4 ms·
OK. Undisputed is an overstatement, unfair even. There's actually quite a lot of action in this space, and the publications/excavations are recent. You do see
by netcan 6y ago
OK. Undisputed is an overstatement, unfair even. There's actually quite a lot of action in this space, and the publications/excavations are recent.
You do see my point though, no? I think many/most history teachers don't really know much about alternative "how it all began" history, and those old narratives are still certainly the history 101 interpretation. If high school teaches neolithic history, they probably teach a historical materialism version.
As the evidence stands currently, that's no longer evidence based.
- watwut 6y agoFirst, there is massive difference between "theory", especially academic theory and what high school teacher teaches. That is completely different claim. Second, no I don't really think so. The kind of worst about high school neolithic all history I can say is that what I seen of it was terminally boring.
- netcan 6y agoI think we may be talking past each other somewhat. By "marxist theory" I meant the timeline and cause-effect chains that are generally in the textbooks, history books what your likely to be taught in college, etc. Marxist interpretation would have been a better choice of words. I agree about high school (and younger) history being boring. I hated it. Don't even remember what periods they taught.
- watwut 6y agoWe are not talking past each other. Neither colleges nor high schools are teaching marxist interpretation of history in their history courses. The exception are courses like "marxist interpretation of x" which indeed teaches what marxist interpretation of event x is. Also, I suspect that you dont know what Marxist interpretation of historical events is.