Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
School history books are always pretty odd. I'd question the agenda of anyone writing them, whether it was an idealogical agenda, or perhaps a personal agenda. It'd be pretty difficult to figure out how to summarize several centuries of history for a student audience. What do you include? What do you leave out? How do you decide? The end result is typically a bit daffy doodle, if I recall correctly. The weirdest things get over-emphasized, while seemingly important things are barely mentioned. You could put 10 sovereigntist historians to work on the same history textbook, and they'd likely disagree and get into a brawl over how to write the book.
School history books are always pretty odd. I'd question the agenda of anyone writing them, whether it was an idealogical agenda, or perhaps a personal agenda. It'd be pretty difficult to figure out how to summarize several centuries of history for a student audience. What do you include? What do you leave out? How do you decide? The end result is typically a bit daffy doodle, if I recall correctly. The weirdest things get over-emphasized, while seemingly important things are barely mentioned. You could put 10 sovereigntist historians to work on the same history textbook, and they'd likely disagree and get into a brawl over how to write the book.
The same would hold true with 10 federalist historians as well...
The same would hold true with 10 federalist historians as well...
Oh yes, I agree with you--it wasn't a criticism of sovereigntists actually, but historians in general--especially the ones who would be interested in writing school history textbooks. They all seem to develop some strange ideas about how to best indoctrinate the next generation in their own particular view of history.
Shouldn't they be happy "white people" came. I mean look at the Indian reservations... Look at all the great things we brought them! White people use to be tough now I think we're all a bunch of pu**sies! Well I'm not! And btw here in Seattle they did that at my school and now all these people hate white people! No joke they told me yuck another white boy is at our school, then my "friends" told me they don't visit Portland because there is too many "white people". I also told them they should visit Vancouver is great! They then said to me is there white people there? HONESTLY most of the immigrants don't like white people!!
Shouldn't they be happy "white people" came. I mean look at the Indian reservations... Look at all the great things we brought them! White people use to be tough now I think we're all a bunch of pu**sies! Well I'm not! And btw here in Seattle they did that at my school and now all these people hate white people! No joke they told me yuck another white boy is at our school, then my "friends" told me they don't visit Portland because there is too many "white people". I also told them they should visit Vancouver is great! They then said to me is there white people there? HONESTLY most of the immigrants don't like white people!!
judging by the tone of your post, I don't blame them. I say that as a 'white guy'..
Seriously, given the thread title this is going to be ironic but... Read some history books dude. ´White' people were never any kind of cohesive group.
Shouldn't they be happy "white people" came. I mean look at the Indian reservations... Look at all the great things we brought them!!
You were being sarcastic right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.