Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Haha, sorry about that. I meant the Manson murders. I don't know why I said Marilyn. Must have been listening to him at the time.

I think Manson at this point is something that only affects American history. Although it is an interesting case, I don't think it deserves as much attention as the Holocaust.

I think a lot of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the pictures are wrong. Photography and the art of photography has changed the world; the ability to capture moments and speak volumes with just light is amazing. I'm not denying that it can also enchance the learning experience either.

I just don't think the Manson murders were such a big deal that one would need to focus on it so much as to go as far as to look up pictures. Were the many wars waged by the U.S. not enough to fill the history books? The holocaust wasn't enough? Foreign trade, international relationships, the creation of the U.N., current issues and how they could affect the future... is it not enough to have to focus on the Manson murders?

Anyway, I guess we just had other things to talk about than murders.

Fidds said it was 20th Century History, so that takes care of quite a lot of the traditional subjects.
And I think there's plenty of reason to study them. You can connect it to how criminal investigations are conducted, to the formation of cults in the US, to social deviance, to how the Manson became part of pop culture...there's a lot of interest, and it's the sort of thing high school kids might actually find interesting. I know teenagers, and I know most of them wouldn't exactly muster enthusiasm for the creation of the UN.

The politics around the early 20th century (Circa, World war 1 and 2) is actually very interesting, especially given the social backlash of the treaty of Versailles that is felt even today. (Case and point; The wars are still considered Germany's "Fault" even now, when it was as much the fault of the rest of Europe bickering lie children as Germany's)

Just saying.

Can you imagine a pep rally centered around security council resolutions?

Is this a high school 20th century history class? I've never heard of that before. We just have AP World, AP US, and AP Euro. And the regular versions of those.

Schools and states often vary their learning curiculums. In Alberta one learns diddly squat about Geography in high school. In BC apparently there is a whole flipping course on it (or at least a very large section of the text book). *shrugs*

Ah okay, I missed that part. In that case I can understand, I thought it was an altogether history class.

Targeting history just because it's "OMG INTERESTING" to teenagers is possibly one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard. You can't pick and choose. Yes, the creation of the UN is not "MTV-inspired" but it would definitely be more credible than learning about the Manson murders.

As said above, life isn't all sunshine and lollipops, you can't pick and choose what you think is interesting about History. It says a lot about your [not yours specifically] education if you believe you can just pick and choose what you think is interesting to "teenagers."

I was around when the Manson murders occurred. And my guess is a few of you were not. Though most of you who weren't still understand just how atrocious it was. For those of you who don't, may I just say this: IT WAS A BIG DEAL! Just like the Richard Speck murders here in Chicago in the 60's. I was around for that too--little but old enough to see the terror in my mom's eyes when he was still on the loose. It was the first time we ever locked our doors. Both events changed history forever. Maybe not history as far as government and wars and the creation of the UN are concerned, but both definitely changed the way people thought about things. We had never had anything in history before Richard Speck did what he did to those poor nursing students. After the Speck murders, we lost our innocence. We were no longer safe in our homes. And Charles Manson reiterated that. Before that time, we, as a society, had never experienced a mass murder that had been conducted and orchestrated by someone who wasn't even at the scene.

So, it is history and it is extremely relevant to everyone wanting to know about the 20th century in America. Because it changed the way our society thought about certain things. Made them afraid and having to rethink everything that they had taken for granted before that time. Just like the Virginia Tech shootings will be relevant to my grandkids when they are in a high school history class. And, hey, if a teacher can get his students to feel that fear that those of us felt, then God bless him. Maybe by doing so, it will keep this event from disappearing off the face of the earth. Because these horrendous crimes should never be forgotten. Because if they are forgotten, they might just get repeated once again.

One one side, you have the creation of the UN: very important but boring. The kids can study it, memorize whatever they think will be on the test, and forget it all after they're no longer being forced to recall anything about it.
On the other side, you have the Manson murders: somewhat less important, but it might spark students' interest in history. Or psychology. Or sociology. Or criminology. And school is(or should be) about making kids actually CARE about something enough to develop a personal interest in a subject. You can feed them facts and figures until it all blends into white noise that they tune out, or you can give them interesting and important events that might make them enjoy and remember their history lessons.
It also sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong here) this isn't the only class you can take to fulfill the history requirement, but more of an above-and-beyond social studies class. Why bore the students to tears and have them leave the class without absorbing the information, when you can teach them something that still has a lot of historical importance and show them how it directly impacts their lives?
As to picking and choosing....Well, a bunch of historians decide that this event or that event is "important" enough to be in the history books. I've noticed that American Indians are considered a lot more "important" to American history in my time than they were in my parents' time. Monica Lewinsky was in my US history textbook; in twenty or thirty years, I'm not sure she'll be in my kid's textbook. That's definitely picking and choosing. Is it any different because it's a teacher doing the choosing?

Morningstar, I said earlier that I thought because it was an altogether history class I questioned why they were studying the Manson murders. I understand now why they would learn it if the class was about 20th century history, I didn't say it should be neglected as history. It is history, I just don't think it's important to a general history class.


See above.

Seriously, why does it matter?
Anyone who cares will learn about it themselves soon enough (Internet is a big place full of useful info, A levels, books, whatever) and anyone who doesn't isn't going to learn a damn thing from the lessons of the past anyway.

I learnt about WW1 during my AS levels, and I can guarantee that maybe One or two other people in that class gave a damn about what we were being told, the others taking the class because it looks good on a uni App.

I agree with what you're saying, but we can't teach to always cater to the bored teenagers. Some parts of history are important but boring. As long as everything is being taught, I'm fine, but there is more to the Manson murders than shock value.

That's a good point. Keep in mind that the whole point of Charlie Manson's group was to incite a race war. It's a good example of a group with too much time and money in what was still a fairly tense era.

Not necessarily. Yes, the internet is a big place and you can find almost anything you're looking for, but you need to know what you're looking for. Heck, I'd never even heard of the Manson murders before this topic, so there's no way I would have just decided to go read about them. I might now, but my point is, there's plenty of stuff that someone would be interested in that if they don't get it in class they might never hear about it. Also, people are lazy. They might really enjoy learning about something, but perhaps not enough to go learn about it on their own. Or they might not have the resources they need. There are plenty of reasons why someone who cares wouldn't or wouldn't be able to learn about something on their own.

I understand your point, TOSO. There's a fine line between changing your syllabus to keep the students' attention and make them care about what they're learning, and simply catering to them.
But it's a history class. This is a historical event of at least moderate importance. The teacher obviously didn't spend his whole year on the Manson murders. And quite frankly I wasted a ton of time in classes "learning" about something that not even the teacher cared much for. Last of the Mohicans was part of the standardized Junior English syllabus, and my teacher just handed us packets(typed up by another teacher) detailing the events of the movie version of Last of the Mohicans.
If the teacher could teach the events of the Manson murders, and the students could walk away with a strong and lasting understanding of the events--which Fidds implied--that's not catering.