American Exceptionalism and History Class

[Chestaan]

I am a Patriot, and I will say this: To refuse to look at the dark parts of Americas past is an incredibly unpatriotic disservice to this nation and it's people.

Very well said! We must learn the good with the bad to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

[Risottia]

...materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law.""
...

Basically, it's an indoctrination class, not a history class.

When you have indoctrination classes instead of history classes, you've taken a step towards totalitarianism.

[New Chalcedon]

No. One has no reason to love a country. We should love the freedoms our Constitution provides, not the dirt it rules over.

The country as an ideal, not the actual dirt.

On that topic, America is a beautiful country.

The American ideals are beautiful....if only the American government (of either party) would at least try to live up to them.

[Risottia]

The country as an ideal, not the actual dirt.

On that topic, America is a beautiful country.

The American ideals are beautiful....if only the American government (of either party) would at least try to live up to them.

If only the majority of its citizens would at least try to live up to them by electing more decent politicians...

[Delator]

We have to be careful about anti-Americanism and anti-Traditionalism in our schools and society (those who want to take "Under God" out of our pledge, for example).

How can having the words "under God" in the Pledge be considered "traditional" when that phrase wasn't actually PART of the Pledge until 1954?

Hell, the Pledge itself wasn't WRITTEN until 1892, nor was it formally adopted AS the "Nation's" Pledge until 1942. Considering how much American history predates the Pledge itself, I'm not sure ANYTHING about it can be considered "traditional".

<ninja'ed, but still worth repeating>

And lets not forget...

Bellamy salute

...it's tradition, after all.

[L Ron Cupboard]

It's not like you have that much history to start with; so pretending parts of it didn't happen isn't going to leave much.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I'm confused, why do people want to censor the history that's taught in classrooms? America has its fair share of bad history, and I think students have a right to know about it. Obviously the US is unique in its own ways, but I don't think that schools should be teaching biased courses to their students. Teach facts, not ideology.

What does NSG think?

There are an awful lot of facts out there, and deciding which ones you focus on is never an apolitical decision.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Look, I never said we didn't intervene in Latin America, though it's only natural that one regional power intervenes, ya know, in its own region. But many of our interventions were decades after those nations had revolutions. Yet, in most cases, they sort of spun and didn't work out well (usually after the 'hero' died).

And in many of those cases, the interventions were necessary and did some good for ourselves and for the people there.

Yes, the U.S. intervened in Latin America and you pissed off half the entire continent against your stupid interventionist policy because you supported stupid assholes as long as your precious corporations and "capitalism" (which honestly, with 10% of people owning 75% of the resources in certain countries it was hardly "capitalism") were intact in other countries and you supported dictatorial powers which oppressed the populace in many of them (Pinochet and the Salvadoran Junta as well as Somoza come to mind).

Many of the interventions in Latin America were useless given the fact you guys just thought we needed a parent and we were your children. You never asked us what we wanted, you just sort of decided we wanted to be oppressed under dictatorial dipshits.

Look, if you really want to talk about justified intervention you're sort of picking the wrong topic here.

[Divitaen]

Look, I never said we didn't intervene in Latin America, though it's only natural that one regional power intervenes, ya know, in its own region. But many of our interventions were decades after those nations had revolutions. Yet, in most cases, they sort of spun and didn't work out well (usually after the 'hero' died).

And in many of those cases, the interventions were necessary and did some good for ourselves and for the people there.

Yes, the U.S. intervened in Latin America and you pissed off half the entire continent against your stupid interventionist policy because you supported stupid assholes as long as your precious corporations and "capitalism" (which honestly, with 10% of people owning 75% of the resources in certain countries it was hardly "capitalism") were intact in other countries and you supported dictatorial powers which oppressed the populace in many of them (Pinochet and the Salvadoran Junta as well as Somoza come to mind).

Many of the interventions in Latin America were useless given the fact you guys just thought we needed a parent and we were your children. You never asked us what we wanted, you just sort of decided we wanted to be oppressed under dictatorial dipshits.

Look, if you really want to talk about justified intervention you're sort of picking the wrong topic here.

Agreed, interventions in Guatemala, Grenada and the propping up of dictators such as Pinochet were mindless Manichean paternalism and ended up as humanitarian disasters.

[Benuty]

Yes, the U.S. intervened in Latin America and you pissed off half the entire continent against your stupid interventionist policy because you supported stupid assholes as long as your precious corporations and "capitalism" (which honestly, with 10% of people owning 75% of the resources in certain countries it was hardly "capitalism") were intact in other countries and you supported dictatorial powers which oppressed the populace in many of them (Pinochet and the Salvadoran Junta as well as Somoza come to mind).

Many of the interventions in Latin America were useless given the fact you guys just thought we needed a parent and we were your children. You never asked us what we wanted, you just sort of decided we wanted to be oppressed under dictatorial dipshits.

Look, if you really want to talk about justified intervention you're sort of picking the wrong topic here.

Agreed, interventions in Guatemala, Grenada and the propping up of dictators such as Pinochet were mindless Manichean paternalism and ended up as humanitarian disasters.

Whats does Manichaeism have to do with anything? lol.

[Divitaen]

Agreed, interventions in Guatemala, Grenada and the propping up of dictators such as Pinochet were mindless Manichean paternalism and ended up as humanitarian disasters.

Whats does Manichaeism have to do with anything? lol.

American exceptionalism is the idea that the US and the world exist on a Manichaen moral duality, with the US forever representing good and any force not conforming to American 'ideals' and 'values' necessarily representing evil. I'm trying to say that history would prove that wrong.

[Kelinfort]

I like how they are teaching the Founding Fathers' values on individual rights. This is not censorship.

The founding fathers were made up equally of conservatives and liberals.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I like how they are teaching the Founding Fathers' values on individual rights. This is not censorship.

The founding fathers were made up equally of conservatives and liberals.

Something I highly doubt. The conservative/liberal dichotomy is something of the last semi-century. Unless a good source is provided, I have my doubts at the truthfulness of this claim.

[Kelinfort]

The founding fathers were made up equally of conservatives and liberals.

Something I highly doubt. The conservative/liberal dichotomy is something of the last semi-century. Unless a good source is provided, I have my doubts at the truthfulness of this claim.

Simple, take a look at the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. While America was more liberal than Europe, the Federalists were essentially old conservatives, with the Democratic Republicans being classical liberals.

[The Rich Port]

You know what makes a real American?

Someone who values the truth and fights against lies.

This is un-American.

[Big Jim P]

You know what makes a real American?

Someone who values the truth and fights against lies.

This is un-American.

A good American sees the good in his country and tries to preserve it, and sees the bad and tries to eliminate it. We cannot achieve perfection, but improvement is entirely possible.

[The Rich Port]

You know what makes a real American?

Someone who values the truth and fights against lies.

This is un-American.

A good American sees the good in his country and tries to preserve it, and sees thee bad and tries to eliminate it. We cannot achieve perfection, but improvement is entirely possible.

And that means admitting our errors and fighting to make our mistakes right.

Not hiding it under sentimentalism and outright bullshit.

[Kelinfort]

You know what makes a real American?

Someone who values the truth and fights against lies.

This is un-American.

A good American sees the good in his country and tries to preserve it, and sees the bad and tries to eliminate it. We cannot achieve perfection, but improvement is entirely possible.

Too few people try to do this. It's quite sad.

[Big Jim P]

A good American sees the good in his country and tries to preserve it, and sees thee bad and tries to eliminate it. We cannot achieve perfection, but improvement is entirely possible.

And that means admitting our errors and fighting to make our mistakes right.

Not hiding it under sentimentalism and outright bullshit.

Agreed. See my first post in thread.

[Big Jim P]

A good American sees the good in his country and tries to preserve it, and sees the bad and tries to eliminate it. We cannot achieve perfection, but improvement is entirely possible.

Too few people try to do this. It's quite sad.

Indeed it is.

[The Rich Port]

And that means admitting our errors and fighting to make our mistakes right.

Not hiding it under sentimentalism and outright bullshit.

Agreed. See my first post in thread.

I had a feeling we agreed.

[Big Jim P]

Agreed. See my first post in thread.

I had a feeling we agreed.

Agreement happens around here from time to time.

[The Rich Port]

I had a feeling we agreed.

Agreement happens around here from time to time.

Once in a blue corn moon.

Whatever the fuck that is, Disney's Pocahontas.

[Murkwood]

We have to be careful about anti-Americanism and anti-Traditionalism in our schools and society (those who want to take "Under God" out of our pledge, for example).

How can having the words "under God" in the Pledge be considered "traditional" when that phrase wasn't actually PART of the Pledge until 1954?

Hell, the Pledge itself wasn't WRITTEN until 1892, nor was it formally adopted AS the "Nation's" Pledge until 1942. Considering how much American history predates the Pledge itself, I'm not sure ANYTHING about it can be considered "traditional".

<ninja'ed, but still worth repeating>

The words may be new, but the idea isn't.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Agreement happens around here from time to time.

Once in a blue corn moon.

Whatever the fuck that is, Disney's Pocahontas.

Blue moon refers to the event where there is a second full moon, usually within the same month; or the third moon within a season of four moons in a year.

It's supposed to be a rare event.