No abstract

This article describes findings from a survey of high school students in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida, regarding their views of war and wartime policy. The survey is drawn from, and correlated to, elements of the Just War doctrine, a philosophical framework which forms the basis of most international law, treaties, and conventions. The survey results indicate that students tend to adhere to traditional moral norms regarding the conditions for engaging in war, but have considerable divergences from internationally-held principles regarding how a war is waged. The findings indicate that social studies instructors face impediments in helping students acquire high-level, meaningful conceptions of war as a topic of study. The article describes the necessity of moral and critical inquiry in social studies education and the value of the Just War doctrine as pedagogical tool towards that end.

No abstract

Textbooks are a significant element of the social studies curriculum and teacher pedagogical choice (Apple, 2004; Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991). Students’ views of American history are dramatically affected by the textbook narratives to which they are exposed, and teachers often tilt their curricular choices based on the textbooks available to them ( Luke, 2006 Schug, Western & Enochs, 1997 ). The history of our nation's armed conflicts is often presented, through our textbooks and our pedagogy, as a history of reluctant violence, which promotes a particular moral agenda that exerts control over our students’ future beliefs and decisions. This is particularly important with regard to our textbook depictions of the U.S. Civil War, which holds a curricular status as a necessary and moral conflict. This study examines the manner in which U.S. history textbooks present the U.S. Civil War, as compared to relevant historiography, and presents recommendations for how teachers may approach the moral realities of war with their students.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of angry political rhetoric employed by George Wallace and Donald Trump. The authors start by discussing the civic thinking skills stressed within the C3 Framework, specifically the ability to analyze politicians’ arguments. Then, the focus shifts to look at angry political rhetoric within the US history. Next, the authors discuss the parallels of the angry political rhetoric employed by both Wallace and Trump. Finally, two activities are provided that enable students to grasp the convergences with the angry political rhetoric utilized by both Wallace and Trump. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors explore angry rhetoric in American politics. The authors designed two classroom-ready activities by drawing on the best teaching practices advocated for in the C3 Framework. To elaborate, both activities allow students to research and analyze arguments made by George Wallace and Donald Trump. This enables students to engage in the four dimensions of the Inquiry Arc in the C3 Framework. Findings The authors provide two activities that can be utilized in the high school social studies classroom to enable students to dissect American politicians’ messages. These two activities can be adapted and utilized to enable students to examine a political candidate’s messages, especially those that draw on angry rhetoric. By completing the steps of these two activities, students are better prepared to be critical consumers of political media messages. Originality/value In this paper, the authors explore the role of angry political rhetoric in American politics. The authors examine the parallels of political style between George Wallace and Donald Trump. Two activities are provided to help students break down the angry political rhetoric employed by these two controversial figures.