Raymond Blair

1. What makes a good history teacher? I find this question to almost be impossible to answer. I think it is almost at the core of the problem of evaluating teaching. A competent observer can tell good teaching when they see it, but it is near impossible to create an effective rubric that accurately rates a teacher's abilities. Factors short of an adequate education include: Ability to connect with the students, enthusiasm for learning, charisma, energy, willingness to be a continual learner, ability to continue to lesson plan even in subjects taught by that teacher for decades. Someone who starts out under-qualified by degree can get to that point with hard work and a deidcation to doing things as well as they can. Nothing teaches a subject to someone better than trying to teach something. That is one of the inronies of education. 2. What are the problems with non-specialists? The key problems with non-specialists are many. We do not have anyone I would call non-specialists in my history department, but I was taught history in high school and dreaded it. If the non-specialist is in the history classsroom in order to keep a coaching job or for some other reason, then that is a problem. A lack of dedication to teaching history can be a problem. If the motivation to improve is not there, or the knowledge that it could and should be done a lot better in not there, we have a problem. Having non-specialists in your department is something that can be addressed in a positive manner. Modelling effective. energetic teaching and showing an enthusiam to help non-specialists become specialists seems to me a much better approach than grumpling about the sad sacks teaching history to a better informed clleague over a cup of coffee. For department chairs, it seems there are some great ideas. The folders could be very helpful, as long as it doesn't turn into a handout scenario where the non-specialist remains a non-specialist. Classroom supervision and evaluation with a clear message that there are resources for improvement for non-specialists, and that the observations are not meant to embarass or find grounds for firing someone. Non-specialists with a thirst for knowledge and a healthy support team cannot remain non-specialists for long. Someone who has been in a history classroom for five years who is still a non-specialist is a failure on the personal and institutional level. These are obviously disorganized opinions and not scientific evidence. So get you grain of salt out.

This is a very insightful and informative thread. As a general comment, I have been hoping to stumble upon a great collection of 10 sec to onr minute long video clips of historical material to use during lectures to break up things and get students to interact a little more with the material. So far I have not had a lot of luck, most supllemental cds are little more than a colleciton of the images already in my studnets' text books. Hopefully there is rich material to mine in here. Thanks

This seminar and many other quality additions make me further question the end product student we create here in the United States. I do not take students that far in critical thinking in an exercise, ( I teach general track at a private school, not honors) But i do not think I could in the United States AP system because of the scope of information required to pass our AP tests with a high score. Anyway, I love using films for class. I love having a great demonstration of a way to use a particular film. I use an assingment where students watch a movie that depicts history and then they right a two page paper about it. They must demonstrate that they recognize that filmmakers use their medium to try to persuade their audience. History is not just a setting, and in films there are always biases or arguments being presented. Here is an example of one of the assignments. What I like about it is that it does not monopolize classroom time. I do show some movies in class. For my US history class I use the movie Amistad and find it a wonderful film that is alive with many overlapping issues of US history. In my Twentieth Century class I show 13 Days and a documentary called One Day in September

I think that we all bring biases and preconceptions into the classroom and that will often affect what we present as teachers in the classroom. But I think as historians we need to be aware of those preconceptions and biases and minimize and downplay them as much as possible. I have always been put off by the argument that biases are inevetable so it is fair or even more honest to nakedly promote the individual ideology of the teacher. The unacceptable (IMHO) downside of intentionally bringing ideology into the classroom (democracy as historical inevitability, working class movements leading to a better way of life in the industrialized world) is that students and parents can feel that a teacher is using a history classroom as a political or social policy forum. We can say that certain things happened in the past but we do not know whether democracy or welfare states will last into the next century. These things are a product of their particular historical environment. John, I agree that historical studies should include in depth looks at subjects. But my point is that in the immensely broad framework I laid out for subjects of study, there is more than fertile ground for digging deep into certain topics in depth. I never did post that I thought all teaching had to skim across the surface of every subject.

I would like to chime in here on the question at the head of this thread, but I feel lost in answering anything but . . . everything. Are you asking what a college graduate or a high school graduate should know about history to have either degree? I am more of a timeline person. I will stick with what an American high school student should know. Western Civilization from Egypt/Babylon through the present. World Civilization with a clear presentation of at least Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East. United States history from Columbus to the present. I think this education should be able to provide a base for a more thorough investigation of historical topics in college. The concepts of social, political, and economic history should be easy for a graduate to understand, and they should be able to critically compare cultures (east/west) and time periods (colonial America/ Civil War United States) in social history, along the way students should see the differences in religions and their particular cultural influences, be able to empathize with various class interests of different periods, understand gender differences by period and region, see the difference in basic rights/liberties for different places and times (also students should have learned intellectual developments (Buddhism, Romanticism, Enlightenment, Modernism, Confucianism, Bushido code, etc) these devlopments hopefully would be suplemented by literature/English classes) in economic history students should be able to understand various different systems by their economies from the Greek city-state, to the Roman empire, through eastern empires, imperialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, command economy, mixed economy in political history students should have an understanding of anarchism, despotism, monarchy, theocracy, democracy, totalitarinaism, imperialism, communism, socialism, That is my ten minute shot at this topic.

In my meager studies on the issue I find India to be an odd choice to put forward as a celebration of democracy. On the plus side, it seems to be an exception to my belief that a country cannot sustain a democracy without a dominant middle class. My understanding of India is that it has a middle class (by western civ standards of living) of 50-100 million people. Which is a larger number than most countries can boast, but it is still under 10% of the population. Like the original post in this thread, I usually tell my students that the test of democracy is in the change of power. Poorer, less developed countries like Mexico can run "emocracies" for long periods of time that are actually elite dominated one-party systems. As I see it Indian democracy has two major problems. 1. ethnic nationalism. The rival party to the Congress party is decribed as a Hindu nationalist party. For an incredibly diverse country, that has to be disheartening for the many ethnic and religious minorities. 2. dynasty in a voting box. The country has been dominated for most of its democratic existence by one political party and one family. The Nehru/Gandhi dyansty. An appeal to the rural regions of the country seems to have been what drove the push for the celebrity/icon name of Sonia Gandhi. I have not yet heard a clear range of policies associated with Sonia Gandhi. I don't think most of the people who voted for her did either. They trusted in her name and her party. She seems to be acting more like a reluctant heir to a throne worried about the fallout of becoming a world leader than an aspiring politican in a democratic system. Her mother-in-law(?) Indira Gandhi didn't behave like a very good democrat in the 1970s. (tinkering with an election, declaring martial law) Jawaharlal Nehru failed to find a democratic solution to the Himilayan provinces and religious fighting has torn that area up for fifty years. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards, after she chose to have the Golden Temple of Amritsar raided in an attempt to supress the Sikh separatist movement in Punjab. Rajiv Gandhi, who assumed leadership after his mother died, lost his position because of scandal. He seemed to be on track of regaining his position in an election year when he was assassinated by an ethnic Tamil militant. I applaud India in its ability to build on the legacy of mohandas Gandhi and create a relatively stable democracy. But for all of its socialism it has the greatest disparity between rich and poor on this planet. And I wouldn't trade my US citizenship for a place in India's democracy under any means. As for 2000 being a sign that the powers control elections. You must remember that it was local inefficiency and a very close vote count that put the election into dispute. There may be more perfect ways to run a democracy and I share the concerns of the influence on power and money on elections, but I think the United States has generally been a model of a successful and effective democracy. I also interpret low voting numbers different than others. I think voters tend to be motivated by fear more than love. Staying away from the polls, IMHO, is a sign of stability and trust more than it is a sign that people see no hope with a pathetic government so they won't even go to the polls to vote for a third party.

Well, I wrapped up western Europe and two things really helped me give a better (and gain one) undrstanding of the postwar history of democratic europe. 1 was a text book that (while not going into great detail) gave a fairly effective summary of the political histories of the UK, France, and (West) Germany. With my limited time I was able to cover Atlee, Churchill, Thatcher, Blair with a conversation of the welfare state, un welfare stating, and welfare state maintanance. France Fourth and Fifth Republics De Gaulle, Algeria, Mitterand, Chirac (with a mention of the anti-trend of France swinging left when US, UK, Germany swung right and swinging right recently when the UK and Germany swung left Germany, much more than I thought I would Adenauer, with a mention of Erhard Brandt, Kohl, Schroeder and even, due to the text book, a shout out to Juan Carlos in Spain and the return to democracy. Then a tour of the unification of Europe that included OEEC ECSC Jean Monnet EEC Treaty of Rome goals of EEC EFTA success in the 60s expansion and loss of momentum in the 70s economy debate of further expansion in the early 80s somewhat surprising quick success of unification and its returned momentum from Maastricht on finish with the Euro once again thanks, and post a note if it seems I am off target on any of the above material.

I will be fighting to retain as much of a "chalk and talk" presence in my classroom as possible and as little cross curriculum activities as possible for the duration of my career. I think history is a subject that can be used to build learning skills. I think written analysis is critical to the opening of young minds. I also believe, when it is done in a certain way, that it is a message to students that it is believed that they have the capacity for serious higher level thinking and that will be asked of them. I think forays into depth help students see a new reality of examination, a reality that they should hopefully be able to apply to several areas of life. As we start finding new alternatives to traditional school room education, I think we are overly idealistic and we tend to forget that there are many aspects of traditional schooling, when done in an effective way, that can not be replicated in other ways. Discipline, facing consistent and reasonably high expectations, managing a fairly busy set of tasks, these are all things that will help people grow up to be effective workers, parents, citizens, etc. Some can blossom and reach tremendous heights without school structure, but we will lose a lot in society if we focus on group activities that don't demand excellent individual performance, or if we fall in love with technology for technology's sake.

This thread cuts a very broad swath. I'll try to focus on my thoughts about the way to set up (from this disastrous point) an acceptable future stable government in Iraq. And when I mean acceptable, I don't mean in it the ugly American kind of way, but in the acceptable human rights, genocide free type of way. Iraq is a very difficult situation that may want to split apart if left to its own, but that could trigger a war with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and/or Turkey. The forces committed to violence should be faced with a shock and awe strategy, but the armed presence in iraq is not awesome and the only shock is that it reveals the limits of American power very well. In the case of the cleric Sadr, he is a force of violence, he is trying to climb the status ladder in Iraq by challenging/executing senior clerics and gaining a reputation as the defiant Iraqi nationalist. I think Bremer should have shut his paper down according to clearly established law and I think Sadr should have been arrested if he defied the American authority. US credibility was on the line. But why announce that you are going to arrest someone and then reveal that you do not have the will or power to do so. Now he is more of a hero of resistance to the Americans and Bremer has increased the problem that his proclamations were supposed to remedy. GWB should belatedly take advice from GHWB. Daddy cobbled together a true coalition of support for the gulf war, so much so that Yasser Arafat was politically injured when he supprted Hussein. Where is his call for a regional solution, If it is the right tack for North Korea, why is it not the right direction here. I peace keeping, transition team that is Arab dominated and arab led would have a lot of credibility. Between our closest friends in the area (minus Turkey) the Saudi, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, and throw in Qatar, and even Jordan if possible, Bush could truly grab victory by going hat in hand and asking for help to get Iraq back in a position of stability. I don't believe democracy can be effective until a society develops and effective industrial middle class anyway. There is no reason to rush Iraq. It is obvious to the neighboring countries, including our allies, that our success in Iraq is intended to reform the govermnets of the whole region. In the meanwhile the jihadist can make propaganda videos and distribute exaggerated stories above the infidel American army and its evil intentions in the fertile crescent. Terror recruits go up, and defenders of the situation in Iraq even have the audacity to argue that even if the war in IRaq did not reveal the connection between that country and al Qaeda or an active WMD program, that it is a good thing that our military is acting as a magnet so we can fight the terrorists there instead of here.

I like the larger themes. In some years I do a comprehensive 1968 (US, Czech, France, CHina(ish)) Revolutionary years have been contagious in European history 1830, 1848, 1969, 1989 as examples I love the economic consolidation time line The fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet System is another great theme. The Cold War is a good theme I could do better on presenting the development of European democratic socialism The destructive nature of nationalism where nations are too small or too whatever to become effective nations; the destructive course of ethnic nationalism in a heterogenous world can be well demonstrated in the story of the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the ethnic cleansing campaigns. These are all things I could get into, but I have about 7 45 minute lectures for all. Thanks again. Ray

Wow, A good series of links. I look forward to working through them to embellish my material. If this stuff is too good something else with have to hit the cutting room floor. Ah the problems of the limited school year. But I think I have paid too little attention to Europe. Part of the problem is the national focus. After the Cold War and the EU, all else seems to be a national history. I do, BTW, presently use France's De Gaulle era and the implementation and backing away from the welfare state in Britain. Thanks for the help, but by no means do I wish to dissuade any further contributions. This is my weakest link in terms of college course work. Sincerely Ray Blair

I think Kerry meant it. We have over 100K troops over there right now, and Kerry will want to show that he can lead a community of nations. That means keeping UK, Spain, Italy, Poland etc, and getting greater support from nations such as Germany and France. Kerry definitely needs to find a way to come across as strong on foreign policy, but having things unravel in IRaq will not be in any mainstream American politican's best interests.

Lech Walesa seemed to be a fairly nonviolent guy and he worked within such a system. If we are talking the modern era, isn't it reforms within and not violent upsrisings that have stopped the totalitarian systems. WWII got rid of Hitler and Mussolini. Was it a revolt that undid Pol Pot? (Not sure there) The Soviet and Chinese systems had/have their dissidents but I cannot recall effective violent opposition. The Soivet Union is now democratic and China is now (with new Constitutional amendments for property and human rights) at least a highly reformed system. It may feel better to pick up a rock against your oppressor, but I don't think violent revolutions have been more succesful than non-violent reform movements since WWII. The legacy of violent revolution tends to carry into the new era. (Castro, Hussein, for example)

I think the emergence of a non-militant and charismatic leader is the most effective purpose for any cause where the challenging movement is not as strong. Militant revolutionary activity seems to always cause more destruction than good and create a legacy of authoritarian government and bloodshed. Gandhi (who was much more effective than King) had the benefit of working against a government caught in a hypocrisy. The British valued their civil liberties at home but did not accord those to their imperial subject. Yet they justified imperialism in part because of a civilizing mission. Then emerges the civilized man who used western education and values (among other things) to speak out against the British system. In his protests the British system always looked more savage than Gandhi's followers. Gandhi was victorious because the British system was fair enough to allow him to operate, so his victory is in part a victory of British values and liberties. The biggest drawback is that Gandhi's (and Mandelas) accomplishments, which seem to be enduring in that both spawned stable democratic systems in societies with tiny middle classes (what I think is the essential ingredient for democracy is a large educated, propertied middle class, here I think a bit like Marx, but I like the middle class phase and want no revoutionary upheaval of it) anyway, the biggest drawback is that their fantastic and enduring accopmlishments took decades to achieve. I think the Palestinians would gain the most from using this technique. I am not sure what the larger Arab or Muslim world needs to achieve right now. The Palestinians needs a stable society and an independen nation and a truly non-violent democratic leader would get them to that point I believe. Sorry to ramble. As to Germany. No pacifist or non-violent leader would have fared well in Nazi Germany. But a German Gandhi should have been able to keep Germany from falling into the clutches of Nazism. Gandhi's techniques worked because of exisiting civil liberties for speech and dissent inside the system he fought against. They are a great testimony to the values of those rights. Under Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Khomeini those same techniques (IMO) would have failed horribly and a Gandhi-ite would noit be remembered at all. Gandhi himself may have been the type of leader who would have adapted and led a different type of movement, or more likey, those systems would have had him live alife that did not reach the history pages. That is my hurried rant on the subject this AM.

The greatest citizen thread made me feel inadequate on recent European history. As I am once again about to teach this subject as part f my 20th Century History class, I thought I might tap the forum for assistance. Bearing in mind that I will havde about four hours of lecture time for the subject, what are the essential elements for helping to give an understanding of developments in Western Europe since 1945 (Excluding the Cold War) I presently have a section of France and the political history of Charles De Gaulle I have a vague section on the development and later reduction of the British welfare state I spend a good deal of time on setting up the ECSC, EEC, EU through the Treaty of Rome, Treaty of Maastricht introduction of hte Euro. What other topics should be included in this segment of my class? Obviously the best material covers trends of general Western European history. Thanks in advance

I looked at the Dictator Webquest page. Point number one. I commend you on putting in this work and that alone will be appreciated by your students. Point #2. Lose the background pattern. While topical, it detracts from being able to follow the instructions and kids don't need ANY help in that area. I teach 11th and 12th graders at a private high school and I would not use this particular webquest because I don't think it is up to grade level and I do not want to go through the grading nightmare of group projects. If your students are nearing college age I would suggest using a link to a more general link page for each figure. I would also offer that the last area you have them looking into will likely create problems because it is fairly vague. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great, and a great idea. Just thought you might be looking for more critical assessment than patting on the back.

I proposed this activity on another thread in this forum. I was quite happy with how it turned out in class. My 12 grade class was able to complete the assignment and put in some reasonably thoughtful comments. We have a mobile portable computer lab at our school that comes with a printer. With this all of the assignments were printed out before the students left class. For me it turned out to be the perfect one class activity.

John. This is a topic of great interest in popular history, but I tend to not use it much or use it at all even though it is in the heart of my major course of instruction, Twentieth Century history. The reason I tend not to look to closely at this is that I find it difficult to argue historical significance of the assassination itself. There is not a clear story line from the assassination to show any group on the historical radar getting great benefit out of JKF's assassination (other than the laws JKF supported that got passed in his name under the Johnson administration. That aside, this looks like a great website.

I am not going to make demands that my nomination win the contest and hold my breath until I turn blue. However I think that it is much easier to appear virtuous and full of genius as a writer than as an activist. Paine, Rousseau , Gandhi, and King all have the advantages and disadvanages of being deceased. I think writers are quite valuable however the warts show and the tough decisions have to be made to actually lead people in time and space. So I would choose to lean more toward a person like Gandhi than Paine or Rousseau democracy=advocated a civic nationalism for India that went beyond race or creed or caste freedom of expression= he modelled the value of the voice following conscience and living with the consequences political equality= spoke out against the abuses of the caste system, the problems of untouchability, and abusive practices against women. welfare state= well I'm not sure any of the top three went a great deal their. Gandhi did have an ideal communal system with his ashrams. But his vision would have harmed India's economic development. One of his key allies did implement a highly socialistic system of the first democratic leader of India (Nehru) I think I would choose a value as a criteria of contibuting to improvement of the general welfare of people more than focusing specifically on the creation of the welfare state. I greatly admire Thomas Paine's writings and passion, but I would choose Thomas Jefferson before him. The europeans on this thread would be better qualified to come up with candidates from your continent but any support for any of the following . . . Lech Welesa, Mikhail Gorbachev, George Orwell . . .

Wasn't Rousseau a commune with nature Romantic movement guy?

Well, I'm going to be brief, but I will forward one nomination for Mohandas Gandhi.

If diverting the thread topic is not acceptable in here please accept my apology But if Kennedy was assassinated for Cold War reasons what would have been the impact on the Cold War itself. Did his assassination lead to a major shift in policy? I have seen no strong historical argument saying that it did. The significance of the assassination should be more apparent because, whether the assassination intended specific consequences or not, any profound consequence should already be thoroughly studied by the profession by now.

John. This is a topic of great interest in popular history, but I tend to not use it much or use it at all even though it is in the heart of my major course of instruction, Twentieth Century history. The reason I tend not to look to closely at this is that I find it difficult to argue historical significance of the assassination itself. There is not a clear story line from the assassination to show any group on the historical radar getting great benefit out of JKF's assassination (other than the laws JKF supported that got passed in his name under the Johnson administration. That aside, this looks like a great website. Have you considered trying to design webquests as part of your student activities? In your case you may have provided too many resources for an off site web quest but you create a wonderful and contained environment for them. I am relatively new to webquests and love the idea of them but have yet to try to use a free form one. I do have access to a mobile pc lab to use fro my classes. From looking at your material, one thing I might do with our lab on your site would be to ask my students to rank the assassination theories from most to least credible and provide reasoning as to the order. Time being short in my classes I would probably ask for a top three list or a most believable and least believable scenario and ask for solid reasoning behind any ranking assigned. (Spellcheck arriving soon? ) Edited for a misspelling of the word spellcheck. LOL Also to add. I have forty five minute classes, if I do an exercise on this I will have to confine the activity more than I listed above (although they would work if I was to expect the effort to be homework as well. I am thinking of trying it out this Friday because I am unlikely to get much done and I am presently on the 1960s in the US in my course. I would have to make the students: Pick a theory or be assigned one Make a document that explains the basic theory. Pick the most credible piece of supporting evidence (quote and or explain) Pick the least credible piece of supporting evidence (quote and or explain) Cut and paste some bio information from a key player they had heard of Cut and paste some bio information from a key player they had not heard of Make a brief conclusion about the theory Then turn it in at the end of class (as long as the printer is working I guess. It would be a race, but I think I could expect this much work. BTW would the cut and paste stuff violate your terms of usage for the site?????

I think one of the unique things about our profession is that there is no real way to teach someone how to teach or quantify the value of his/her instruction. While I like figuring out a way to give the best or most dedicated teachers better pay and job security and letting slackers and ne'er-do-wells sweat it out I don't trust any system to do this without improperly rewarding and punishing in a grandiose manner.

Sounds simple doesn't it. However determining truth seems to be the redefined impossible dream of the modern/postmodern era. Look at your two examples. The context of history changed dramatically over the course of 15 years. Nationalism as Eric Hobsbawn has very effectively argued is in part mythbuilding. It is so ingrained in our societies that that mythbuilding has become imbedded in our self-definitions. Historians need to try their hardest to learn the skills of their craft and weed out bias as best as we can. I truly hold scorn for those who argue that we can never transcend our biases so we should not try. But we cannot (short of a few geniuses) transcend bias. It shows up in selection. (whether or not we even include Hungary or Vietnam in our material) It shows up in interpretation. And yes, a good history teacher has to provide interpretation. The history of something like World War II varies wildly when filtered through different national lenses be it German Russian, Norwegian, Australian, or Cuban. Truth is the most difficult quest of all and in can not be easily or permanently arrived at.