if your purpose is to express personal passion for that idea...then there is little that a machine can help with.

Ejecting words into the world is not writing.

I would perhaps add that there is likely evidence that some people “stop thinking” as you say when they interact with technology period, (i.e., all the conspiracy theory proliferation, hate speech, etc. that spews forth on the web and social media.)

or proposition like Columbus was genocidal. It means NOT leaving out any of the stories, whether it was the Awaks or Columbus’ journal. Letting students hear both stories is beneficial. The goal is not to predetermine what students should think. It is to teach them to think…

I beg to differ. I am not implying there are defenses. I am not debating on whether or not Columbus was genocidal, so I am not offering defenses for him or evidence against him. I was simply pointing out that to teach history or even literature or science does not mean starting out an assessment…

Not sure where you’re going with this one, but I don’t defend Columbus, and your assessment of him I am not questioning.

No I don’t think so. You mentioned the term. I did not. I have said nothing about it.

Who said genocide was defensible? No one said that.

I haven’t defended Columbus or questioned your assessment of him. One of my favorite historians Howard Zinn arrived at the same assessment of him. Columbus was no hero, but if students are truly able to explore all about him, they can arrive at their own conclusions.

own conclusions. By the way, as I said I did not teach history; I taught writing and literature. Teaching for me is about provoking thought, not teaching a fixed viewpoint or worldview.

teach about the past and teach students to arrive at their own conclusions about that past. Too often we turn the school into a battle ground where one side wants their version of history taught and the other wants theirs. Teach students to critically think for themselves and how to arrive at their…

genocidal maniac label. Also, one can teach about the religious origins of the US colonies and even the religious background of the country and even perhaps point out the contributions of religion to the founding and not teach that the US was a “Christian” country. In fact, it is possible to…

Let me rephrase my first response to you. You provided me with a dichotomy of two versions of history, both were worded in a manner that would not capture what the history curriculum would have as content. One can teach about the harm Columbus caused and it was substantial without using the…

I am not sure what you are saying has been left out.

Sorry, I don’t agree that the world narrow as you do. There are not only two options in the real world.

I don’t teach history, but I am sure that the curriculum doesn’t teach about Columbus in exactly the manner in which you phrase it. As for your second point, that is not in curriculum either.

I have been in education 35 years and Civics has always been taught, and I am sure it was before then. Now, whether students engaged and took it seriously that is another issue. But I would add the greater issue is perhaps a social media climate of misinformation and nonsense.