Is Black History taught in schools?

[Ramo]

Bull! People do lose understanding of history if they can't tell the difference between Saratoga and Trenton.

How so?

Shay's Rebellion is merely a footnote to history and not really important at all.

Yeah, it was only the primary justification for the Constitution and one of the first examples of major class conflict in the US, demonstrating the grievances the poor had against the state. No, not important at all.

I'd MUCH rather have students learn the significance of Saratoga and Trenton rather than Shay's Rebellion. You can totally eliminate Shay's Rebellion out of the cirriculum and I wouldn't care.

I wouldn't really care if students don't memorize the names of a few battles. It's completely trivial!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ramo
I agree with che et al. Battles are important to students only insofar as they herald major social, political, and economic changes. But they are nowhere near as important as these changes themselves.

Learning the names Crecy or Agincourt isn't as important as learning that the rise of infantry triggered the decline of feudalism.

Dates are nice, I guess, but they're trivial as long as students have a rough idea of when major events occured. Does it really matter if people remember the date December 26, 800? Or December 7, 1941?

Ramo. in a world where all students actually cared enough to pay attention in class you and che would be right in your assesment. But only a very tiny portion of the student body has any where near the interest in such things as people on poly do. Someone earlier mentioned that their tests consisted of the state capitals, I would say to them that in a country where many people can't name the state capitals (or some of the states) the reasons behind the social movements and such will have to take a back seat for the moment. Dates keep things simple for those people who are more concerned about if Joey or Tammy are breaking up and if they can get one of them. Remember public school most often caters to the lowest common denominator. For courses that cater to advanced students they can spend a little time thinking but for those that have other things on their mind already spoon fed dates will have to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How so?

Because Saratoga and Trenton are important turning points. Trenton is when Washington actually gave hope to the rebellion. Saratoga is what brought France and Spain into it. If you can't tell them apart, you really know nothing about the revolution, and how it was a near miss thing.

Yeah, it was only the primary justification for the Constitution and one of the first examples of major class conflict in the US, demonstrating the grievances the poor had against the state. No, not important at all.

Trival. Only worthy of 10 minutes in my teaching of history, if that. I know how leftists like to say it was the primary justification for the Constitution, but that's total bollocks. The Anapolis Convention already hinted at the Constitution, and it was before Shay's revolt. I guess that is because you didn't pay enough attention to dates .

I wouldn't really care if students don't memorize the names of a few battles. It's completely trivial!

No more trivial than social movements. I mean, who gives a damn about the social movements in Ancient Rome? The important things are the Emperors and their policies and the wars they wages. Social history is totally irrelevant in Roman history. Who cares?!

And in 1000 years, people aren't going to give two ****s about the Progressives in the early 1900s. They'll look at the Spanish-American War, WW1, The Depression, and WW2, and won't even look at the 'social' aspect. Dates and battles live on, the social history is soon forgotten and unimportant.

[Shi Huangdi]

I agree with Imran WRT to the battles. The key thing about them is that they are actually interesting- Students will be much more likely to learn more if they are interested, so teaching battles is a good way to make history more interesting.

[Dis]

black history

note: that is not racist. I have to post that for the PC clan.

Things that had the most impact upon the world should be taught.

'nuff said.

[chequita guevara]

Imran, there would have been no Consitution without Shay's Rebellion. The spectre of a levellor revolt is what scared the various states into accepting a centralized national government.

And the social history of Rome is very important, because it lead to the form of society that our society was a revolt against. We are linked to Rome as much by its laws and customs as by its steel.

Sprayber, the major comment that most kids have about history is its lack of relevence to their lives. They complain about names and dates. If they could make history more relevent to them, show the kids how it affects them, then kids might take more of an interest in it. I lot of the people I know told me that their best history professors were "communists" who made their history alive. And I'm not talking about fellow lefties saying this to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, there would have been no Consitution without Shay's Rebellion. The spectre of a levellor revolt is what scared the various states into accepting a centralized national government.

That's bull****. They would have done it anyway. The Annapolis Convention showed that the states realized that these Articles wouldn't have worked. The leftist jargon that it was the only reason for the Constitution, is foolish and ignorant.

And the social history of Rome is very important, because it lead to the form of society that our society was a revolt against. We are linked to Rome as much by its laws and customs as by its steel.

But the steel is very imporant, as you stated. You can't have a history without battles and dates. In many cases the battles are much more important than social history of Rome. Odoacer's conquest of Rome is much greater than religious.

[Ramo]

Because Saratoga and Trenton are important turning points. Trenton is when Washington actually gave hope to the rebellion. Saratoga is what brought France and Spain into it. If you can't tell them apart, you really know nothing about the revolution, and how it was a near miss thing.

That's rediculous. Students don't need to know the specifics of each battle to know that an American victory wasn't a guaranteed event.

Trival. Only worthy of 10 minutes in my teaching of history, if that. I know how leftists like to say it was the primary justification for the Constitution, but that's total bollocks.

Yes, the Annapolis Convention was the event that lead the way to the Constitutional Convention. However, the delegates at Annapolis didn't imagine completely overhauling the Articles, rather making some minor changes. Furthermore, only 5 states sent delegates to Annapolis, and only 3 states had enough delegates to represent their states.

It was Shay's rebellion that forced the states into submitting to a more centralized union. There was no real motivation before.

The Anapolis Convention already hinted at the Constitution, and it was before Shay's revolt. I guess that is because you didn't pay enough attention to dates .

Wrong (even if this were relevant). Shay's Rebellion started in August 1786, the Annapolis Convention in September.

No more trivial than social movements. I mean, who gives a damn about the social movements in Ancient Rome? The important things are the Emperors and their policies and the wars they wages. Social history is totally irrelevant in Roman history. Who cares?!

I do. It's damn interesting history. Calling it trivial is insane. Frankly, I find it much more interesting than Roman battles.

And the social history (particularly, the effects of epidemics) explains much of Rome's military history.

And in 1000 years, people aren't going to give two ****s about the Progressives in the early 1900s. They'll look at the Spanish-American War, WW1, The Depression, and WW2, and won't even look at the 'social' aspect. Dates and battles live on, the social history is soon forgotten and unimportant.

Just because it's forgotten doesn't imply it's unimportant.

For courses that cater to advanced students they can spend a little time thinking but for those that have other things on their mind already spoon fed dates will have to do.

As far as I'm concerend, sending kids to learn spoon fed dates is a total waste of their time and their parents' tax money. In fact, I'd say that it's detrimental to their education by turning history into boring busywork.

Kids don't care because they don't learn anything interesting, and teachers aren't challenging them. Also, as che mentioned, it's easier to relate to the condition of commoners in a society than the territorial acquisitions of princes.

[Bosh]

And the social history (particularly, the effects of epidemics) explains much of Rome's military history.

As well as the rise of the Latifundia which set the stage for fuedalism and in some cases had direct successors that lived on into the 20th century (ie the large Andalusian estates).

Happily the general emphasis of the way history is taugh in college seems to be pretty good, not that much military history and big steaming piles of social history, which generally gives you a better understanding of the general sweep of history for all political/military history often being more interesting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's rediculous. Students don't need to know the specifics of each battle to know that an American victory wasn't a guaranteed event.

I think they do. Most of them DON'T know that it was a struggle. Why? Because they don't know the specifics of the battles. Did they know that Washington was almost killed in the Battle of Manhattan? Probably not.

Yes, the Annapolis Convention was the event that lead the way to the Constitutional Convention. However, the delegates at Annapolis didn't imagine completely overhauling the Articles, rather making some minor changes. Furthermore, only 5 states sent delegates to Annapolis, and only 3 states had enough delegates to represent their states.

Many delegates in the Annapolis Convention favored overhauling the whole thing. If there were more states involved they might have started then.

It was Shay's rebellion that forced the states into submitting to a more centralized union. There was no real motivation before.

BS! Read the writing of Washington and Madison before 1786. The Annapolis Convention was the first salvo for a centralized union.

Shay's Rebellion started in August 1786, the Annapolis Convention in September.

Actually Shay's Rebellion started in September as well. In August, it was just a mob taking a local courthouse. Shay took over the mob in September and stormed Springfield. THAT was the beginning of Shay's rebellion. Disillusioned farmers took local courthouses more than once.

Frankly, I find it much more interesting than Roman battles.

I don't. I could care less about the social history of Rome, and am MUCH more interested in the Punic Wars, for instance.

And the social history (particularly, the effects of epidemics) explains much of Rome's military history.

And military history explains much of the social history. I still have no idea how you can go on teaching the social history of the world to people without a basic background of the timeline.

Just because it's forgotten doesn't imply it's unimportant.

In history forgotten implies unimportant. Otherwise it would have been remembered.

As far as I'm concerend, sending kids to learn spoon fed dates is a total waste of their time and their parents' tax money.

I think it is immensly important that kids learn the dates of things. It is the only way to get a background for what happened.

Kids don't care because they don't learn anything interesting

Kids prefer to hear of battles than social history. WHY are kids saying there is nothing interesting? Because they are hearing crap about women in the Revolutionary Period. They don't care about that!! They care about battles. Who gives a damn about dumb social stuff. Personally, I'd much rather read about the Civil War than the social status of blacks before it.

[Faeelin]

Why should it be taught?

Let's be honest. History is supposed to teach about the modern world. What effects did the cultures of africa have on the development of the modern world (outside of africa and the slave trade?)

China, India, etc. we should study. But Africa didn't develop advanced civilizations for a long time after the rest of the world, and they were mostly cut off.

[chequita guevara]

Some of the African nations actually did have quite a bit of influence upon the outside world. It's just that it was forgotten. During the Nineteenth Century, the history of Africa was purged from collecctive memory.

[JohnT]

Can we take the Shay's rebellion debate to another thread? Thanks!

Dates are important, as is rote-memorization. Kids don't have the experience or wisdom to theorize about history, so why not just have them memorize facts? Me thinks that the reasons so many people don't like memorization is because:

1. It's hard.
2. You can't bull**** your way out of it.

[JohnT]

Silly me... I thought y'all were talking about Paul Johnson's Peoples History of the United States.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Dissident
black history

note: that is not racist. I have to post that for the PC clan.

Things that had the most impact upon the world should be taught.

'nuff said.

As many journalists, academics and politicians have noted the issue of race is America's most enduring and troubling issue. The history of African people in America is inseperably interwoven with the "progress" of the United States. You cannot understand US history without understanding African-American history. The relations between blacks and whites in America has repeatedly caused situations and events of tremendus impact upon America.

Race relations formed the basis of the entire Antebellum Southern economy, caused the civil war (as Lincoln said), again formed the basis of the southern economy after the war, led to one of (if not the) largest domestic migrations in US history, race relations resulted in a turbulent social atmosphere in the 40s through 60s that some feared would result in another civil war due to southern conservativeness.