How would you ...

[Pima]

A good technique might be to assign a student at least parts of a biography on a Union and Confederate soldier.
For example take two individual soldiers from Tennessee. One fought for the Union has did forty two thousand men from Tennessee see "Lincoln's Loyalists Union Soldiers from the South" Richard Current North East University Press. Marcus Woodcock was from Tennessee and early in the war he fled to Kentucky and joined the the 9th Kentucky Infantry Union.
Woodcock wrote a biography shortly after the Civil War " A Southern Boy in Blue" and then contrast that biography with " Company A t o c by Sam Watkins.
Leftyhunter

That is surely a smart thing to do. Many of you suggested an idea like this and I think that it may work nicely. I heard that in some countries they give a topic at a group and then present it. In this way the students while they are doing the work learn. Only downside: time. I don't know how many hours do you have in America but in Italy ( and I'm in a school of
human Sciences not in a scientific one ) we have only two hours. So it would be quite difficult becouse you should give some how your hours to do the work in class and then present it ( I know from experience that us students don't like to work at home for a thing that we don't like). You may do a thing like this:

Middle- Ages

You ask the students to look for the life of a Knight, a Merchant and a Priest and a woman.

Then you ask them to present it.

The Knight, the Merchant and the Priest in their books wrote surely their opinion of events, of the economic and politic situation and they were surely influenced by the mentality of the time.

A merchant may say for example that he didn't like that, even if he worked hard ( unfortunately I think that using "she" would just be plotically corret here knowing the situation of women at the time) the power was own by nobles that did not do anything. Even by analysing the composition of an army you can understand something. Why the nobles had that muche power ? Becouse in a war ( I don't know if you know Italy's situation in the 1400-1500 but in short we were not unite and we fought continuely between us, like Florence vs Arezzo for example ) did not count the fantery ( made by the people ) but the cavarly: to have an horse and to maintain it with the armor and the weapon you had to be rich and so a noble. After the presentations you summorize all the things that the students said and you may add something on your own or correct something. So you get two pidgeons with a rock, first, your students may be more interested about the work ( the teacher should give them the resources like images, textes ecc ecc ) and after the last lesson they may remember it.

 

[Pima]

Welcome, enjoy. The age of the students would also determine the subject matter to discuss

You are right. I thing that I would never ask a kid of 8 years to make me a presentation about a topic. Instead I would try to stike his / her fantasy so they woud pay attention. When I was a kid for example I could watch the images about an History Book Battle for centuries and I even messed it up by drawing more soldiers or weapons. In the elementary school History can be done more freely in my opinion. A Kid does not know it but every topic will be repeated both in the middle school and Hig School. So, to expain the Roman I could for example re-create a legion to make them understand why it was so effective in battle. Or I may tell them some tales from the point of view of a child. How shool was organised back then, the game they played. I think I could even use Children's book to catch their attention. In this way I add Historical Elements while I tell a tale.

 

[Pima]

Very important, particularly at an early age. I recently heard of a school in Britain that was teaching medieval history to the students through organized recreated battle formations. What better way to demonstate a shield wall than to have the young students form one and move forward while throwing harmless, soft projectiles at them.
I've also heard of teachers encouraging their young students to research their family history as a way to personally connect with the past.
In my opinion, the worst thing that has been done in teaching history over the years is concentrating on rote memory of dates and obscurities. That simply makes what should be a fun course boring.

I would absolutely love to do that in a class.

Of course they would be harmless things so parents would not be terrorized: "Ma', Hisory is so funny ! Today our teacher asked us to fight in formation and I had to throw javelins at the enemies"

And the second part is even better becouse you may ask the task also to students of middle and high school. So they would finally understand that History is not owned by an èlite but is owned by all the people. Sometimes I feel like this is not teached corretly, for example they consider me just a strange sort of "intellectual" just becouse I like History but that is the worst thing that they could say to me, I want to share it becouse I like it not becouse I want them to consider me a smart guy. I really want to pass this concept. I asked your opinions also for this.

 

[Pima]

To teach anything, but especially history, you have to "make the connection!" That is a relatively vague quote from the '80s but one that is so important to being a successful teacher. A teacher has to:

1) Connect the subject with the student(s).
2) Connect with the students.
3) Connect their passion for history with their teaching.

While keeping in mind that you cannot reach all of the students, you can/will reach a large majority of them. I have taught history and other subjects to classified students and non-classified students for 38 years. This approach has worked the best for me. I've watched some of the best in the profession and came away a much better teacher for it. It keeps you fresh and keeps the subject clear of "dust."

Oh, thank you for posting, this may be very useful in the future !

Usually I quote my good old friend Manzoni ( If only he did not make that "The Betrothed" so long )

His thoughs were similar to yours:

" the purpose has to be useful, the subject is the truth and the means to communicate it have to be interesting "

I think that may sum up everything we said in this topic.

 

[Pima]

The most important thing is to be genuinely passionate and interested in the history. If the teacher or tour guide doesn't seem genuinely interested in the subject why should the students or visitors?

Yes, I totally agree with you in this point.

On Tuesday I will have a presentation about WW1 and I really worked hard to make it interesting. Hopefully I'Il catch their attention. I'Il have to battle hard.

In the future I may want to do a presentation about the Civil War and I'Il surely ask your help to interest them but also to be Historically correct. This is the right place to do a thing like that.

The Civil War in Italy is know for the fight to free the slaves and freedom is really a cool topic to talk about.

Don't worry, I'm not gonna say that the Railroad is the true cause of the war ( just joking, History is History and if there are arguments to support the thesis I'Il hear with all my ears to learn something new )

* And of course, I'Il surely show this forum to thank you for the help ^^

 

[leftyhunter]

That is surely a smart thing to do. Many of you suggested an idea like this and I think that it may work nicely. I heard that in some countries they give a topic at a group and then present it. In this way the students while they are doing the work learn. Only downside: time. I don't know how many hours do you have in America but in Italy ( and I'm in a school of
human Sciences not in a scientific one ) we have only two hours. So it would be quite difficult becouse you should give some how your hours to do the work in class and then present it ( I know from experience that us students don't like to work at home for a thing that we don't like). You may do a thing like this:

Middle- Ages

You ask the students to look for the life of a Knight, a Merchant and a Priest and a woman.

Then you ask them to present it.

The Knight, the Merchant and the Priest in their books wrote surely their opinion of events, of the economic and politic situation and they were surely influenced by the mentality of the time.

A merchant may say for example that he didn't like that, even if he worked hard ( unfortunately I think that using "she" would just be plotically corret here knowing the situation of women at the time) the power was own by nobles that did not do anything. Even by analysing the composition of an army you can understand something. Why the nobles had that muche power ? Becouse in a war ( I don't know if you know Italy's situation in the 1400-1500 but in short we were not unite and we fought continuely between us, like Florence vs Arezzo for example ) did not count the fantery ( made by the people ) but the cavarly: to have an horse and to maintain it with the armor and the weapon you had to be rich and so a noble. After the presentations you summorize all the things that the students said and you may add something on your own or correct something. So you get two pidgeons with a rock, first, your students may be more interested about the work ( the teacher should give them the resources like images, textes ecc ecc ) and after the last lesson they may remember it.

Teaching anything worthwhile takes time. How much time should be spent learning history vs other subjects such has math, physical sciences, computer sciences etc is a question that parents need to take up with their school boards. No easy answer.
I also understand that students have sports and other extra curricular activities plus working part-time jobs and dating. So it's impossible to really teach history in depth to middle or high school students. The best a teacher can do us encourage students to learn on their own which is easier said then done.
Societies that do not learn from history are not going to have a bright future. Getting young people to learn history on their own is quite the challenge.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Yes, I totally agree with you in this point.

On Tuesday I will have a presentation about WW1 and I really worked hard to make it interesting. Hopefully I'Il catch their attention. I'Il have to battle hard.

In the future I may want to do a presentation about the Civil War and I'Il surely ask your help to interest them but also to be Historically correct. This is the right place to do a thing like that.

The Civil War in Italy is know for the fight to free the slaves and freedom is really a cool topic to talk about.

Don't worry, I'm not gonna say that the Railroad is the true cause of the war ( just joking, History is History and if there are arguments to support the thesis I'Il hear with all my ears to learn something new )

* And of course, I'Il surely show this forum to thank you for the help ^^

Just a thought one could do a compare and contrast American Civil War guerrilla warfare vs Italian guerrilla warfare during WWII against the Germans. One could compare American Civil War ( ACW) counterinsurgency vs Italian counterinsurgency in Yugoslavia during WWII.
Just food for thought.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi, first thread and first curiosity to accomplish. The question is simple: how would you teach History if you were a teacher ? Now I'Il try to explain my position to create a fruitful debate.

Here we all like History. Maybe se like more a certain period than another, for example I really like the Civil War while I absolutely hate the Italian Renaissance. In addition everyone in his experience will form in own opinion on History. In my opinion, in Italy History at school la very boring. The book in particuliar does non attract a student so if you have to study for an oral text that will be extremely difficult and long. I personally think that the text is boring becouse what it tries to do is just a big overall summery of an argument. The teacher knows that so she does not follow the book. The problem is the way she expains History becouse all she does is talking while we take notes. So we students seem like amanuensis. My schoolmates really like this method, not becouse she is good at teaching but just becouse they won't need to study on the book, that as I said is boring. The teacher will ask us only what she said on the notes so everyone at the end is happy. I personally survive just becouse I have a general knowledge and I read some books on the topic ( WW1, WW2 and so on, I'm in the last year) but while she was talking today a question came in my mind. What would I do if I were a techer ? So I started this topic.

What would I personally do is a middle-way. I know that it is boring and I'Il try everything to attract the students but I would also avoid being too precise. If you are wondering I'm not willing to be an History Teacher neither an Historian, I would prefer to be a museum guide.

I'm really looking forward to see your answers. I have been here for a while here without making a profile and you are all very experts of the topic. So, let's make an example: if you have to talk the class about the big topic Civil war what would you do ?

Sorry for my bad English, I will try to get better

PS: A curiosity of mine, in the good old USA how is History teached at school ?

I forgot the name but there was at least one Confederate general who earlier fought in the Italian Unification War . Maybe @cash or at @johan_steele would know his name.
Leftyhunter

 

[WJC]

History is not owned by an èlite but is owned by all the people.

Thanks for your response.
I cringe every time someone in the media claims, "We are seeing history here today!" 'History' is being made every day, not just by generals, presidents, monarchs and celebrities, but by the 'ordinary people doing 'everyday' things: you, me and the millions around the world. It's like one great rugby scrum, all of us together doing our part, changing the world a little each day.

 

[Pima]

Teaching anything worthwhile takes time. How much time should be spent learning history vs other subjects such has math, physical sciences, computer sciences etc is a question that parents need to take up with their school boards. No easy answer.
I also understand that students have sports and other extra curricular activities plus working part-time jobs and dating. So it's impossible to really teach history in depth to middle or high school students. The best a teacher can do us encourage students to learn on their own which is easier said then done.
Societies that do not learn from history are not going to have a bright future. Getting young people to learn history on their own is quite the challenge.
Leftyhunter

Now I understood my teacher. She does not want to teach us History so we will look for it in other books. Quite smart indeed. Yeah that is why I surely won't be a teacher. Maybe in the elementary school you are more free and you can attract the people. I totally agree with your last sentence

 

[Pima]

Just a thought one could do a compare and contrast American Civil War guerrilla warfare vs Italian guerrilla warfare during WWII against the Germans. One could compare American Civil War ( ACW) counterinsurgency vs Italian counterinsurgency in Yugoslavia during WWII.
Just food for thought.
Leftyhunter

High quality food I must say.
The topic seems really nice to me: I must admit I do not know very much about guerrilla during the America Civil War ( was it Quantrill ? Or was it Sherman ? That may be a question for a new topic ! )

I don't know if my schoolmates know even what guerrilla is. I shall give a definition but that should not be so hard

 

[leftyhunter]

High quality food I must say.
The topic seems really nice to me: I must admit I do not know very much about guerrilla during the America Civil War ( was it Quantrill ? Or was it Sherman ? That may be a question for a new topic ! )

I don't know if my schoolmates know even what guerrilla is. I shall give a definition but that should not be so hard

We have quite a few thread's on guerrillas. Both the Union and the Confederacy extensively used guerrilla warfare and both sides got bogged in counterinsurgency. I can bump up a few if my thread's on that subject if you like. Quantrill was arguably the most famous ACW guerrilla but but he was far from the only one. I N one way the ACW was similar to WWII in that there was simultaneous conventional and guerrilla
warfare.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

High quality food I must say.
The topic seems really nice to me: I must admit I do not know very much about guerrilla during the America Civil War ( was it Quantrill ? Or was it Sherman ? That may be a question for a new topic ! )

I don't know if my schoolmates know even what guerrilla is. I shall give a definition but that should not be so hard

General Sherman was a conventional military officer who used conventional techniques. Sherman by no means was the first general without a logistical supply line who instead just had his troops forage off the land. Union general Samuel Curtis had his troops forage from Prairie Grove, Arkansas to Helena, Arkansas.
Leftyhunter

 

[gary]

Two books with one for each side. Each must be a first hand account by a soldier and must have a lot of pictures. Albert(?) Bellard's Gone for a soldier for the Union side. Perhaps A Pair of Blankets for the confederate. Teacher provides the narrative, guidance and moderation of any discussion.

 

[Pima]

General Sherman was a conventional military officer who used conventional techniques. Sherman by no means was the first general without a logistical supply line who instead just had his troops forage off the land. Union general Samuel Curtis had his troops forage from Prairie Grove, Arkansas to Helena, Arkansas.
Leftyhunter

Thank you for the clarification ! ^^

From my inexperience I probably have confused it with the scorched earth technique. I probably considered it as an "unconventional" way to fight.

 

[leftyhunter]

Thank you for the clarification ! ^^

From my inexperience I probably have confused it with the scorched earth technique. I probably considered it as an "unconventional" way to fight.

It's a bit of a myth that Sherman burned much of Georgia. @cash has pointed that out in numerous Sherman bashing thread's.
Leftyhunter

 

[Pima]

Two books with one for each side. Each must be a first hand account by a soldier and must have a lot of pictures. Albert(?) Bellard's Gone for a soldier for the Union side. Perhaps A Pair of Blankets for the confederate. Teacher provides the narrative, guidance and moderation of any discussion.

Luckily for us internet now exists. So many information in a single place ! This is one of the best way in my opinion and it is even quite effective. I did a school project of video-making. I chose as theme WW1 and I read some letters from the front by an italian soldier and by an austrian-hungiarian empire soldier. They said the same things even if they were on opposite fronts: the terrible conditions in the trench, the feeling that war was useless and that the enemy was not reallty an enemy to hate, the desire to return home by the warm family. One in particuliar was sad becouse this soldier was going to die soon, he was badly blessed and in his last letter to his family he wrote at his little son. I mean, I do not want to make people cry everytime but that letter gave the idea how war is both stupid and terrible. If I had to do a similar presentation I would need surely the internet becouse in Italy we do not have anything about America, only Old Wild est things ( that I quite like).

We have quite a few thread's on guerrillas. Both the Union and the Confederacy extensively used guerrilla warfare and both sides got bogged in counterinsurgency. I can bump up a few if my thread's on that subject if you like. Quantrill was arguably the most famous ACW guerrilla but but he was far from the only one. I N one way the ACW was similar to WWII in that there was simultaneous conventional and guerrilla
warfare.
Leftyhunter

Uh, I discovered how to multi-quote and I found out that I totally missed this message.
If you could link me your topic it would be amazing ^^

 

[leftyhunter]

Luckily for us internet now exists. So many information in a single place ! This is one of the best way in my opinion and it is even quite effective. I did a school project of video-making. I chose as theme WW1 and I read some letters from the front by an italian soldier and by an austrian-hungiarian empire soldier. They said the same things even if they were on opposite fronts: the terrible conditions in the trench, the feeling that war was useless and that the enemy was not reallty an enemy to hate, the desire to return home by the warm family. One in particuliar was sad becouse this soldier was going to die soon, he was badly blessed and in his last letter to his family he wrote at his little son. I mean, I do not want to make people cry everytime but that letter gave the idea how war is both stupid and terrible. If I had to do a similar presentation I would need surely the internet becouse in Italy we do not have anything about America, only Old Wild est things ( that I quite like).



Uh, I discovered how to multi-quote and I found out that I totally missed this message.
If you could link me your topic it would be amazing ^^

No problem I will bump up two threads you might find interesting. I also have a thread on the moderated forum Compare and Contrast the American Civil War with the Vietnam War of 1957 to 1975.
Leftyhunter

 

[Pima]

It's a bit of a myth that Sherman burned much of Georgia. @cash has pointed that out in numerous Sherman bashing thread's.
Leftyhunter

Then I will surely read that. I must have heard it somewhere and it got stuck in my mind. Well, it is good to destroy a prejudice and I shall inform myself better before speaking, even if I like being corrected, otherwise I could not learn.

 

[leftyhunter]

Then I will surely read that. I must have heard it somewhere and it got stuck in my mind. Well, it is good to destroy a prejudice and I shall inform myself better before speaking, even if I like being corrected, otherwise I could not learn.

Sherman is quite a controversial figure in ACW history to say the least.
Kind of a love him or hate him kind of guy. Sherman gets bashed by some admirers of Major General Rosecrans and Thomas. We don't know how Thomas actually felt about Sherman because Thomas's wife burned his private paper's upon his death.
Leftyhunter