In Theory: Does religion belong in history textbooks?

In an open letter to the California Department of Education, a group of academics suggests a variety of edits that downgrade and in some cases remove references to India and Hinduism from history textbooks.

“We recommend deleting reference to Hinduism and replacing with, ‘How did the religion of Ancient India support individuals, rulers and societies?’” one entry in the open letter states.

MORE: Read past In Theory discussions>>

There has been an argument over whether replacing “India” with “South Asia” in textbooks is merely a way to plainly refer to the region, or if it erases the fact that Hindu culture and religion dominated the region, much like the Greek or Roman civilizations, which are still referred to as such.

In an online commentary, Aseem Shukla asks: “Why would the professors delete the word ‘Hinduism,’ which a billion people in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and elsewhere call their own — and 3 million Americans embrace — and replace it with a host of terms that have no use in common parlance?”

Q: Should the historical significance of religion be a part of public education?

Factual information on the historical, political, economic and every other significance of religion should be neutrally presented in public school curriculum materials.

It is important to note though that the textbooks in question are for sixth- and seventh-graders. Lots of clear, concise definitions of terms such as the ones bandied about here are needed, along with historical maps showing the various geographic terms used through the ages for the areas under study.

But middle schoolers are certainly capable of understanding conflicting ideas — that Hinduism could have been a dominant cultural force in ancient India, while not being the only religion there, for instance. They should also be told that history is subject to interpretation, and major controversies about the presentation of the past of an area explained, at an age-appropriate level of course.

Despite Shukla’s claim, I have often heard the term “South Asia” used to describe what in the past has been referred to as the “Indian subcontinent” (I guess the countries other than India there got tired as being left out). Neither term describes a culture, civilization or people, but rather identifies a broad swath of the earth.

Replacing “Hinduism” with “the religion of Ancient India” in this particular place leaves the possibility of any number of other references to the religion in treatment of Asian history in approved textbooks. And it also leaves the student or teacher free to refer specifically to Hinduism in discussions, while encouraging exploration of how the ancient version differed from what we now call Hinduism.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

Well, let’s think about this logically. Assuming, of course, that logic is still acceptable in public schools. Tragically, we can no longer take any common-sense course of action for granted in a culture where boy’s rooms in schools are no longer just for boys, marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman and life in the womb is no longer considered human.

But let’s consider whether or not religion, or any particular religion, should be mentioned in public education. Was there ever a country known as India? Did the Hindu religion have any influence on the culture and history of that country? If so, these are historical facts and they should be accurately recorded in history books and taught in public school history classes.

Unless, of course, the objective is no longer to actually teach history, but rather to teach students to embrace a world view that is devoid of religion. That, in fact, seems to be one very likely motive behind the proposal to remove the words “India” and “Hinduism.” It certainly will be one outcome of it.

Not surprisingly, the key proponents of this historical revisionism are “specialists in Islamic studies ... as well as prominent Indian Americans of the Indian left” (religionnews.com, April 24, 2016). These are people whose motives are suspect and no doubt self-serving. Truth, equity and accuracy in education ain’t the goals here, folks. Documentation of the proposed changes still wants to include the terms “Buddhism” and “Jainism.” But “Hinduism” isn’t acceptable?

Friends, people are religious. People have always been religious. Religion has had immense impacts on the history of the world. Indeed, to deny this fact or attempt to hide it from students goes far beyond the borders of idiocy and plunges headlong into the territory of sheer evil.

Regardless of what our books teach, all creation around us instructs us every day: “since the creation of the world [God’s] invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Thankfully, this witness can never be edited by men.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

--

Absolutely the historical significance of religion should be a part of public education.

What I think is that some educators are so afraid of rocking the boat or offending some portion of the population that they want to do all they can to water down anything that somebody might find offensive. Such practice is crazy-making. Such practice is an attempt to think for someone else, or is an attempt to worry “What if ...?”

I am a former teacher. I also consider myself a kind of teacher in the pulpit as a minister, and we “teachers” are trained to deal with the truth, not masquerade the truth.

Education involves learning what is and what was, not trying to make others absorb a dumbed-down version of what actually happened. Come on, educators: tell the truth. And the truth will make you free (John 8:32). It’ll also make your students free, too.

Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada