World History in the Secondary School Curriculum.
Since 1980 an increasing number of state and local education agencies have reintroduced a world history requirement into their secondary curricula. These mandates have raised important questions about the nature of such a course and its role in the curriculum.
WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND TO CURRENT DEBATES ABOUT CURRICULUM REFORM IN WORLD HISTORY? In 1963, world history was the second most commonly taken high school social studies course. Although called "world" history, the course dealt almost exclusively with Western political history, typically a chronological survey of the actions and contributions of great men.
By the mid-1970s world history had fallen from favor. Most states and local school districts had dropped this decades-old requirement to give students greater academic freedom. Many schools offered alternative "world studies" courses, usually based on cultural geography.
The standard world history course also changed. By the end of the decade more attention was being given to social history and the non-Western world. As a result the threads of the old political survey were frayed. The course seemed to be a mishmash of conflicting goals and unrelated content.
The movement toward academic rigor in the early 1980s gave new impetus to world history. The easiest way for most schools to respond to outside pressure was to re-establish the world history requirement. Today states as diverse as Kentucky, New Jersey, Arkansas, and Oregon have some kind of tenth-grade world studies requirement. But the shape of that course differs greatly from one place to another. The once uniform image of "world history" no longer exists.
The current confusion about world history courses reflects conflicting beliefs about the kind of history we should teach. The debate focuses on the place of non-Western history, the importance of social history, and the value of the continuous, chronological survey.
SHOULD TEACHERS EMPHASIZE THE HISTORY OF THE WEST OR OF THE WORLD? The world history that emerged during the 1970s was not a "world" history at all. It was a poorly integrated amalgam of regional histories fitted uncomfortably into the chronology of the West. As a result, the added material exacerbated age-old problems of coverage. By the mid-1980s, many observers recognized the need for a better conceptualization (Alder and Downey 1985).
In part because of the lack of an agreed-upon, integrated view of "world" history, there has been a renewed support for the teaching of Western civilization in recent years. The appeal of the Western civilization approach lies in its familiarity. The majority of American political and social institutions also find their origins in the Western experience (Gordon 1989; Gagnon 1987). Some curriculum reformers have gone further, arguing that students must know their own culture before they can appreciate other cultures.
On the other side are those who argue that a changing world requires that students have a broader experience than the Western civilization course can provide. We live in a world no longer dominated by the West. Increased immigration from Asia and Latin America has added new sources of diversity to culture in the United States. To the extent that the study of Western civilization encourages a narrow ethnocentrism, it may prove dysfunctional in preparing students for life in the future.
California's curriculum, they argue folds students into a "we" that is Western, Judeo-Christian, and has a democratic government with a capitalist market economy. These are juxtaposed against "them": non-Western, not Judeo-Christian, and totalitarian (or not free). While case examples of non-European nations moving toward political democracy (such as South Korea) and European nations moving toward fascism (such as Germany) suggest that particular systems do not necessarily follow particular peoples, repeated emphasis of "our" roots in Western (particularly British) traditions attaches "us" to Europe.
But the United States is multiracial and religiously diverse. The framework and standards use the language of multiculturalism to fold diverse people into this "we" mainly by celebrating cultural contributions of non-whites. In fifth grade, for example, students should "learn about the significant contributions that black men and women made to the economic, political, and cultural development of the nation, including its music, literature, art, science, medicine, technology, and scholarship." But these significant contributions are not generally spelled out. Neither are exploitative conditions under which many such "contributions" were made, such as unpaid or poorly paid labor. The curriculum acknowledges struggles of immigrants and African Americans, but emphasizes that opportunities have outweighed struggles.
The standards have difficulty incorporating as "we" those whom the United States had previously colonized. Being written for California, they simply ignore colonized peoples outside of California, such as Puerto Ricans and Hawaiians. They treat Mexicans mainly as immigrants, ignoring that the United States took California from Mexico after waging war against Mexico. They locate Native Americans in the past. This is also the only American cultural group that is studied through separate units that survey culture, religious beliefs, economic activities, legends, and so forth, and only at the elementary level. (Imagine, by way of contrast, students studying the culture, religious beliefs, economy, and stories of English-Americans in fifth grade, and then not much after that.)
Article on the Importance of Greek Culture to the West and thus High School History should focus on the great contributions of Western Civilization.
'Greek myths at bedtime'
In the recent enthusiasm for the Olympics, it seems reasonable to reflect on the fact that the whole world accepts this ancient Greek concept as a Good Thing. The Greeks invented competitive sport, initially as training for war, then as a substitute for it, and gave to athletic prowess the heroic image it still has today.
Our schools are imbued through and through with the gifts of the Greeks: not only sport but almost every aspect of the curriculum owes its place to the concepts they initiated and developed. In Mathematics, we all remember Pythagoras, that founder of a strange cult that avoided eating beans. Scientists apply the techniques of observation and deduction and the sheer curiosity about natural laws shown by Thales, Empedocles, Hippocrates the doctor, Archimedes and countless others. ÒHistoryÓ and ÒgeographyÓ are both Greek words; the former means ÒresearchÓ, the latter, Òearth-drawingÓ.Ê Music and drama in the forms most familiar to us developed from the culture of the Greek city-state. And as for literature, most of it can be traced back to Homer.
Many critics of the current movie Troy have complained about the changes made to the Homeric story. What has not been widely acknowledged is how true the film is to concepts we have taken from Homer and made so much part of our thinking that we donÕt realise their origin. I refer to the concept of the violent action-hero with complex motives, the duel-to-death of the main antagonists, the view of war as simultaneously tragic and heroic, the conflicting attractions of brief glory or dull longevity, the destructive effects of unlawful passion - in fact, many of the ingredients of modern fiction and modern film are derived from the Iliad of Homer. The same poetÕs Odyssey gives us the archetypal story of the resourceful wanderer trying to reach his goal through many colourful adventures; it even features that staple of cinema narrative, the flashback.
The ancient Greeks were a fragmented people. They shared a language and a religion but not a political structure: all their towns and cities were self-governing and often at war with each other. Alexander the Great ( the subject of more movies in the pipeline) united the Greek world by conquest and founded Greek-speaking communities all over the eastern Mediterranean, but it was left to the rich, well-organised, imperialistic Romans to spread the legacy of Greek culture so efficiently that it became part and parcel of being European.
What used to be European culture is now international. That blend of Greek ideas and Roman magnificence became the Classical culture that we see in Troy, the modern Olympic Games, the rhetoric of democracy, the Latin mottoes of our schools and institutions, the brand names that are everywhere: Apollo, Pluravit, Nike, Vulcan, Telstra, Olympus, Magna, Polydent, Omega, Durotuss, to take a sample. We hardly notice and seldom acknowledge the visual symbols from the Classical world that surround us: the Corinthian columns, the ValentineÕs Day Cupids, the olive branch and the laurel wreath, the eagle, the owl and the dove, the masks of tragedy and comedy.
Our children need to learn this Classical heritage. Mythology is a good place to start. There are lots of excellent retellings of Classical myths and legends for all ages. Children love the original stories as much as they take to books like Harry Potter which derive so much from these ancient stories. They can then appreciate why we talk of AchillesÕ heel or the Golden Fleece or the many-headed Hydra or the Oedipus complex. They will look at famous paintings with familiarity. They will acquire what has been called 'cultural literacy' .
The study of Latin and Greek could come next. Nearly all English words beyond the most basic come from these languages;Ê thatÕs what gives English its rich, many-layered vocabulary. 'Eye' is Anglo-Saxon, 'ocular' is Latin, 'optometrist' is Greek.Ê 'Foot' is Anglo, ÒpedalÓ is Latin, ÒpodiatristÓ is Greek. 'Air' is from Greek, because only the Greeks realised the existence of this invisible substance and gave it a name. And then thereÕs the literature. Imagine reading Homer in HomerÕs own words.Ê ItÕs a crying shame that Latin and classical Greek are taught in very few state schools. We are denying most of our children their cultural heritage, their knowledge of a Dreamtime that belongs to all Westerners.