Should kids learn about the six cradles of civilization at mandatory level school?

[wnwnwn]

The six cradles of civilization:
Fertile Crescent (Sumer)
Nile Valley (ancient Egypt)
Indo-Gangetic Plain (Indus Valley Civilization)
North China Plain. (Ancient China)
Mesoamerican Gulf Coast (Olmecs)
Andean Coast (Norte Chico - Caral Supe Civilization)

[Blue3]

I didn’t learn about the American ones mentioned. Weren’t they much later?

India and China were briefly mentioned. More detail on India, basically no detail on China.

Focus was on Sumer, Egypt, and the Minoans.

[wnwnwn]

I didn’t learn about the American ones mentioned. Weren’t they much later?

India and China were briefly mentioned. More detail on India, basically no detail on China.

Focus was on Sumer, Egypt, and the Minoans.

Well, the andean one (Norte Chico - Caral) only started to be studied in the 90s.

[Sol]

They should learn about all of these of course but I don't like the concept of "cradles of civilization." Partly because the connotations of "civilization" are not great and partly because it's not a particularly rigorous term. There are lots of historic cultures which you can argue are cradles and it's hard to argue against.

[jaichind]

No.  The focus should be on what is consequential.  For kids in the USA that should be  Greek and Roman history.  The way history was taught in the USA 100 years ago makes much more sense than what is taught today.

Besides some of the wording seems strange.  There is no Indo-Gangetic Plain civilization.  There is the Indus Valley(Harappan) Civilisation and there is the Vedic culture that became dominant in the Ganges Plains.  They are totally separate and orthogonal to each other.  The former has no consequence, even to India, while the latter is quite consequential to India and SE Asia.

I do not consider Andean civilizations as a "civilization" since they never came up with their own writing system. Either way, the Andean "civilizations" and Mesoamerican civilizations are of zero consequence today and should be low on the priority list to learn.

[Georg Ebner]

No.  The focus should be on what is consequential.  For kids in the USA that should be  Greek and Roman history.  The way history was taught in the USA 100 years ago makes much more sense than what is taught today.

Besides some of the wording seems strange.  There is no Indo-Gangetic Plain civilization.  There is the Indus Valley(Harappan) Civilisation and there is the Vedic culture that became dominant in the Ganges Plains.  They are totally separate and orthogonal to each other.  The former has no consequence, even to India, while the latter is quite consequential to India and SE Asia.

I do not consider Andean civilizations as a "civilization" since they never came up with their own writing system. Either way, the Andean "civilizations" and Mesoamerican civilizations are of zero consequence today and should be low on the priority list to learn.

OtherWise You are right, yet "Civilization" is not bound to a writingSystem, as it means all kinds of external techniques (contrary to "Culture", which covers the internal aspect). But v.RANKE and others were right: For understanding, which thoughts&emotions people's actions were based on, historioGraphy is bound to writingSystems and even more: to actual literature. "Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo!"

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Besides some of the wording seems strange.  There is no Indo-Gangetic Plain civilization.  There is the Indus Valley(Harappan) Civilisation and there is the Vedic culture that became dominant in the Ganges Plains.  They are totally separate and orthogonal to each other.  The former has no consequence, even to India, while the latter is quite consequential to India and SE Asia.

The caste system in the subcontinent originated from the Harappan civilization, as did many of the crops that are widely cultivated in the warmer parts of Asia today. Ancient India is best thought of as a fusion of Harappan foundations and a Vedic "superstratum" of sorts.

I agree with the OP that the centers other than the Fertile Crescent and the Nile River should be covered in more detail. More broadly, I think the emphasis should be on independent centers of origin for agriculture since that's the main trait the cultures listed in the OP had in common (albeit thousands of years earlier)

[OuterCoat100]

Here in Canada (at least in Ontario where I originally grew up), we have an ancient history class in high school (I think it's in 11th grade), whose subjects are on Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, the Romans, and Medieval Europe. As far as I remember, we had to skim through a lot of stuff given our limited time (5 months) so while I would like to add those societies to a history course, I feel like teachers would be forced to skim down a lot of stuff just to get to the next society. I'm not really sure how history is taught in other countries though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a general concept, absolutely yes. World history is too often portrayed as a singular linear progression of "civilization" (leading, most notably, to the bizarre idea that the origins of Western Civilization (TM) lie in Classical Greece and Rome, something that deeply misunderstands the nature of these societies). Learning that complex societies emerged independently all over the planet is an important antidote against that.

[Mister Mets]

Yes. It's a concept that should be covered in high school at least.

[Dan the Roman]

No because almost everyone of these is contentious and tied to political/racial conflict.

Debates over the Indus civilization are basically a form of Hindu nationalism v Secularism v Muslims.

North China Plain is wrapped up with Han nationalism and implies the expansion of ethnic Han rule and culture was the process by which civilization spread in Asia.

The focus on Egypt is almost impossible to do without either

1. Being textual and ending up teaching the Old Testament which remains the primary or secondary source for most history.

2. Leaning on quackery(Black Athena stuff) for "balance" with #1

The American civs are a proxy battle between pro-Conquistador and weird noble savage revisionists both of whom are full of **** though at least the former are literate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am fine with covering them, but I overall agree with jaichind that we should be clear about what civilizations were actually foundational to building society as we know it today. It's fine to know Norte Chico - Caral Supe existed, but it is dangerous to try and relativize their contributions and suggest they equal that of the Greeks or the Chinese.

[Blue3]

No because almost everyone of these is contentious and tied to political/racial conflict.

Debates over the Indus civilization are basically a form of Hindu nationalism v Secularism v Muslims.

North China Plain is wrapped up with Han nationalism and implies the expansion of ethnic Han rule and culture was the process by which civilization spread in Asia.

The focus on Egypt is almost impossible to do without either

1. Being textual and ending up teaching the Old Testament which remains the primary or secondary source for most history.

2. Leaning on quackery(Black Athena stuff) for "balance" with #1

The American civs are a proxy battle between pro-Conquistador and weird noble savage revisionists both of whom are full of **** though at least the former are literate.

I also don't think it's only 6 "cradles" - it seems to have sprung up organically in several places. Some closer together, some more isolated or distant, beyond just these 6. Which should be recognized but then means there isn't enough time to do justice for any of them.

[Battista Minola 1616]

They should learn about all of these of course but I don't like the concept of "cradles of civilization." Partly because the connotations of "civilization" are not great and partly because it's not a particularly rigorous term. There are lots of historic cultures which you can argue are cradles and it's hard to argue against.

The proper term for them is "Neolithic river delta state consolidation" (credit to a friend of mine), although this seems better suited to the Old World ones than the New World ones.