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.
That's kinda the crux of the situation, those are generally not the kinds of people that think about stuff like that....just doesn't cross their mind. Certainly not on Spring Break either.
I understand that to understand historical issues in great detail requires a great deal of work- mostly reading. But it is not difficult to have a basic knowledge of the big issues such as WWII and of course Slavery.
But fine, it does not cross their mind. I don't understand nuclear physics. So I tend not to discuss it at all.
I understand that to understand historical issues in great detail requires a great deal of work- mostly reading. But it is not difficult to have a basic knowledge of the big issues such as WWII and of course Slavery.
But fine, it does not cross their mind. I don't understand nuclear physics. So I tend not to discuss it at all.
Hey, I agree with you I'm one of those nerds that will watch History Channel, read etc.
While it's not difficult to have basic knowledge of things, most of these kids are instead watching shows about the Kardashians, sports etc.
The ONLY exposure they're going to have to stuff like that is through school when they're forced to or MAYBE if someone makes a cool movie about something historical.
I have an affinity for history. Historical subject matter written or even recounted orally by old folks with no academic credentials at all.
Okay, so let's get something out of the way right way. I could probably, justifiably, be regarded as more of a "socialist" in my views of history. Not that I'm totally against looking at individuals like Thomas Jefferson for example, when studying US history. But I don't regarded famous individuals, no matter how brilliant, as sufficiently capturing the history of a nation or nationality, or even a religion. I'm critical of concepts like the "Founding Fathers" and I can even be critical of individual Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson.
As I said, I have an affinity for what we term history. Consequently, I have a lot to say on the matter and I have some strong onpinions.
#1. I agree with Skepticratic that memorization of dates and facts can be of little use to the average individual. I don't think memorization of such things are necessarily evidence of great intelligence anyways. Well... it may demonstrate an above average ability at memorization (a good thing mind you). I think what is more important is understanding concepts, recognizing philosophical concepts, and approaching your own study and understanding of history from a philosophical theme you've developed.
Admittedly, a philosophical approach to the study of history is already had and carried out by people both on the political left and right, by both the professor in the article of post number one as well as his liberal students.
And it's the philosophical theme to how you approach and understand history which in my view will make your historical narrative, conclusions closer or further from the "truth." But then the question as to what is truth is a whole other philosophical discussion I think.
#2. The social sciences, from sociologists to economists, have a role to play in the composing of historical narratives too.
#3. The storyteller, like Dan Carlin with his online videos, has a roll to play too. A good storyteller can suck individuals into "history" and wanting to know more about a given historical subject.
From a moral and sociological aspect I might argue a good number of "nobody", white, male, IV heroin addicts today are better men than former President Thomas Jefferson. While I think it is reasonable to ask people--myself included--to temper their judgments about men and women from a totally different era with much different mores and challenges, I don't agree no judgement can't or ought not be made about them. Ridiculous. Thomas Jefferson can be judged if Adolf Hitler and Stalin can be judged. And Thomas Jefferson may have been an above average intelligent man, he may have contribute a number of ideas to the political culture and formation of American politics and law, and for his time period he may not have been the worst man walking around. That said he was no saint by Catholic or Orthodox conception of sainthood. He enslaved his own children--the ones born of mixed-race ancestry--having them stand around his dinner table serving him and his white children (their half siblings) and white wife. He engaged in adultery with a young teenage girl that was a cousin of his own wife. And he lived a life of aristocratic leisure on his plantation wherein his black slaves did the work, while he lived in the "life of his mind," and his plantation disciplined slaves with physical torture. None of this the 12 Apostles did and even during Jefferson's life time saints lived, or even alcoholic white men that while sinners and broke, physically tortured no black people for their (white) own monetary profit or social power.
Slavery is an old socio-economic institution that existed long before the Europeans ever discovered the Americas. I think slavery also falls under the history of labor. And it is worth while learning about the history of labor. Because while the rice swamps black slaves worked bare footed in (with worms potentially going into their feet) were among some of the worst slave laboring conditions in the United States, the average labor life of the domestic "house slave" was probably a lot more preferable to the conditions in the labor life of the poor white immigrants toiling tiny wages in many of the industrial factories (and coal mines) of the United States. Child labor in factories would be beaten--whipped--like the black slaves on cotton plantations of the South.
So, knowing something (not necessary to know everything--unless maybe you want to teach) about the history of labor helps one better grasp where improvements may or may not have been made in the world of labor.
From an economic stand point, it is not the lack of wages that defines enslavement, but rather your physical body, person, being "owned" by someone else. Some black slaves in Latin America (and I've been told by oral tradition from my black grandfather originally from Mississippi, in the United States as well) received tiny wages for their labor. Consequently, some of them saved up those wages over decades and purchased their freedom (where their slave owner allowed them to do so).
So, if you earn a tiny wage, to what degree are you not a slave? That's a question for each individual in their own life to ponder and answer for themselves.
Lost in the previous posters long post was a true gem.
Dan Carlin, Hardcore history podcasts are *amazingly* good....and he doesn't shove his views down your throat but leaves things open to interpretation when there isn't a clear known answer.
There is only so much you can teach in a day. History is only one subject. Each subject is what, maybe an hour maybe 45 minutes. The entire history of the world just isn't possible to teach. But my son majored in history so he knows things I was never taught.
All true. Plus, even in 2, 3, or even 7 life times you could not read and study all of the various histories of mankind.
I read biographies and autobiographies too. One thing worth noting is that you can write a single 300 page book just on 1 person. So, it is a pet peeve of mine that irks me, with this notion you can cover the entirety of US history, or history of black people, in 1,000 pages of a book or worst yet in a single month.
But history is generally taught as propaganda. So, Black History Month is pure and utter propaganda, emulating a style of narrative in the genre of history called "Catholic Triumphalism." Or that being wherein no wrongs were committed by Catholics but rather Catholocism entered human history, conquered, revolutionized and only accomplished goodness on a gran level. That is essentially what Black History Month is the equivalent of.
If Catholics have the Inquisition, Italians have the Borgias and mafia, and Germans have the Nazis in their history, then why does Black-American history and its celebrated Black History Month not have the Crips, Vice Lords, and celebrated black Chicago pimps.
I was taught in community college that the art of propaganda focuses excessively on the real or perceived faults of its enemies. And repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats and repeats to death that message over and over again.
So, when the history of Christianity is only presented as one of corrupt popes, crimes, faults, abuses and so on. And that message is repeated over, and over, and over again. Who has the media masters de facto illustrated as its enemy? Christians.
More telling is when that same media repeats, repeats, repeats how good and holy Muslims and Islam is. But wants every small child to learn Islam is to be trusted by Christianity with its Messiah is to be feared and crushed. They go further to insinuate Black-American secular organizations like the Crips and Vice Lords rarely harm a hair on the head of an American, bring only peace and harmony through secular gospel, but the Christians in the US are driving gun violence in the US via religious wars inside the USA, with Catholics and Protrstants carrying out drive-by shootings, Catholics conspiring to blow up Muslim Mosques and so on.
If you re-read my post you'll see that I'm noting that while the school may be average, the kids taking that sort of class (as opposed to say bio-chem or Calc 3) are typically going to be below average for that school.
The prof taught English. Gen Ed courses are required, and English course credits are not only almost always required to earn a degree (unless one tests out for credit or has AP credit/s in English), it's a course frequently taken to meet Gen Ed requirements. So, no, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Business and Engineering majors take those English classes, too.
Slavery is only a small fraction of our history. My son took AP history too. Slavery wasn't a part of that. Honestly, why are you leaving it up to teachers. Parents are the first educators. Teach you children and not leave it up to others
Slavery, the racial caste system ad a whole, was no "small fraction" of US history. Both permeated throughout the whole social and economic structures of US life. That cotton produced by a torture basic economy (as one historian has called it) was shipped to the factories of the North who turned the cotton into sale able consumer products. Taxes were paid to the Federal Government through the cotton industry. The US national income was in part driven by cotton which was driven by the enslavement of black people, which was propelled and sustained by fear of brutal physical torture.
But this brutality and racial caste system was not limited to the United States. It went on throughout all the Americas. At least south of Canada. And plenty of Catholics and Protestants prospered from and militantly supported slavery and the racial caste system.
One lesson to be learned is that just because something is "conservative" and "traditional" in your present society does not mean it is not wicked and ought not be changed. Kind of like the refusal of many Americans to extend health security to all Americans. Their militant opposition to universal health care.
Three of the primary obligations of government, be it in the US or Brazil, is to provide health, economic, and physical security (without being intrusive) for allof its citizens.
Brazil's Government tries (but does a terrible job) to some degree to provide health security through universal health care. The United States Government does not try at all. They both get a fail score in this category. They both get a fail score for economic security extended to all citizens as well. And Brazil gets a fail score for physical safety whereas the USA probably gets a D or C- score.
Given the number of students in the country, even with eleven years experience, that's not an adequate sample pool.
Are you kidding me?
Election tracking polls can - and do - consistently predict the winners, with less than 1% of the polling areas reporting. Just watch next week and you'll see it for yourself.
America invented antebellum chattel slavery....and it's an extremely unique form of slavery as slavery goes.
Actually, no. The European colonies in Central and South America were the primary instigators and practitioners of antebellum chattel slavery. Chattel slavery was ubiquitous throughout the established European colonies in Central and South America from the 16th to 19th centuries (1500s to 1800s) in a range of industries from crop plantations to mining. The U.S. didn't invent chattel slavery. They came in towards the end.
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.
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.
