Acerca de

• People don't know what research is​​

​

Reading other people's research is not you doing your own research. Research is only done when you study primary sources, locations, or artifacts. Reading other people's research is simply you reading the literature of research so that you may have a better understanding of the topic and find holes or areas of exploration to help guide your own research.

​

• Themes need to be taught together

​​

​Themes like the Cold War or Civil Rights overlap and you cannot tell one without including the other. Separating these themes are detrimental to one's study of them because you cannot get a full coherent picture of either. The Cold War, especially Vietnam, had a tremendous impact on the direction of the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law just one month before the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. For decades after there would be a surge of domestic violence and cultural changes.

​

• Trivia is not history education

​​

People think knowing names and dates is all that history is, it is not. Knowing when George Washington's birthday is is not relevant information since it doesn't teach us anything about our lives. The purpose of history is to better understand ourselves so that we may steer towards a better future.

​

• Overgeneralizations are an issue

​​

Educators tend to overgeneralize events, people, environments, movements, or ideas. Take Reconstruction which is taught simply as the military occupation of the South post Civil War. Being taught that doesn't teach you anything substantive about it. What were the Reconstruction plans by Lincoln, Johnson, or the Radical Republicans, how did they differ, which parts of their plans were actually implemented, and how effective was its enforcement? What were the pardons about? What were the Reconstruction Amendments? What were the Reconstruction Acts themselves? What were the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875? What were the Enforcement Acts? Why did military occupation end starting with Grant and concluding with Hayes? How did immigration, economics, infrastructure, and corruption impact Reconstruction? What were the arguments given by the former Confederates for ending Reconstruction? What were the concerns that the former slaves have about the end of Reconstruction? Did they view it as being successful or as a failure to secure their civil rights? There are so many aspects to Reconstruction that is simply not taught and is over generalized.

​

• It is not taught chronologically

​

Similarly to overlapping themes and overgeneralization not teaching history chronologically distorts our understanding of history. Too many history books, textbooks, documentaries, and lectures are done nonchronologically to better fit a narrative style, however, this confuses the sequence of events and how one event can impact or even cause the next event on the sequence. When talking about the end of the military occupation of the South during Reconstruction teachers start with the election of Hayes and how he was president when the last federal troops left the South. Then they might mention the fact that the end of the military occupation actually started with Grant but won't go into any detail as to why Grant, the great enforcer during his first term, would stop enforcing the Reconstruction Acts during his second term. The end of the military occupation must start with Grant, not Hayes.

​

• Too much is left out

​

Similar to overgeneralization, many periods or aspects of history are simply left out. When American history is taught it usually goes like this: teach about Jamestown and the Mayflower, skip to the French and Indian War, mention stamp tax, the Boston Massacre, tea tax, tea party, Revere's midnight ride, Lexington and Concord, Declaration of Independence, Washington crossing the Delaware, maybe mention Valley Forge, British surrender at Yorktown, Constitutional convention, maybe the ratification debates (Federalist Papers), Washington as the first president but don't actually go into detail about his administration, skip to the Louisiana purchase during Jefferson's administration, mention Lewis and Clarke expedition, War of 1812, Jackson's Trail of Tears, maybe mention the Mexican-American War, Dred Scott case, Lincoln's election, Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln's death, gloss over Reconstruction, mention the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age, the progressive presidents like Teddy, WWI, skip over anything that actually happened during the Roaring Twenties or the Great Depression, WWII, Berlin Airlift, maybe mention the Korean War, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, I have a Dream speech, JFK's death, Civil Rights Act, Vietnam, Watergate, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Reaganomics, Fall of the Berlin Wall, Gulf War, Collapse of the USSR, 9/11, War on Terror, Obama's election, Affordable Care Act, Trump's election, Covid, Biden's election and Jan 6., and then today. This paragraph includes pretty much the entire outline of the average curriculum on American history. There is so much left out. Tarpeia is providing a full history of America to alleviate the illiteracy we see in our students, adults, teachers, and even scholars.

​​

• Too opinionated

​

Educators are putting their own opinions too much into the lessons they are teaching. Education to them is an opportunity for propagandizing their worldview. Don't give me that crap about how, "everything is political." When there is a religious scientist he can only do science correctly if he leaves out his religion while doing experiments and data analysis. When teaching history and civics we must leave out our partisanship in order to claim we are doing history justice, if you are incapable of doing that, then get a different job.

​

• Falsehoods taken for truth

​

An appeal to authority exists where people just take other people's word as the truth without backing up claims. This is wrong and part of why science is more trustworthy of a field than social studies. When someone makes a science claim, there are hundreds of other scientists who conduct experiments to test the validity of the claim. When a famous historian makes a claim, other historians just cite them in their papers. An example that I have come across recently is the myth of the Corrupt Bargain of 1877. It is taught by teachers, scholars, and even on government sites, that Hayes made an agreement to end the military occupation of the South in exchange for winning the presidency. The sources of today site one historian, Eric Foner, and his large work on Reconstruction which he wrote in the 80s. Eric Foner only cites one source for his claim of the corrupt bargain happening and that is another historian who wrote in the 50s. That historian, Woodward, does not cite any direct primary sources, only secondary sources that cannot be verified, or in other words, hearsay. When I looked at the actual event of Hayes' contentious victory searching for a primary sources I only found evidence that contradicts the corrupt bargain narrative.

​

• AI

​

The most recent issue with education is the proliferation of AI. AI sucks. It gets facts wrong and people take it for truth. It may be useful in helping people when writing such as providing instant revision and feedback, but it most not substitute learning.