History is cool. Let's talk about it. (Also Oklahoma Votes to Ban AP US History Course)
- Thread starter Firedemon
- Start date
Yeah Lumpy, I took a state government course in Texas and we talked about states other than Texas like they mattered!
The thing that makes this rather unlike Idiocracy is that supporters are, to a very disproportionately high extent, old as hell.
1) For black Americans, substitute literally any part(s) of Africa. Asians and Latinos usually have their shit together, though.
2) Not Spanish, though. It's odd, but I've literally never heard a Yank rattle off "Spain" in their list of favorite countries to imagine identifying with, whitey or otherwise.
American people in general could do with a lot less nationalism; they've already got more of it than they rightly know what to do with, such that it typically carries over into entirely separate, largely-imagined national identities. Ask any given American teenager "where his/her family is from," and more often than not they'll also turn out to be about 1/4 of a German nationalist, 1/8 each of a Scottish and Welsh nationalist, 3/64 of a Cherokee tribesman, 13/64 French nationalist, 1/16 Polish nationalist (also, this will mean that (s)he and I are friends now, what with being fellow countrymen and all), and about another 1/4 Italian nationalist. (1)(2). Don't worry about the fractions adding up. Americans usually have absolutely no idea what being a foreign national even means.
1) For black Americans, substitute literally any part(s) of Africa. Asians and Latinos usually have their shit together, though.
2) Not Spanish, though. It's odd, but I've literally never heard a Yank rattle off "Spain" in their list of favorite countries to imagine identifying with, whitey or otherwise.
Last edited:
I think that this is true. I think the fact that American Exceptionalism is a huge cultural phenomenon (hell, these state legislators actually believe in it...) means that it has a place in American history. I don't think that it should be stated as a fact that the views of this exceptionalism are true.
This raises the question about what the study of history should actually be. Should it simply tell about events in a simply descriptive way (this happened this way) or should it stretch out and make conclusions about those events. I think this is a debate that needs to be held within the context of the study of history. At the highschool AP level I think that there is room to critique past actions and construct arguments based history... students in those classes will presumably go onto university where they will be expected to think critically about information that they receive. I also think that a given history book at this level could tell students about multiple views on the events and let the student decide which they believe in.
The part in the article that was most shocking was this:
[quote="article] and suggests that Manifest Destiny was "built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority," rather than "the belief that America had a mission to spread democracy and new technology across the continent," as he put it. And instead of discussing the "the valor or heroism of American soldiers" during World War II, the course outline mentions U.S. internment camps and moral questions raised by the dropping of the atomic bomb.[/quote]
Manifest destiny WAS about getting more land and subjugating people. That was the whole point. It was our destiny to take over the western part. Also, the trail of tears actually happened. That is not about spreading technology and democracy, it is about getting the best land for 'American'.
Secondly Japanese internment HAPPENED and it is still a major influence in today's time and is cited as an example of how we did wrong in war time. It is an example to learn from.
Lastly, being a student of philosophy to imply that the moral implications of dropping an atomic bombs that leveled cities and contemplating dropping more (thank Russia for this not happening) are not as important as glorifying victory is insane. The morality of the usage or potential usage of such weapons is one of the major factors that propels us to war now (read WMDs) and leads to a large amount of public policy decisions (read Iran sanctions).
I think the legislators think that their opinions are facts...
That's because they think Spain is full of European Mexicans and don't realize they're actually white.
No, some of us think Spain is full of Irishmen like Deadbones.
Yeah, for a really weird culture shock have them watch some of the Spanish Parliament meetings. Not only will they see white people speaking Spanish, but also see Spanish used in a formal context.
I am currently taking the AP US history course and from what I have found it tends to lean towards the more liberal interpretation of history. For instance it is spun that John Brown (Famous Abolitionist) was a murderer (To an extent he was) and that he was "a raving religious lunatic who was still racist," Another spin is that KKK didn't going around lynching and intimidating blacks but instead they had "Nice kind little talks about who to vote for" And that Jim Crow laws only came about because republicans ended reconstruction early to get a few people elected. All around it stinks of the whole "White people are evil racist bigots who run around shooting every one who is nonwhite" narrative.
I think you may have said that thing about the KKK backwards, because "Nice kind little talks about who to vote for" is not a liberal spin at all.
John Brown I honestly have no recollection on, but the argument on Jim Crow Laws is that they came about because of radical reconstruction by Congress, not because of the ending of reconstruction. My teacher tended to argue that Andrew Johnson's inability to tame congress, combined with their punishment oriented ideas as opposed to Lincoln's reconciliatory ideas was what lead to Reconstruction almost completely failing and creating the Jim Crow Laws. That's what was taught to ME, when I took the course in Hyper-conservative Texas (Though my teacher was a liberal). The AP curriculum does not prescribe interpretations for teachers to the best of my knowledge, they instead list off historical events and people that should be covered. Different schools in different districts in different states use different books with different leanings. My book, for example, was the American Pageant, which has been around since the 50's and just keeps getting revised.
Edit: Actually, defaming an abolitionist is not a liberal spin. Abolitionism would have been a liberal idea, even though it was a Republican thing. This is because, as you'll learn soon if you haven't already, the two parties flip flopped because of FDR and the New Deal. Democrats before FDR were a lot more like Republicans today in various areas, and Republicans before FDR were a lot more like Democrats today. In fact, bashing Republican congress during Reconstruction is bashing liberal ideology, as they were liberals in many ways. Conservatives I know have this conspiracy theory that this flip flop was made up by liberals, yet we clearly see the reversal of position on fundamental issues like government size and scope and on states rights if we compare today, to FDR, to before FDR. Lincoln, for example, would have been a Democrat by today's standards.
John Brown I honestly have no recollection on, but the argument on Jim Crow Laws is that they came about because of radical reconstruction by Congress, not because of the ending of reconstruction. My teacher tended to argue that Andrew Johnson's inability to tame congress, combined with their punishment oriented ideas as opposed to Lincoln's reconciliatory ideas was what lead to Reconstruction almost completely failing and creating the Jim Crow Laws. That's what was taught to ME, when I took the course in Hyper-conservative Texas (Though my teacher was a liberal). The AP curriculum does not prescribe interpretations for teachers to the best of my knowledge, they instead list off historical events and people that should be covered. Different schools in different districts in different states use different books with different leanings. My book, for example, was the American Pageant, which has been around since the 50's and just keeps getting revised.
Edit: Actually, defaming an abolitionist is not a liberal spin. Abolitionism would have been a liberal idea, even though it was a Republican thing. This is because, as you'll learn soon if you haven't already, the two parties flip flopped because of FDR and the New Deal. Democrats before FDR were a lot more like Republicans today in various areas, and Republicans before FDR were a lot more like Democrats today. In fact, bashing Republican congress during Reconstruction is bashing liberal ideology, as they were liberals in many ways. Conservatives I know have this conspiracy theory that this flip flop was made up by liberals, yet we clearly see the reversal of position on fundamental issues like government size and scope and on states rights if we compare today, to FDR, to before FDR. Lincoln, for example, would have been a Democrat by today's standards.
Last edited:
I live in Washington there are times when it seems like if you don't follow all of environmental regulations you have pay a bunch of fees and stuff it really doesn't get my hopes up. The severity of the bias probably depends heavily on which state you live in.
Thinking about it I think that democrats have kinda highjacked the word liberal from what liberalism was about when the constitution was written. Looking at it now it seems that Liberal is more referring to taking liberties with the ideas of of the constitution. I think the Flip Flop wasn't really a thing with FDR but instead it happened before the civil war where the Democrats went from the jeffersonian idea of a strict interpretation of the constitution to justifying things not mentioned (Hehe Obama care Hehe) in the constitution. The curriculum seems to have biases all over from what I can tell so far I am only just now in my class getting past Eisenhower.
Thinking about it I think that democrats have kinda highjacked the word liberal from what liberalism was about when the constitution was written. Looking at it now it seems that Liberal is more referring to taking liberties with the ideas of of the constitution. I think the Flip Flop wasn't really a thing with FDR but instead it happened before the civil war where the Democrats went from the jeffersonian idea of a strict interpretation of the constitution to justifying things not mentioned (Hehe Obama care Hehe) in the constitution. The curriculum seems to have biases all over from what I can tell so far I am only just now in my class getting past Eisenhower.
I just went over the end of reconstruction thing in my college course right now. Firedemon, you're right about the punishment thing in general, but, as Zapy mentioned, what ultimately ended reconstruction was a promise by Rutherford B. Hayes to withdraw federal troops from the South if they gave him the votes he needed to become the 19th President of the US -> Southern democrats kicked out the black Republicans reconstruction efforts had put in office, installed Jim Crow, and also started murdering black and white Republican figures that refused to get out of the South (yes, they killed the white ones, too).
The flip flop definitely did not occur before the Civil War. There were party realignments before that, we've had about four if I remember correctly, but those realignments before FDR were really the appearance of new parties with clear ties to the old ones. Democrats had always been small government, states' rights, and concentrated in the South. Republicans had always been big government, federal power/supremacy/stuffs, and concentrated in the North. Democrats opposed using tax dollars for public goods, like roads and railroads in particular, while republicans were all for it. This is why the North had such superior infrastructure at the outset of the Civil War. Today, we look at the parties and see the Republicans are for small government and states' rights and are now concentrated in the South, while Democrats are big government and federal power, and concentrated in the North. We also see that Republicans oppose the use of tax dollars for public goods, like healthcare and education, while Democrats are all for it. We even see conservatives today trying to pull the same Nullification bullshit that nearly caused the Civil War back in 1832, which was pulled by the Democrats in power in South Carolina.
Democrats also have, until FDR, been strict constructionists. Democrats opposed the national bank, and used strict constructionism as an argument for state's rights. We see Andrew Jackson killing the Bank of the United States by not rechartering it, Martin van Buren not using government resources to ease the Panic of 1837, Polk vetoed bills for allocating federal funds to improve infrastructure, believing them to be unconstitutional for unfairly favoring certain parts of the population, I'd keep going, but it's been a while so I don't have a lot of good examples lined up.
Well yeah, that is what ended Reconstruction, but the failure of Reconstruction, generally attributed to the punitive approach of Congress, is the reason for Jim Crow Laws. The ending of Reconstruction is just what allowed them to happen. On the subject of killing white people, there was also a group called the Bushwhackers who tried to force people to continue fighting after the defeat of the Confederacy, and would kill people who refused to do so. I actually have some ancestors from back then that were killed by Bushwhackers for refusing to fight.
Good stuff, Firedemon. I've always really enjoyed my history type classes, so these Oklahoma people trying to kill my APUSH makes me upset. Right now the Communications class I'm in is going over speeches from the Civil War -> WWII and all the historical rhetorical situation stuff that's going on and causing those speeches to happen. It's pretty awesome. Henry Grady's "The New South" speech where he convinces the North that everything in the South post-reconstruction is perfectly fine while also convincing the South that slavery was a romantic but ultimately ineffective system and this new "blacks as workers" thing is a better framework = glorious, but not as glorious as Booker T. Washington's speech before a white audience where he finds himself in a rhetorical situation where his only option that will not get him lynched after the speech is to completely agree with white supremacy and to tacitly imply that lynching 'uppity blacks' is okay.
New South: http://www.anselm.edu/academic/history/hdubrulle/civwar/text/documents/doc54.htm
Booker T. Washington' Cotton States Exposition Address: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/
(I kind of want to repurpose this thread as the "History is cool. Let's talk about it" thread).
New South: http://www.anselm.edu/academic/history/hdubrulle/civwar/text/documents/doc54.htm
Booker T. Washington' Cotton States Exposition Address: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/
(I kind of want to repurpose this thread as the "History is cool. Let's talk about it" thread).
History is friggin' cool. A lot of my friends hate it, but it's my favorite part of any subject.
yes it is, I am actually not very proficient in the class because it is a writing based class. I love the history, The non-AP was like civil war to today cutting out the absolutely most important stuff. Yeah lets continue about history, War history best kind of history!
Also healthcare isn't really a public good, it is a business and commodity (in the sense that it costs money and someone has to work to provide it). Education is similar but unlike healthcare it isn't as expensive. The bill of rights has been almost completely destroyed for the most part by democrats and progressives, so nullification isn't that bad. Right now it just seems like they are trying to make the government into a European financial nightmare. Probably should stay closer to the topic though, I don't really like that the state has banned this course but I hate the fact that states are really beginning to lose the last of their rights.
All public goods cost money and require work. Roads don't appear out of nowhere for free. Law enforcement doesn't just happen. Education isn't delivered by a magical teacher fairy for free. Healthcare is a public good, which Republicans think should not be provided for by tax dollars and Democrats do. As for Democrats destroying the Bill of Rights, that's too political for me to get into here.
But anyways guys, history is so cool. I work weekends on the Battleship Texas at the San Jacinto Battleground, and it's so cool learning about individual crew members and things that the ship was involved in. Missouri may have had the Japanese surrender on her deck, but Texas was with the British Grand Fleet escorting the surrendered German fleet. She fired the first shots on D-Day, she had the 1st Marine Division founded on her fan tail, and the crew could see the flag go up on Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima from her main deck.