what the study of history purports to do?
But if you're going to introduce refutuations of a particular perception of history, you've got to be sure your grounding is solid enough to withstand counter-refutations.
So I agree with commenters who criticize the unmediated references to Wikipedia as a source. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I refer my students to it too, ***but with this caution***:
The argument that Wikipedia contains useful and often accurate material isn't convincing: as with any encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be used as a starting point ONLY and should ALWAYS be cross-referenced (encyclopedias can be biased too -- even the vaunted Britannica!).
It's more responsible to dig further into the sources that Wikipedia lists for its own material and make reference to those that are reliable.
I'm sorry, Jill, but I had to snort when you rebutted the criticism by saying, "Wikipedia was simply an easy place to link readers to for additional information since I can't remember where I learned everything I read or watched." That's just sloppy. If my students told me that, I'd send them BACK to Wikipedia to show me where their "authoritative information" was coming from and evaluate its reliability before trying to pass it off as fact.
Otherwise, thanks for some interesting reading. :) Some of you might enjoy the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me."
I agree that it's important to learn the "good, bad and ugly" about history -- otherwise, how would it ever teach us anything about ourselves, which is what the study of history purports to do?
But if you're going to introduce refutuations of a particular perception of history, you've got to be sure your grounding is solid enough to withstand counter-refutations.
So I agree with commenters who criticize the unmediated references to Wikipedia as a source. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I refer my students to it too, ***but with this caution***:
The argument that Wikipedia contains useful and often accurate material isn't convincing: as with any encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be used as a starting point ONLY and should ALWAYS be cross-referenced (encyclopedias can be biased too -- even the vaunted Britannica!).
It's more responsible to dig further into the sources that Wikipedia lists for its own material and make reference to those that are reliable.
I'm sorry, Jill, but I had to snort when you rebutted the criticism by saying, "Wikipedia was simply an easy place to link readers to for additional information since I can't remember where I learned everything I read or watched." That's just sloppy. If my students told me that, I'd send them BACK to Wikipedia to show me where their "authoritative information" was coming from and evaluate its reliability before trying to pass it off as fact.
Otherwise, thanks for some interesting reading. :) Some of you might enjoy the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me."