This is Sad:Students Learn About Internment Camps, Not WWII Battles

[MtnBiker]

Students Learn About Internment Camps,
Not WWII Battles

On this day before the dedication of the new World War II Memorial in Washington, DC, disturbing news in a Washington Post story about what junior and senior high schoolers in the DC area are learning about World War II: More students know about Japanese-Americans being sent to internment camps, discrimination against blacks in society and the armed forces and the phenomenon of “Rosie the Riveter,” than know about any battles, the name of any General or even the name of the President. On Pearl Harbor, “instead of seeking the details of the Japanese assault on Hawaiian-based forces on Dec. 7, 1941,” an Alexandria teacher asked his class: "Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?"

An excerpt from the May 28 story on the front page of the “Metro” section, by Jay Matthews, “In Schools, a Battle on the WWII Learning Front.” (Online, the headline reads: “A Battle on the WWII Knowledge Front.” Online, the subhead: “Time, Focus Limit Area Students' Learning.) In my delivered paper the subhead was a word off: “Time, Focus Limit Area Students’ Knowledge.” The excerpt:

Tiffany Charles got a B in history last year at her Montgomery County high school, but she is not sure what year World War II ended. She cannot name a single general or battle, or the man who was president during the most dramatic hours of the 20th century.

Yet the 16-year-old does remember in some detail that many Japanese American families on the West Coast were sent to internment camps. "We talked a lot about those concentration camps," she said.

As Washington begins a massive Memorial Day weekend celebration of the new National World War II Memorial on the Mall, interviews with national education experts, teachers and more than 100 public school students suggest that Charles' limited knowledge of that momentous conflict is typical of today's youths.

Among 76 teenagers interviewed near their high schools this week in Maryland, Virginia and the District, recognition of the internment camps, a standard part of every area history curriculum, was high -- two-thirds gave the right answer when asked what happened to Japanese Americans during the war. But only one-third could name even one World War II general, and about half could name a World War II battle.


Link

 

[Annie]

I'm telling you, the books are full of Japanese and German victims. No joke. I picked the most 'objective' text 4 years ago, Prentice-Hall. There are 3 columns devoted to Japanese internment. Not one on the atrocities of Japanese to Americans, not one.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
But it's the liberal way, is it any real surprise?

Unfortunatley not suprising, still sad all the same.

 

[Annie]

Thanks Mr. Evil, I do go beyond the text. :cof:

 

[OCA]

And people think that the education system will not teach homosexuality! Pffffffft! If and when homos are infiltrated into the education system, which by the way is next on their hit parade after marriage, you can bet there will be required classes on homosexuality and they won't be teaching anything negative.

Friggin school systems nowadays, rewriting history and social correctness!

 

[krisy]

They are rewriting history,and I for one will make damn sure my 9 year old knows what happened to OUR men,not just theirs. My grandfather fought in WW2 and we can't let what all those brave men suffered through go unoticed. I learned most about WW2 in my senior year. I was fortunate to have a teacher that was objective and excellent at presenting the facts. I am so sick and tired of Liberalism taking over the schools. Just teach the facts damn it!!!

 

[Annie]

Krisy, I agree. Teachers should be teaching the facts, not what they think 'should have been.' Hey, I wish that women were given more important roles in 18th and 19th C., but they weren't. So we'll make some women who picked up a rifle a heroine? Even though there is no substance to the story? Not I.

 

[MtnBiker]

I actually don't remember learning much about WWII in school. I probably learned more about WWII in my highschool years by watching war movies. I later took it upon myself to do some reading on the subject just because it interested me.

 

[krisy]

I have always been fascinated with that particular war. My brother knows a lot about WW2 too,more than I do actually. I think he knows just about every battle and every General. I don't know if it''s because my grandpa was there,or that combined with the sheer facts of it,but I love reading on it. My bro has a knife too that my grandpa took off a German soldier. There are so ,so many things to learn about that war and I can't stand that thought of these kids being denied,I really can't.

 

[Annie]

Fascism is a cancer. Saddam was a fascist, as is Arafat and Hussein, Kim, and Khammeni. Got to deal with, as there is no such thing as appeasement.

 

[acludem]

The problem isn't one of "liberalism". That's a crock of bull. The problem is stories of great human suffering and injustice stick with you longer than the names of Generals and battles. Having taken history courses covering World War II both in high school and just recently in college, that stories of the holocaust (no, the victims weren't only Jewish or German), stories of Japanese internment camps, and stories of the women who waged the war at home by keeping American industry alive and booming stick with you. I know the names of many of the generals and battles. I don't know the names of nearly all of them. Another issue is that battles themselves are really insignificant, they are only a part of the larger issue. Students should be focusing on why the war was fought, why the Japanese attacked us, why Hitler then declared war on us, why the U.S. used the strategies they did, and why we won rather than the nuts and bolts of what battle was fought where and when. Clearly as you are discussing the afformentioned questions you're going to talk about George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Irwin Rommel, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Joseph Stalin, etc. You're going to hit on D-Day, The Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of Britain, the War in the Pacific, etc.

acludem

 

[Semper Fi]

Yup. We learned about everything in the homeland. Rationing, internment camps, ect. But nothing on D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Nothing on the Pacific. Then it came time for students to have a discussion. Some had to discuss D-Day, no one knew about it. I felt like throwing up. This is the stuff that shaped the world today, not that some Japs were put in guarded towns probably for their own good, too. (Considering that some nationalists may have harassed them elsewise.)

 

[DKSuddeth]

History in school is a joke. Has been even when I was in high school back in the day. (80-84). There needs to be two different history classes taught.... American history and world history.

For those that feel subjects like the internment camps or the indian removal act shouldn't be taught in school, give explanations why. As for not teaching about things like D-day and Tarawa, theres no excuse. These things are just as important as the others but I'm not in charge of the school curriculum........yet.

 

[Annie]

Hey DK, don't know where American and World History are not taught seperately. 6th grade is 'Global Studies'. 7th Grade-American I-Exploration-Civil War. 8th American II-Reconstruction through Current times.

High School organized the same way. Throw in optional courses in 'current events'. Honors/AP Track adds Western Civilization.

College history also follows same track. American I, American II, Western Civ I, Western Civ II, Ancient Rome/Greece/China, Far East, Near East, Middle East, Brit Hist. I, Brit Hist. II

I never said the internment camps or the Indian Removal Act shouldn't be taught in school, rather they should be in context of the time, culture, etc. Interesting that many of the same people who cry for 'understanding' for other cultures, especially those working against US interests, have so little tolerance for the different culture that existed here once upon a time.

By no means do I think there is justification for any of this, but one must study in context. Somehow history books have gotten where they put the emphasis on side issues while sometimes glossing over or skipping important aspects altogether.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Hey DK, don't know where American and World History are not taught seperately. 6th grade is 'Global Studies'. 7th Grade-American I-Exploration-Civil War. 8th American II-Reconstruction through Current times.

High School organized the same way. Throw in optional courses in 'current events'. Honors/AP Track adds Western Civilization.

College history also follows same track. American I, American II, Western Civ I, Western Civ II, Ancient Rome/Greece/China, Far East, Near East, Middle East, Brit Hist. I, Brit Hist. II

I never said the internment camps or the Indian Removal Act shouldn't be taught in school, rather they should be in context of the time, culture, etc. Interesting that many of the same people who cry for 'understanding' for other cultures, especially those working against US interests, have so little tolerance for the different culture that existed here once upon a time.

By no means do I think there is justification for any of this, but one must study in context. Somehow history books have gotten where they put the emphasis on side issues while sometimes glossing over or skipping important aspects altogether.

putting things into 'context', what does that mean? explaining it in a way so as to show that it was justified? there is no 'context' for all the bad shit that this, and other countries, have done. Maybe the reason these issues get taught is so that we'll get past our ignorance and learn from our mistakes for once.

 

[Annie]

putting things into 'context', what does that mean?

by DK Suddeth


Means that times DO change. Used to be that it was assumed that women would just gather while men hunted. Then it was tend the gardens, while men planted fields.

used to be that the first male inheirited everything, not so today.

Have to look at what was 'accepted' at that time. Doesn't mean you want any of it today.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
by DK Suddeth


Means that times DO change. Used to be that it was assumed that women would just gather while men hunted. Then it was tend the gardens, while men planted fields.

used to be that the first male inheirited everything, not so today.

Have to look at what was 'accepted' at that time. Doesn't mean you want any of it today.

ok, lets look at the indian removal act in context of back then and now. The US removed them because........

 

[Annie]

They were stronger and had more effective weapons. They thought they were 'superior' to the 'Red Man'. In no way am I excusing this, anymore than slavery. It still comes down to understanding they were dealing in 1800's and not 2004.

Does that mean that Native Americans don't deserve compensation today? I think yes they do. More than gambling casinos and such.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
They were stronger and had more effective weapons. They thought they were 'superior' to the 'Red Man'. In no way am I excusing this, anymore than slavery. It still comes down to understanding they were dealing in 1800's and not 2004.

then we haven't learned from history and things are still in the same context today because we still have the attitude of 'we are the strongest, therefore we can'.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
Students should be focusing on why the war was fought, why the Japanese attacked us, why Hitler then declared war on us, why the U.S. used the strategies they did, and why we won rather than the nuts and bolts of what battle was fought where and when.

I agree, we should study why wars are fought. But if you are going to teach the "nut and bolts" of internment camps, concentration camps, etc., you should also teach the nuts and bolts of the fighting of the war itself. At the very least, kids should learn about the different campaigns: Germany's conquests in 1939-40; the Norhern African campaign; Pearl Harbor and the Japanese victories in 1941-42; Midway; the Sicilian/Italian campaign; D-Day and the subsequent drive into Germany; MacArthur and Nimitz's drive to Japan; the A-bomb... there is a lot to teach that is important to know, not just that "we won."