Is Black History taught in schools?

[Eroberer]

Battles can also make things more interesting. Like who could forget that WWII happened all because of the Battle of Tannenburg!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly . And for that, you need knowledge of dates and battles .

[Bosh]

Which is fine in the University setting... but you NEED the background in place. You need the dates and battles, etc., in High School. 'People's History' isn't bad in college, where you are other books expressing other views, but as a single solitary high school textbook, it falls pitifully short.

Right, it doesn't provide a comprehensive history at all more just some interesting glimpses at bits of history. Doesn't make much sense to use it as a sole text, makes a good supplement though...

[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?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd think it does . It puts everything in order. Ordered events are nice .

And yes, I think the Battles are as important as the changes. The battles show the two (or more) sides and they are the catalysts. I mean, without Saratoga, the Revolution is a little remembered thing in British crushing of an American rebellion.

[Ramo]

And yes, I think the Battles are as important as the changes. The battles show the two (or more) sides and they are the catalysts. I mean, without Saratoga, the Revolution is a little remembered thing in British crushing of an American rebellion.

Not at all. Without students learning about Saratoga, they wouldn't suddenly think that the Brits won the war. Students would better use their time learning about the changes the American Revolution brought.

I'd think it does . It puts everything in order. Ordered events are nice .

Yeah, but nothing more than rough dates are needed. I think remembering that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in late '41 or that Charlemagne was crowned Emperor in the beginning of the 9th century is perfectly fine.

[Eroberer]

I guess you could say that knowing dates seperates the men from the boys. =)

[Ramo]

Not if they don't know the historical trends that the dates seperate.

[Eroberer]

I can usually just make up those details with little loss in "truth." Can't dispute dates!

[Ramo]

Sure I can. I could use the Chinese dating system.

I can usually just make up those details with little loss in "truth."

In other words, you can bull**** an essay on history. That's not quite the same thing as understanding historical trends.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Unless you are sticking merly to dates and names, history is entirely about ideology and politics. Dispite the fact that you disagree with it's politics, it is simply the best American history text out there. Who Built America? is quite good, but it's not as in depth as Zinn's book."

No, you can talk about events, and cause and effect between events. For instance, talking about Ancient, you can discuss the failure to bring unity to Greece and the the feuding between the States led to Macedonian to conquest. And said conquest along with organization done by Phillip gave Alexander the Great a base to expand with, which led to Alex's conquest and the spread of Hellenic ideas throughout the East. Or for Japan, Tokugawa winning control of Japan leads to a long period of explanation. High school needn't go over every theory over what has happened, it should give the fundamentals as to what happened, and encourage studies to come up with their own ideas- not propgandizing them into trying to make them believe history is all class struglle or portraying the USA as the bad guy like you would.

[Shi Huangdi]

One of the chapters is titled: "Robber Barons and Rebels"

Comeone. They say establishment history is biased, but at least in my history course they mentioned they were called Robber Barons by some and Captains of Industry by others, and historians had no agreement over whether they are good. There is enough leftist brainwashing in school already without bringing this crap in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not at all. Without students learning about Saratoga, they wouldn't suddenly think that the Brits won the war. Students would better use their time learning about the changes the American Revolution brought.

Without learning Saratoga the students would have no idea WHY the Americans won the war. The why is just as important as the changes. I would argue that Saratoga is one of the most important events in US history. Much more important than Shay's Rebellion, which is some social trend.

The problem is that leftists want books like a 'People's History' and 'Lies My Teachers Told Me' to simply propagandize young students into becoming future commies. There is nothing altruistic about it, no finding the 'truth', simply breeding a new generation of commies. I might be too cynical at times, but this seems blatently obvious, especially reading a bit of Zinn's propaganda piece, which belongs more in political science than in history.

[Ramo]

Without learning Saratoga the students would have no idea WHY the Americans won the war. The why is just as important as the changes. I would argue that Saratoga is one of the most important events in US history. Much more important than Shay's Rebellion, which is some social trend.

That's crazy. People don't need to know about the important battles in a war. People don't lose any understanding of history if they confuse Saratoga with, say, Trenton. However, learning about Shay's rebellion provides a great amount of insight into many facets of the history of American government and society.

The problem is that leftists want books like a 'People's History' and 'Lies My Teachers Told Me' to simply propagandize young students into becoming future commies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People don't need to know about the important battles in a war. People don't lose any understanding of history if they confuse Saratoga with, say, Trenton. However, learning about Shay's rebellion provides a great amount of insight into many facets of the history of American government and society

Bull! People do lose understanding of history if they can't tell the difference between Saratoga and Trenton. Shay's Rebellion is merely a footnote to history and not really important at all. However, there are FEW things more important in US history than Saratoga. Probably the beginning of the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, The Depression are the only things that are more important in a US history class than Saratoga.

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.

And you can keep laughing, but it's the truth. Leftist want students to think like them, therefor the need for propaganda like "People's History" (which is all it really is).