While some critics claim that history curricula (课程) teach unnecessary content, others argue that these curricula need to be more comprehensive. Despite ongoing debates about content, one universal truth remains: strong history curricula are necessary for developing the productive citizens of tomorrow.

The greatest academic value that history curricula provide is not the recall of important dates and names. Rather, understanding the historical inquiry process is the most important component. This process teaches students how to become critical thinkers and understand the dynamic nature of the telling of history.

Through strong history curricula, students are shown both a variety of primary and secondary sources and are taught to critique them. This is where the historical inquiry process begins. Students not only begin to analyze and ask questions about the content, but they also learn about the author’s credibility and potential bias (偏见). Students are then able to contextualize the information they learn and can think more critically about historical con text and those who tell it.

With this framework, students can then understand the causal relationship between human nature, values, philosophy, actions, and their consequences. It teaches students to recognize recurrent themes and lessons that are necessary to understand modern society. Most importantly, it teaches students to develop a healthy skepticism (怀疑论) when presented with information today because our actions are history in the making.

Forty years ago, renowned scholar James Fitzgerald argued that no education is complete without the teaching of historical inquiry. He believed that the only way to move forward in life is to understand what’s behind us.

Today, this principle still holds true. Students take both the factual knowledge and the historical inquiry skills they learn in the classroom and apply them to real world circumstances. Throughout their lives, students who are taught with strong history curricula will take the lessons they learn from our predecessors and become involved, active, productive citizens who want to create a history that tomorrow’s students will be proud to learn about.

Dr. Sylvia Earle wants you to stop eating fish. It’s not because fish are endangered, though wild fish stocks in many oceans are very low. It’s not because they’re bad for you, though fish in many areas are exposed to poisonous substances in the water. It’s because they’re smart.

“Fish are sensitive, and they have personalities,” says the marine (海洋) biologist. For Earle, eating a fish would be like eating a dog or a cat. “Personally, I would never eat anyone I know.”

There’s a lot more about fish: they talk to each other, they like to be touched, and they engage in behavior that can seem very human. They can remember things and learn from experience. Earle and a growing number of animal rights activists see these as strong arguments against eating fish altogether.

The activists also point out that fish feel pain and fish suffer horribly on their way from the sea to the supermarket. “While it may seem obvious that fish are able to feel pain, like every other animal, some people think of fish as swimming vegetables,” says Dr. Lynne Sneddon. “Really, ifs kind of a moral question. Is the enjoyment you get from fishing or eating fish more important than the pain of the fish?”

Fishermen and fish lovers are doubtful. “I’ve never seen a smart fish,” says Marie Swaringen as she finishes off a plate of fish at a Seattle seafood restaurant. “If they were very smart, they wouldn’t get caught.”

“For years, everyone’s been telling us to eat fish because it’s so good for us,” says another diner. “Now I’ve got to feel guilty while I’m eating my fish? What are they going to think of next? Don’t eat salad because cucumbers have feelings?”