Is Black History taught in schools?

[Ramo]

Nearly as well. And what is nearly? The specifics of the war are very important,

They can be ignored, and the implications of these events explained.

and more interesting than the social conditions in the Article of Confederation.

Social conditions in the Articles?

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

My point is that replacing the Articles wasn't all that popular an idea at the Annapolis Convention.

Neither was Shay's Rebellion. If you recall (maybe you don't), in many states the ratification BARELY passed.

Yep, and 8 states weren't represented, at all, at Annapolis. And two more only half-heartedly. What's left isn't enough to get anything passed, barely or not.

In the Federalist Papers they didn't mention anything about putting down rebellions.

I suggest taking another look.

In no. 1, Hamilton writes, "Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter, may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in each State to reisist all changes which may hazard a dimunition of the power, emolument and consequence of the offices they hold under the State-establishments - and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will hope to aggrandise themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies, than from its union under one government."

In no. 9, Hamilton writes, "Should a popular insurrection happen, in one of the confederate States, the others are able to quell it."

In no. 10, Madison basically argues that the new political system would neturalize class conflicts.

There's probably more, but I can't come with any other papers off the top of my head.

Regardless, the Federalist papers only represented the views and arguments of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. On the floor of the Constitutional Convention, Shay's Rebellion was one of the most important arguments. Washington, for instance, said of Shay's Rebellion that "there could be no stronger evidence of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders."

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.

Unifying these economic policies simply didn't wasn't important enough to the states as crushing class conflict. Again, 8 out of 13 states did not even bother showing up to the Annapolis Convention, which was assembled to address these issues.

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

Riiight.

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.

Like I said, general dates are needed.

I don't give a **** if students don't know exactly when Fort Sumter was stormed or when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse or when the Compromise of 1877 was agreed upon.

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

You're seriously arguing that important events aren't forgotten?

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.

People don't give a **** about history, period. I doubt they'd really care about which topic they choose.

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.

Rough dates, like the Civil War started in 1861.

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?

Memorizing a bunch of numbers takes a lot of brainpower?

Why should they memorize historical dates when they aren't learning the historical background in which these events occur? It's a waste.

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?

Err.. I'm not saying not to teach major historical events, but that forcing rote-memorization of specific dates or battle names should come secondary to teaching social history.

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.

Damn straight.

[JohnT]

"Memorizing a bunch of numbers takes a lot of brainpower?"

It does to your average 10 year old.

[Al B. Sure!]

Warfare is an extension of politics... take the example of the battle of Tours... Franks fighting Muslims... now what does that tell us? Little except for some reason they fought and the Franks won...

We need to know what were the reasons behind the fighting... we need to know about the relations between Christians and muslims... we need to know why the muslims even came to France (because the Ummayad dynasty had been deposed and had taken refuge in Spain)... we need to know why the Franks were so crucial to the defence of Western Europe (why did they come there and why were they essentially Europe's only Catholics)... And it's good for future studies to know the effects of this... Franks are the defenders of Western europe... Catholics proved they could be independent of the Eastern Emperor... Charles Martel's grandson would become the Holy Roman emperor... these are all political and social consequences. Frankly, the battle of Tours was insignificant except as a steming point for further social and political studies. The actual tactics are of no historical value in the larger picture.


and Chegitz... why don't you get married? Damn man, just cause you're a communist don't mean you got to be a fruit. Get married and have a family... sheesh


thanks

[JohnT]

Nice insult, asswipe.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Frankly, the battle of Tours was insignificant except as a steming point for further social and political studies."

Yes, completely insignificant, except that it saved Christianity and didn't let the meditteranean become an Islamic lake. Understanding the factor driving the conquest are important, but to call Tours insignicant is insane. Had the battle gone differently, the social state of Europe would be much different as it would be Moslem. Battles provide the turning points that decide how history will play out. The consequence of Tours today is far more important then French society at the time.

[Al B. Sure!]

But that's exaclty what i'm saying... the consequences of Tours were major political and social consequences... the actual study of the battle in terms of the battle specifically is pointless... One can say that the Franks and Muslims fought with no mention of the specific site of Tours or the tactics employed but still fully understand the consequences and causes of the un-named battle.


thanks

[Grandpa Troll]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I was born June 13 1959. My memories are vague of my early years, I remember Blackouts during early 60's for training if war materialized Stateside. I remember bits and pieces of JFK's assasination. I "remember"lots from history recounts and History Channel and movies. Not, perhaps, what actually went on.

My point concerning this issue about Black history being taught is this, Whom is qualified to teach it?

If you take a Black person whom simply rekindles old tales and compilations of pieces of History they were told, that is not a fair summation to the Black People.

If you take a Non-Black then they may do same thing.

If you take 6 people's account of an accident scene, you will get diufferent perspectives depending upon where they were when it happened. The mind can easily be persuaded to "believe" it saw something when in actuality it didnt.

I think "History " should indeed be taught and yes Black histroy is a part, both positive and Negative. It has shown me from what i read and have seen some horrific happenings that as an American citizen I am ashamed of. However, i did not do those things to anyone. I am sorry it happened. I was held down and had my teeth kicked out of my head and ribs busted up when I was 13 years old. I was and still am outraged that nothing or little was done to prevent this from happening, but ~sigh~ I had to move on. I think a lot of "Blacks" honestly would like to portray History from their perspective. But thats the problem, "THeir" perspective. It would take years and years to just simply come up with some sort of cirriculum. Then it would be scrutinized and have to be appoved to be taught, To instructors/teachers/professors and then approved to be entered into mainstream High Schools and or colleges.

Not a simple solution. I think a lot of History is actually tainted and replayed form "altered" factual happenings.

Should Black History be taught in schools? I say leave that for colleges as an alternative.
Should "History" be taught in our public schools systems?
Yes, and definetly include coverage of the slavery issues,as well civil rights plights. But remember if you touch on a lot of "sensitive" issues, beware and be prepared for the out crying of misrepresentation of peoples views of these events. People will say"Thats not what happened" because they remember bits and pieces of what they "heard" not actually saw. Or they "saw" from one viewpoint not all that led up to certain events!

I dont condone all things that have happened to "Black Folks". Nor do I condone teaching eroneous facts based upon certain people's hidden agenda's of "contributing to the healing process" by dragging mud from the bottom of the channel.

~sigh~

Thats my $0.02 worth.

Troll

Like my .gif below, I could easily construct my own History of anything, if I had enuff sprinklings of facts to cover my own agenda!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I got a 4 of 5 without taking the class.

Well if you were in my class, you'd say I didn't take the class either . I swear 1/4th of the year, the teacher just let us hang out and chat.

Social conditions in the Articles?

That era.

My point is that replacing the Articles wasn't all that popular an idea at the Annapolis Convention.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/annapoli.htm

Read:

That the State of New Jersey had enlarged the object of their appointment, empowering their Commissioners, " to consider how far an uniform system in their commercial regulations and other important matters, might be necessary to the common interest and permanent harmony of the several States," and to report such an Act on the subject, as when ratified by them " would enable the United States in Congress assembled, effectually to provide for the exigencies of the Union."

That there are important defects in the system of the Federal Government is acknowledged by the Acts of all those States, which have concurred in the present Meeting; That the defects, upon a closer examination, may be found greater and more numerous, than even these acts imply, is at least so far probable, from the embarrassments which characterize the present State of our national affairs, foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be supposed to merit a deliberate and candid discussion, in some mode, which will unite the Sentiments and Council's of all the States. In the choice of the mode, your Commissioners are of opinion, that a Convention of Deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered to exist, will be entitled to a preference from considerations, which will occur, without being particularized.

It indicates that this new meeting (Constitutional Convention) could ONLY be used for a total overhaul of the Articles.

I don't give a **** if students don't know exactly when Fort Sumter was stormed or when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse or when the Compromise of 1877 was agreed upon.

But I do. And apparently so do you. You did say Compromise of 1877. That's a date .

You're seriously arguing that important events aren't forgotten?

Like I said, if they are forgotten, then they probably aren't important to know.

People don't give a **** about history, period.

But they care about battles. Look at movies. How many more people go to movies like Saving Private Ryan than some tripe like Beloved.

Rough dates, like the Civil War started in 1861.

That's not a rough date. That's a specific date. Years are specific. People don't learn which month and day things happen, they learn years. That is a specific date.

Why should they memorize historical dates when they aren't learning the historical background in which these events occur? It's a waste.

BECAUSE YOU NEED A BACKGROUND! Will you listen?

Err.. I'm not saying not to teach major historical events, but that forcing rote-memorization of specific dates or battle names should come secondary to teaching social history.

I'm saying social history should be second to teaching of battles and events that turned history.

Warfare is an extension of politics

Well no crap, but warfare influences politics much more than you'll admit.

I'm not saying don't teach politics... I'm saying you need a basis before you teach politics. People HAVE to know important battles and events before you can go into the reasons for them. Or else they'll be lost.