I'm going to start with a little story, about a teacher that I once worked with. We were tasked with planning out an entire year's worth of Middle School Social Studies curriculum. Sounds like fun, right?
Well...mostly...
My partner and I ended up having a little bit of a disagreement. This individual wanted to focus on Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome--with a little mention of India and China--while I wanted a broader view of history. I wanted to explore. I wanted...a varied view of history.
The obvious question is, why? Why do I want to take a varied view of history? Because, quite frankly, I think that it is important for my students.
But why? A critique might ask. Your compatriot was simply saying that you should focus on the basic road of Western Civilization, which is what the entire American civilization is based on.
If the topic's not part of our individual heritage, why should you care?
Because, I would counter, while American civilization is based on Western Civilization (meaning the philosophies and histories of the cultures of Europe, slowly moving further west from Mesopotamia as time goes by), that's no longer the case.
Let's look at some (be still, my heart) data.
The US currently had a population of 323,127,513 as of July 1st, 2016 (source). Let's simplify that to 323,000,000--because fewer non-zero digits make for happier numbers.
When the English first colonized the new world, the majority of the population in those colonies were from the UK. Other areas of what would become the US were filled with the Spanish, the French--at points, the Russians--and lots and lots of native Americans who would soon learn about the wonders of small-pox. Nothing makes people want to abandon settled cities like plague, and there's no plague like one you've probably never encountered. Anyway, of the people in the colonies, they had much bigger problems than education. Like finding food.
Go figure, most people prioritize food over knowledge.
So, let's skip ahead to the founding of the Republic, where our makeup is...still surprisingly homogeneous among the free population. Largely white, largely Western European, and largely protestant (side note: it just struck me as a little odd that the very west-west-west European power that started what would be the US happened to be the one west-west-west European power that is not Catholic. In terms of populations, that was not exactly likely). However, now that food is such a small problem that it can be exported without causing a major riot, education is seen as important. And, what do the thinkers of the time choose to read about? Well...everything, really.
Both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, of course, have plenty of references to Enlightenment thought. From the whole, "Life, liberty, and property," (sorry, "Pursuit of Happiness" for the edited version) to the belief in, "inalienable rights," Western thought is well represented. However, there's also references to Musselmen, a little bit of India, a little bit of China, all of these far cultures are seen as interesting to the early thinkers. However, what was taught in the schools? Well, to call it a mixed bag would be an understatement (source source). In some places education as we would recognize it was widely available. Other places had only apprenticeships, while still others had little more than private tutors for the wealthy. The subjects taught tended to be associated with the fashions of Europe, which revolved around the classics. In other words, not the sort of subject American children would be learning today.
Why did they learn these things?
Well, US education today is largely based around the idea of public education being a public good, with the ultimate goal of education to benefit society as a whole. Back then, education was more seen as a private good--with the ultimate goal being the benefit of the individual. As such, the cost/benefit for choosing what to teach students used a different metric. Also affecting these decision was that the skills students would need as adults were very different from today. For example, as computers weren't in existence yet, it would be illogical to teach the students how to keyboard. Likewise, because calculators are so common today--and calculator facsimiles making what would have long ago been daily calculations unnecessary--it is becoming harder and harder to justify forcing students to do all calculations quickly. Simple addition and multiplication problems, yes; calculated algebra and geometry, probably not.
Since the American Revolutionary War, both the demographics of the country and the skills that students will need to know have changed. Using the 2015 demographics (source), we can note some interesting demographic changes along racial lines. First, the percentage of the population that identifies as white has increased from 72.4% to 77.1%.
"Huzzah!" A traditionalist would say, "evidence that we should continue to focus on history as we always have."
"Good try, my fine friend," I counter, "but did you know that in the early part of the 20th century, Irish people weren't considered to be white?"
"So what?" Replies the traditionalist.
"Well, look again at the data, and see what I mean." The percentage of white-alone, non-Hispanic has decreased from 63.7% to 61.6%, while the percentage of white-alone, Hispanic has increased from 16.3% to 17.6%.
The definition of white as a racial group has increased to include Hispanics. And it's growing.
There is currently a discussion going on in the US, and it mostly appears across generational lines. It asks this question: are Asians white? (source) I'm not currently at that point yet--although I have no problem with the idea, I'm still just getting used to it--but the fact remains that the definition of what makes someone write is growing. In many ways it's losing its traditional definition, relating to heritage and genetic. Instead, it seems to have more to do with both position in American society and skin color as a whole. Which does beg the question: will African Americans ever become, "white"?
Sadly, that's not a question I'm going to explore now.
Instead, I'm more interested in what this expanding definition has to do with teaching Social Studies. As I said at the start, I'm more interested in teaching from a varied perspective of history, rather than the more traditional, Western-centric view (But India...you might say. Uh, British colonialism, I'm going to reply). The factors and histories that are now affecting the development of US society--I would argue--are expanding with the definition of what it means to be white. As such, I don't see teaching the histories of places such as China--or, if we're far enough along in world history--the nations of the Americas--which can lead to a great discussion of what makes a nation, a state, and a nation-state. In doing so, I don't see myself as teaching my students things that they will never need to know. Rather, I see myself as giving my students the information to understand where they come from, where they currently stand in the world, and what they can do to affect the future.
And if we don't empower students by giving their whole selves a place in the school, then what kind of a message are we telling them about their place in society?
