Dare We Teach World History? Dare We Not?

Abstract

SECONDARY WORLD HISTORY TEACHERS face unusual pressures. Not only do they have the longest time span to consider for inclusion in their course (in comparison with other history courses) but they are also caught in a fundamental debate about the conceptual focus of the course. There is a difference of opinion on whether the course should help young people know their own culture, Western civilization, or whether teachers should emphasize the increasing interdependence of our society with other cultures by teaching about them all. The latter option would treat Western civilization as one of several equal cultures, devoting about the same amount of curriculum time and space to India, Latin America, SubSaharan Africa, Middle East, East Asia, and Westem civilization. Other pressures come upon the world history teacher from dynamic single-issue lobbies. The possibility of thermonuclear annihilation seems so overwhelming that one can argue the world history course should focus on building a basis for peace. The Holocaust in Nazi Europe was so horrendous that a case can be made to devote a major segment of the course to pounding that memory into the next generation. The devastation of poverty and famine in the Third World is so urgent that a rationale can be built for focusing on imperialism and its aftermath as the central issue in a relevant world history. Others can say that there is too much to include in a world history course so the only do-able option is to examine one thread through history-such as technology, or cities, or law.