The future belongs to those who understand the past. A proper knowledge of history is vital to our children’s future success as they become the decision-makers of our society.

            Recently, though, British Columbia showed that it does not understand this key concept. The Vancouver Sun revealed that the Ministry of Education, after being sued by a homosexual couple, has given Peter and Murray Corren key input into the redesign of the K-12 curriculum, ensuring that the social studies curriculum will include “ [q]ueer history and historical figures, the presence of positive queer role models—past and present—the contributions made by queers to various epochs, societies and civilizations and legal issues relating to…same-sex marriage and adoption.” And the province will tighten the guidelines to make sure that parents cannot opt their children out of these classes.

            I know this may sound radical, but I think history class should teach history. In that vein, my perfect history curriculum would cover these topics: the birth of democracy in Greece; the rise and fall of the Roman empire; Muhammad and the Islamic expansion across North Africa; the schism between Shi’ite and Sunni; the Crusades; the Ottoman empire and its expansionistic tendencies; the Reformation; the Enlightenment; explorers; the Declaration of Independence—probably the most important document in history—and the American Revolution; the British North America Act; slavery and how it was ended in the west; World War I and its aftermath; The Russian Revolution and Stalin; FDR’s New Deal; World War II; the Holocaust; the Marshall Plan; the founding of Israel and its subsequent invasion; the Middle East wars; civil wars in Africa;  the Cultural Revolution in China; the Vietnam War; the fall of communism; and September 11. Hands up if you think the schools are doing a good job of these things already? If they’re not, they don’t have time to waste on other pursuits.

            Homosexuals are not the first to try to influence curriculum to advance their agenda. When I was in university, feminists were critiquing the way history was being taught because women were so scarce. Their solution was to elevate the status of the peasant, so that the life of the maid got as much attention as Henry VIII, for instance. But there’s a problem. Henry VIII influenced European politics in key ways. That little maid did not. In God’s eyes and our eyes she is just as worthwhile; but in terms of historical importance, she isn’t. Feminists may not like that, but that’s the truth. And changing history to study her means taking away study time from individuals who did shape our world. In British Columbia, if we study obscure transgendered or gay individuals, who will we leave out? Charlemagne? Thomas Jefferson? Louis Montcalme?

Part of the philosophy behind this kind of identity politics is that we all need role models exactly the same as we are in order to succeed in life. If you think about it, that’s ludicrous, because by definition each field had a pioneer. If you need role models, nobody would ever try anything new. Role models can’t hurt, but the idea that our role models must resemble us in every way causes us to see ourselves not as members of one society but as members of different groups. It’s dividing, not uniting. I have several role models in my life: Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill historically; Jane Austen and C.S. Lewis as writers; and Todd Beamer as an everyday joe, especially after I tortured myself watching United 93 on September 11. Interestingly, only one of these individuals shared my kind of genitalia. And yet, I don’t feel like I can’t admire and strive for the characteristics the others display just because we wear different kinds of pants. Our similarities are greater than our differences.

The reason that groups are pushing these sorts of agendas, though, is because they’re not interested in children learning history as much as they are interested in determining how children think. That’s not teaching; that’s indoctrination. The goal of education in a democratic country should be giving children the tools to be discerning, not manipulating them into believing certain things about the world. Teach them history, and they’ll have the tools to judge current events. Fail to teach them history, and it’s much easier to get them to believe whatever you want.

            As schools move in this direction, they declare that they know more about children than we parents, who gave birth to them, raise them, care for them, support them, and love them as long as we live. That’s arrogant and condescending, and I’m amazed that parents are putting up with it.

If you want to sign up to get my column every week, you can do so here.