Is Black History taught in schools?

[Carver]

* wonders why he came back after 8 days of peace *

[chequita guevara]

Carver, you live in SouthEast FL, yes? Bunnygrrl and I are strongly considering moving down there (Ft. Lauderdale . . . North Miami) . Anything you can tell us about the area?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moving again?

[Carver]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Carver, you live in SouthEast FL, yes? Bunnygrrl and I are strongly considering moving down there (Ft. Lauderdale . . . North Miami) . Anything you can tell us about the area?

Untill a couple weeks ago I lived in Tampa Bay, Largo to be exact. I would have loved to have lived on the east coast though, even though its more expensive. That whole stretch from N Miami to Ft. Lauderdale is very developed and congested. But its a fun area, lots of clubs and places to party and I love the cosmopolitan atmosphere. There's a lot of transplants from NYC and of course people from the Carribean. Man, now you're making me miss FL already and I'm stuck here in St. Louis for grad school. St. Louis, btw, is honorary rust belt. Parts of this town are really run down.

So when are you and the Bunny going to get married?

[Al B. Sure!]

Chegitz' girlfriend is Bunnygrrl?

[Ramo]

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.

There's no reason to get into the specifics when generalities can explain the war nearly as well.

Many delegates in the Annapolis Convention favored overhauling the whole thing.

But not all of them.

If there were more states involved they might have started then.

1. The delegates didn't have that much authority...
2. The point is that only a few states were fully represented. A centralized union wasn't that popular in state governments before Shay's Rebellion.

A push for homogeneity in trade policies and removal of internal barriers simply wasn't motivation enough for many of the states to cede their authority.

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.

That's like saying the Civil War started on July 21, 1861...

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.

I never said a basic background of the timeline shouldn't be taught. However, learning specific dates is a waste of students' time.

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

Why? You're telling me nothing important has ever been forgotten?

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.

Not at all. Only rough dates are needed.

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.

Bull****. Social history isn't considered interesting because it isn't competently taught.

And most people don't have enough of an appreciation for strategy or tactics for battles to be all that interesting.

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.

To each, his own, I suppose.

I like history because it explains the condition of humanity. The status of states or princes are interesting to me primarily insofar as their action substantially affects the dynamics of people.

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?

Why should they? What does it do for them? Rote-memorization neither exercise the student's mind, nor inspires students to learn real history, nor gives them an appreciation for current events.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's no reason to get into the specifics when generalities can explain the war nearly as well.

Nearly as well. And what is nearly? The specifics of the war are very important, and more interesting than the social conditions in the Article of Confederation.

But not all of them.

At the beginning NOT ALL of the delegates in the Constitutional Convention favored a total overhaul.

1. The delegates didn't have that much authority...
2. The point is that only a few states were fully represented. A centralized union wasn't that popular in state governments before Shay's Rebellion.

A push for homogeneity in trade policies and removal of internal barriers simply wasn't motivation enough for many of the states to cede their authority.

Neither was Shay's Rebellion. If you recall (maybe you don't), in many states the ratification BARELY passed. And it wasn't because of Shay's Rebellion. In the Federalist Papers they didn't mention anything about putting down rebellions. It was because of homogenized trade and coinage. Enough legislaters in the states saw what happens when you have seperate coinage and tariffs, and THAT is why they voted to ratify. Shay's Rebellion is simply something that has been thrown in, in hindsight.

That's like saying the Civil War started on July 21, 1861...

It basically did. People are wrong to say it started with Fort Sumter. It started with the first battles in Northern Virginia.

[q]I never said a basic background of the timeline shouldn't be taught. However, learning specific dates is a waste of students' time. [/q

Specific dates PROVIDE a basic background. Every student should know that the Civil War lasted until 1865, and then Reconstruction lasted until 1877. The span between dates shows things. It's provides the background.

Why? You're telling me nothing important has ever been forgotten?

If it has been forgotten, it probably wasn't worth talking about.

Not at all. Only rough dates are needed.

Rough dates... like the US Civil War was fought in the mid-1800s? And the Dred Scott decision was also in the mid-1800s? Rough dates don't cut it.

Bull****. Social history isn't considered interesting because it isn't competently taught.

That's bigger bull****. People don't give a damn about social history. Ask a normal high school student if they'd want to learn about the Civil War or the state of women in the antebellum South, and I bet they'd overwhelmingly vote for Civil War... even the women among them.

I like history because it explains the condition of humanity. The status of states or princes are interesting to me primarily insofar as their action substantially affects the dynamics of people.

I go for the opposite. The dynamics of the people are vaugely interesting because it might have an effect on the status of states or rulers, which is infinetly more interesting to me.

[Carver]

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

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.

My dear Imran, where do I start?

Warfare is something that is undertaken for a purpose. When you get down to it, that purpose on the most fundamental level is almost always rooted in domestic social affairs. The social climate or social atmoshpere, or social system (or whatever) is EVERYTHING . Its the way we live, the way we conduct commerce, how we labor and how we are payed, how we are entertained and by whom, where we live and with whom. The social climate determines what future our children have, what potential a man has for upward mobility, if and how we are educated and for what purpose.

To exist in a pleasant social atmosphere is the fundamental goal of every responsible government and a fundamental desire of every man and woman. In the end that's what we all care about: money, a home, a future for one's children. Remember: "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Wars are undertaken when someone's pleasant social climate is threatened, as was the case with southern secession in the US. Wars are also undertaken becuase it is believed that the war will improve the social climate within a society as was the case with WW2 Japan.

I don't know how you can even value reading about the Punic Wars if you don't know the social climate. The climate is how the people lived, what their fears and aspirations were - its who those people are.

That "dumb social stuff" is the essence of life. The history of America is the history of Americans. Understanding, in general terms, wars is good but knowing that a bunch of people killed a bunch of other people at a certain place at a certain time is usually excess (unless you're a neoconfederate looking to cherish those rare wins ). No one can make you understand the socioeconomic status of African-Americans pre civil-war, post civil-war, at the turn of century, the roaring twenties, WW1, WW2, the 50s and 60s and later, but if you don't don't claim to be knowledgeable in US history because you aren't.

African-American history is largely (but certainly not completely) synonomous with race relations. Race relations effect the way we all live. Thus, African-American history effects all who live and have lived in the US.

Thank You.

P.S. Social history is the meat and potatos, military history is the story of how the meat and potatos gets from the farm to the kitchen table.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's still . I know you socialists really, really, really care about the social conditions and try to ascribe it to everything, but really... it doesn't matter. The battles are what matter. They are the turning points in history. The social stuff is the boring background that only a few people really give a damn about. In 200 years no one will care about our society and why should they? It's boring.

Simply put, the social reasons are fleeting and momentary, the battles and their consequences live forever.

I've read much more social history than military history, and yet the military history is more intriguing to me. I'm glad I wasn't taught social history in High School history because I probably wouldn't have minored in the subject in College if I had.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but if you don't don't claim to be knowledgeable in US history because you aren't.

5 out of 5 on the US Advanced Placement test says you are wrong . And yeah, I do understand it, but it still bores the crap out of me. And knowing black history from 1910-1950 isn't NEARLY as important as knowing WW1, WW2, and the Great Depression in that time period. If you say different, you are full of ****.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Moving again?

Yeah, there are more jobs both for me and Bunnygrrl down there than here. Jax is just too much of a backwater for a web designer to find steady work. Plus there are a lot of the bigger stores like Bloomie's, Sax, and Neiman's in the South East, where Bunnygrrl can get a job as a sales person.

Carver, Bunnygrrl and I may never get married. We've been together for almost twelve years now. The only real reaons to do it would be for tax purposes (because of the disparity in our incomes) and for SS, so she can collect my payments, should anythin ever happen to me.

BTW, I was born in St. Louis.

Speer, yes, she and I are partners.

[JohnT]

Ramo: "Why should they? What does it do for them? Rote-memorization neither exercise the student's mind, nor inspires students to learn real history, nor gives them an appreciation for current events."

What does it do for them? It helps them memorize dates. Doesn't exercise the mind? Where do you think memory is stored, Ramo? The kidneys?

Doesn't inspire them to learn history? Doesn't give them an appreciation for current events? I think not knowing the facts does far more to discourage the desire to learn history than you assume, Ramo, because who wants to look like an idiot by discussing a subject that one knows nothing about.

Honestly, how can one discuss history if one is ignorant of even the basic facts of it?

[Carver]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, I was born in St. Louis.

I hope you didn't mind my observations. If you want we can bash my hometown, Hartford, CT there's definently plenty of reasons to.

[chequita guevara]

Nah, I was 1 and a half when we moved away. I don't even know the place. I just have an irrational emotional attatchment to it. Your observations are spot on.

[Shi Huangdi]

"5 out of 5 on the US Advanced Placement test says you are wrong . "

I got a 4 of 5 without taking the class.

But ya, I agree with you about the battles. Clashes like at Tours determine the course of history, stuff like the Harlem Rennaisance is just boring.