Next Article
Back to Zine cover
History and Geography were easier to learn when there wasn't as much of it and it didn't change every week. Geography classes, in particular, in case any institutions of learning offer them any more, should be called "Geography As Of This Year", in hopes that the maps and globes used are not too out of date by the end of the semester.
When I learned geography over half a century ago, the entire center of Africa was a huge space called "The Congo", with plenty of room to print "Congo" in nice big letters on the globe. Sort of the way Mother Russia and her dozens of children were a huge space called "USSR", but less scary. Now, of course, it's 30 or 40 small countries with unpronouncable or unspellable names, named after whichever latest bloodthirsty savage led his tribe in slaughtering everybody else. This is not a criticism of Africa, because it is not unique to Africa. The same type of savages carry on the same type of savagery all over the world, from Eastern Europe to the middle East to islands we didn't know were there and wish we still didn't, to (any day now, from the sound of it) the state of Washington on our own West coast. The point can be made and well taken that Los Angeles fits the bill, too, but my money is on Washington State. Of course such savages have done so since time began, but usually without the wide-eyed, heavy-breathing presence of CNN and BBC reporters to report it all to the rest of us every evening at dinner. Just think of all the history and geography we might have missed. Especially if we had to leave the table to throw up.
I've considered starting a petition to declare this old adage (being pretty sure this is a more proper way to arrive at old adages than to accept the kind reporters think up on the spur of the minute) (and if it isn't one, it should be): If retired people in their 70's were teaching American History in schools, the kids would learn history (and a fascinating subject the real thing is, too) instead of revisionism and America-bashing. For a very simple reason: we were there.
Unfortunately, plain old American History and Geography were already being gathered under the umbrella of "Social Studies" when I left school half a century ago, leading my parents' generation to ask, "What the *** is Social Studies?" Granted, half a century is a long time to those looking forward, but it isn't to those looking back on one. So I can answer that question for the 1950's, after which I'm as confused as they were. In the mid 50's (other than "If you chew gum in class you will be taken out and stoned") it was Integration, a lofty and timely idea whose time had loftily come, and which led immediately (or as soon as we all passed the semester) to the wholesale busing of kids all over creation to attend schools they lived six or eight school districts away from. Admittedly, this did achieve integration, as well as a 1000% or so increase in gasoline consumption by school buses, and I'm sure you have an opinion of what that has led to. Let me stress that Integration is all it was about. The term Civil Rights had yet to be heard. Parenthetically, it wasn't long before kids rarely passed a semester of Social Studies or anything else ever again. Those kids, as was still common in those days, grew up and had more kids. I don't know what the more kids learned in Social Studies, because I don't recall my own passing it, either. But where are those "more kids" now? They are teaching Social Studies to your grandkids.
From this end of the spectrum, I see the inherent wisdom of whoever decided to call it Social Studies. In the beginning, Social = relationships with other people and Studies = learning about. Perhaps anything that simple, if aptly named, is easy to change without anybody noticing. A couple of generations later it has reached its intended meaning. Social = Socialism and Studies = Indoctrination. That is the inherent wisdom that people who were in school in the 50s are not the only people to see.
I read that the grandkids of the 70-somethings mentioned above, the 70-somethings I consider more qualified to teach anybody anything than the current crop of politically appointed (NEA) teachers are, remain humiliatingly near the bottom of the scale, if not actually on the bottom, by which the success of teaching, i.e. learning, is measured: the SAT scores. Amazingly, it was not necessary to compare SAT scores between countries half a century ago, although I'm sure that, if anyone wants to prove that it was, they need only conduct a study with that as the desired outcome, and voila! they will prove it. That is how studies are done to prove things somebody wants to prove, as anybody in a current Social Studies or Science class can tell you. Except if they told, they'd be taken out and stoned; more serious lapses, such as common sense, having replaced the crime of chewing gum.
Normally, at least in the past, things change or self-correct in a generation or two or three. The see-saw gets heavy on the up end and the up end plops down. But I won't be around for the next one. There's a boulder sitting on the down end right now, and boulders don't crumble that fast.
Yes, that's a simplistic metaphor, which people used to think up all by themselves without seeing it on TV. Just as people knew how to read, spell, count change, do math in their heads or on paper, and not chew gum (or shoot guns) in class. They may not have been socially conscious (was that such a bad thing?) or politically correct (I rest my case) but they were educated. What consciousness and correctness is necessary used to come with that. It wasn't a forced indoctrination of the current views of the totalitarian State (why does that sound familiar?). It was called learning to think for yourself.
Thanks for reading.