 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
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.
quote:
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  .
quote:
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 shits 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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
And in 1000 years, people aren't going to give two shits 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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
Just because it's forgotten doesn't imply it's unimportant. |
In history forgotten implies unimportant. Otherwise it would have been remembered.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Carver
|
 |
reprocessing plutonium, Yongbyon, NK
Jan 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
Chegitz' girlfriend is Bunnygrrl?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
Many delegates in the Annapolis Convention favored overhauling the whole thing. |
But not all of them.
quote:
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.
quote:
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...
quote:
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.
quote:
In history forgotten implies unimportant. Otherwise it would have been remembered. |
Why? You're telling me nothing important has ever been forgotten?
quote:
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.
quote:
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. |
Bullshit. 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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
But not all of them. |
At the beginning NOT ALL of the delegates in the Constitutional Convention favored a total overhaul.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
[q]Why? You're telling me nothing important has ever been forgotten? |
If it has been forgotten, it probably wasn't worth talking about.
quote:
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.
quote:
Bullshit. Social history isn't considered interesting because it isn't competently taught. |
That's bigger bullshit. 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.
quote:
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
|
|
reprocessing plutonium, Yongbyon, NK
Jan 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by Carver on 09-08-2002 at 23:28
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-08-2002 02:29
. 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.
|