NationStates

Nerotysia wrote:

To Quoc Duc wrote:I took it about eight years ago when I was in highschool and I loved it too. I consider myself a very patriotic American, I love my country and it's history both good and bad, and felt it was fair, balanced, and unbiased. I never encountered a situation where I felt I was being indoctrinated to be ashamed of my nation. If that were the case, I would have sympathy with the Oklahoma board of education. That said, this *was* eight years ago, a lot could've changed.

I'm in Florida, and the new education benchmark is that all history courses, world, European, and American, must contain a significant section on Islam's influence, a fact I find rather odd. Hell, in my younger step-brother's American history textbook, the first chapter is: 'Islamic Civilization and the Impact on the Early American Republic'...as someone who is highly educated, with advanced degrees in history, I was perplexed, since beyond the Barbary Wars we had only limited interaction with the Islamic world at that point!

Nothing has changed, Oklahoma's just being dumb.

As for the Islam thing, I think it's an attempt to begin to educate people about Islam, since it's becoming increasingly relevant in world affairs and most Americans are utterly ignorant when it comes to Muslim history. So, the goal is probably admirable. But I will agree that section is odd and probably misplaced - America was not really influenced by Islam all that much.

I minor'd in Islamic religion in college too, which made me all the more befuddled by the fact. I find Islam to be a fascinating religion, and despite the rage this brought to my peers I did my senior thesis for the minor on how Islam is in effect merely Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (I'm a conservative Jew lol) I don't have a problem with educating on the subject. My issue with it (in the American course) is that it's bizarre, and in the World course part of the curriculum is making the students prostrate themselves to the east, and recite the shahada, something I personally find offensive. Additionally, they stripped teaching about Judaism and Christianity from the curriculum, choosing to dedicate the time that was previously spent on those to additional education on the principles of Islam. Again, I find this somewhat offensive and bizarre since they all build upon each other.

Arana wrote:

Nuwe Suid Afrika wrote:
We don't usually go over positive ones that are adequately covered, so I'll just list off some negative ones.

-Slavery
-Seizure of Indian Land/ToT
-Civil Rights Protests

Well, yeah, those are pretty big parts of American history. The first was how we built our nation, the second how we spread it, and the third was an international embarrassment and one of few times the Soviet Union could legitimately mock us. All terrible, but crucial to our history.

Well of course, I understand that, we could teach these three and focus on the good that came out of them, and not the bad as we do in schools now.

When we talk about slavery, we talk about how badly the blacks were worked, what they were and weren't fed, how they were beaten and raped, etc. We talk about these things instead of talking about how we went from a giant forest into an industrialized paradise.

When we talk about the seizure of land of the native americans, we talk about the tragic wars, the native americans captured and murdered, and sometimes, even the enslaved native americans. We do this instead of talking so much about how we went from just having a a few thousand square miles as the thirteen colonies, to the entire United States that we have now.

When we discuss the civil rights movements, we discuss how poorly the blacks were treated, the conditions that the police officers gave them, and how the Koo Klutz Klan did what they did to them. We do this instead of focusing on how minorities went from being mistreated in a nation where everyone was welcome, to gaining the same rights as whites did, something that they were striving to get for the last 300 years or so.

It's ridiculous but nothing good will come out of a party that has members who call for the banning of parties.

Robert Magoo wrote:Unpatriotic and negative?
The purpose of history is to tell the truth, regardless of what it is.

*UNPATRIOTIC NEGATIVE PERSON DETECTED*

*ACTIVATING ZOMBIE REAGAN*

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Robert Magoo forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. Also BRAAIIIIINSSS!!!"

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

The United Colonies of Earth wrote::snip:

I'm not even sure that I'd describe myself as a nationalist. I'm certainly a patriot. I just try to make sure that I don't mistake jingoism for the real thing.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

The United Colonies of Earth wrote::snip:

Really? That seems more like patriotism to me. I think of nationalism more as the, "We are so great that this horrible thing doesn't actually make us any noticeably less great" style thing.

I must have the wrong view of nationalism and patriotism, then. So patriotism is being proud of and loving one's nation while knowing of and acknowledging its' flaws, and nationalism is just pride with ignorance or disregard for national history? And all this time I thought "patriotism" was a Republican cover word for nationalism.

The Carlisle wrote:Admitting we performed genocide against the native americans is UnAmurikan!

While my mother is Jewish, my father is Native American, so I am a Cherokee Indian. And I'm an American patriot. There was no genocide, it was forced migration. Still deplorable, but different. Calling it genocide does injustice to my ancestors. Native Americans were never purposefully exterminated. While yes, in the war in the West Native American villages were burned down periodically, in all fairness we also provoked it by attacking settlers. While one can argue that we did this for encroaching on our land, it doesn't make it right either way. So try not to be so general in your accusations, while also aggrandizing the events themselves into something they weren't, it detracts from the truth.

To Quoc Duc wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:Nothing has changed, Oklahoma's just being dumb.

As for the Islam thing, I think it's an attempt to begin to educate people about Islam, since it's becoming increasingly relevant in world affairs and most Americans are utterly ignorant when it comes to Muslim history. So, the goal is probably admirable. But I will agree that section is odd and probably misplaced - America was not really influenced by Islam all that much.

I minor'd in Islamic religion in college too, which made me all the more befuddled by the fact. I find Islam to be a fascinating religion, and despite the rage this brought to my peers I did my senior thesis for the minor on how Islam is in effect merely Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (I'm a conservative Jew lol) I don't have a problem with educating on the subject. My issue with it (in the American course) is that it's bizarre, and in the World course part of the curriculum is making the students prostrate themselves to the east, and recite the shahada, something I personally find offensive. Additionally, they stripped teaching about Judaism and Christianity from the curriculum, choosing to dedicate the time that was previously spent on those to additional education on the principles of Islam. Again, I find this somewhat offensive and bizarre since they all build upon each other.

Your school district is being run by...unwise persons.

Nuwe Suid Afrika wrote:

Arana wrote:Well, yeah, those are pretty big parts of American history. The first was how we built our nation, the second how we spread it, and the third was an international embarrassment and one of few times the Soviet Union could legitimately mock us. All terrible, but crucial to our history.

Well of course, I understand that, we could teach these three and focus on the good that came out of them, and not the bad as we do in schools now.

When we talk about slavery, we talk about how badly the blacks were worked, what they were and weren't fed, how they were beaten and raped, etc. We talk about these things instead of talking about how we went from a giant forest into an industrialized paradise.

When we talk about the seizure of land of the native americans, we talk about the tragic wars, the native americans captured and murdered, and sometimes, even the enslaved native americans. We do this instead of talking so much about how we went from just having a a few thousand square miles as the thirteen colonies, to the entire United States that we have now.

When we discuss the civil rights movements, we discuss how poorly the blacks were treated, the conditions that the police officers gave them, and how the Koo Klutz Klan did what they did to them. We do this instead of focusing on how minorities went from being mistreated in a nation where everyone was welcome, to gaining the same rights as whites did, something that they were striving to get for the last 300 years or so.

I remember hearing a lot about the people who stood up against slavery, Lewis and Clarke, the ambition of the Transcontinental Railroad, how the Louisiana Purchase got us a ton of land on the cheap, blacks and whites coming together during the civil rights movement, and how that movement affected significant political change through mostly non-violent means. I don't know about you, but those all sound like pretty damn good things.

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:Really? That seems more like patriotism to me. I think of nationalism more as the, "We are so great that this horrible thing doesn't actually make us any noticeably less great" style thing.

I must have the wrong view of nationalism and patriotism, then. So patriotism is being proud of and loving one's nation while knowing of and acknowledging its' flaws, and nationalism is just pride with ignorance or disregard for national history? And all this time I thought "patriotism" was a Republican cover word for nationalism.[/quote]

This has been a subject of fierce debate amongst American historians (not just in the US but in Europe too, where there are many robust American Studies programs in Academia). The general consensus is that American 'nationalism' is best called patriotism because it is not rooted in the belief in a superior American race, but in the superiority of the American constitutional system. I wish I could supply for you a source but unfortunately I don't have any off the top of my head to list. I'm sure you could easily find information to enlighten yourself though. It's an interesting debate however.

One of the things that infuriates me the most about this is how badly it shortchanges not just the students, but also the nation itself. Now, we have a long way to go when it comes to racism. However, the fact that we were holding people with dark skin in bondage about a century and a half ago, and now someone with a skin tone that would have had him on the auction block is President? I think it's worthy of pointing that out as an example of how far we've come as a nation. However, if we don't explore the true evils of slavery and Jim Crow laws, if we downplay the horrors that much of white America inflicted on black people, then we are subsequently not giving ourselves enough credit for the growth and evolution that has occurred regarding American racial relations. Without learning about the terrors of the Trail Of Tears, our current stand against genocide doesn't mean as much. Without learning about child labor, massive illiteracy, and the poverty that fed both, our current public school system isn't nearly as impressive.

We grow. We change. We evolve. That's what the point of the Constitution is, to allow people to be free enough to come up with necessary changes, and to forestall unnecessary ones, or ones that might deprive us of essential liberties. That's what the marketplace of ideas is about. These people want to talk about a static, stagnant America that never existed outside of Parson Weems and Horatio Alger, and if they have their way, future generations will never know that it's possible to work for change, for a people to improve themselves, or for a nation to go from a handful of malcontents and gentlemen farmers to a continent-spanning state that is the single most powerful and influential country in the world.

Risottia wrote:

Robert Magoo wrote:Unpatriotic and negative?
The purpose of history is to tell the truth, regardless of what it is.

*UNPATRIOTIC NEGATIVE PERSON DETECTED*

*ACTIVATING ZOMBIE REAGAN*

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Robert Magoo forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. Also BRAAIIIIINSSS!!!"

Reminded me of this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnhr-n6ilVU#t=229

"FREEDOM IS NON-NEGOTIABLE."

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
I'm not even sure that I'd describe myself as a nationalist. I'm certainly a patriot. I just try to make sure that I don't mistake jingoism for the real thing.

Wisconsin9 wrote:Really? That seems more like patriotism to me. I think of nationalism more as the, "We are so great that this horrible thing doesn't actually make us any noticeably less great" style thing.

I must have the wrong view of nationalism and patriotism, then. So patriotism is being proud of and loving one's nation while knowing of and acknowledging its' flaws, and nationalism is just pride with ignorance or disregard for national history? And all this time I thought "patriotism" was a Republican cover word for nationalism.

That's how I see it, although they're muddled enough that I'm not completely sure.

To Quoc Duc wrote:

The Carlisle wrote:Admitting we performed genocide against the native americans is UnAmurikan!

While my mother is Jewish, my father is Native American, so I am a Cherokee Indian. And I'm an American patriot. There was no genocide, it was forced migration. Still deplorable, but different. Calling it genocide does injustice to my ancestors. Native Americans were never purposefully exterminated. While yes, in the war in the West Native American villages were burned down periodically, in all fairness we also provoked it by attacking settlers. While one can argue that we did this for encroaching on our land, it doesn't make it right either way. So try not to be so general in your accusations, while also aggrandizing the events themselves into something they weren't, it detracts from the truth.

Err... the government killed off the bison with the intent of starving Native Americans into submission, among other reasons.

Wisconsin9 wrote:I remember hearing a lot about the people who stood up against slavery, Lewis and Clarke, the ambition of the Transcontinental Railroad, how the Louisiana Purchase got us a ton of land on the cheap, blacks and whites coming together during the civil rights movement, and how that movement affected significant political change through mostly non-violent means. I don't know about you, but those all sound like pretty damn good things.

I've actually never heard about any of that. Maybe you had a better history teacher. A much better history teacher.

Students won't be able to get college credit because of this shit move. I've taken the class and I don't see what the problem is.

Nuwe Suid Afrika wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:I remember hearing a lot about the people who stood up against slavery, Lewis and Clarke, the ambition of the Transcontinental Railroad, how the Louisiana Purchase got us a ton of land on the cheap, blacks and whites coming together during the civil rights movement, and how that movement affected significant political change through mostly non-violent means. I don't know about you, but those all sound like pretty damn good things.

I've actually never heard about any of that. Maybe you had a better history teacher. A much better history teacher.

That's pretty much what we learned as well. It was a bit superficial, but it was generally positive, and focused on how far we've come as a country. Not once were we made to feel an ounce of guilt over the actions of our ancestors, nor were we made to feel ashamed of our skin color in our nearly all-white school. It was a simplified version of history, but reasonably balanced.

Nuwe Suid Afrika wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:I remember hearing a lot about the people who stood up against slavery, Lewis and Clarke, the ambition of the Transcontinental Railroad, how the Louisiana Purchase got us a ton of land on the cheap, blacks and whites coming together during the civil rights movement, and how that movement affected significant political change through mostly non-violent means. I don't know about you, but those all sound like pretty damn good things.

I've actually never heard about any of that. Maybe you had a better history teacher. A much better history teacher.

Even that included some horrible bits, of course. The underpaid, mistreated workers laying down rails, Bleeding Kansas, race riots....

Arana wrote:

To Quoc Duc wrote:
While my mother is Jewish, my father is Native American, so I am a Cherokee Indian. And I'm an American patriot. There was no genocide, it was forced migration. Still deplorable, but different. Calling it genocide does injustice to my ancestors. Native Americans were never purposefully exterminated. While yes, in the war in the West Native American villages were burned down periodically, in all fairness we also provoked it by attacking settlers. While one can argue that we did this for encroaching on our land, it doesn't make it right either way. So try not to be so general in your accusations, while also aggrandizing the events themselves into something they weren't, it detracts from the truth.

Err... the government killed off the bison with the intent of starving Native Americans into submission, among other reasons.

That is rediculously false. The reason for the decline of the buffalo was encroachment of farming into the American west, unsettling the top-soot that grew the plants the bison ate, as well as industrial scale hunting because of massive demand for product made from buffalo hide. There was no fiendish plot by the government to starve the native americans into submission. Who-ever told you that lied to you.

Teaching facts as they happened is wrong now.

k.

To Quoc Duc wrote:

Arana wrote:Err... the government killed off the bison with the intent of starving Native Americans into submission, among other reasons.

That is rediculously false. The reason for the decline of the buffalo was encroachment of farming into the American west, unsettling the top-soot that grew the plants the bison ate, as well as industrial scale hunting because of massive demand for product made from buffalo hide. There was no fiendish plot by the government to starve the native americans into submission. Who-ever told you that lied to you.

Hmm... my history textbook told me that, and the following wikipedia page seems to support it, although I suppose there is a chance they could be wrong... seems to be in line with other things though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hunt ... extinction

To Quoc Duc wrote:

Arana wrote:Err... the government killed off the bison with the intent of starving Native Americans into submission, among other reasons.

That is rediculously false. The reason for the decline of the buffalo was encroachment of farming into the American west, unsettling the top-soot that grew the plants the bison ate, as well as industrial scale hunting because of massive demand for product made from buffalo hide. There was no fiendish plot by the government to starve the native americans into submission. Who-ever told you that lied to you.

Actually, there was. The US Army actively promoted the hunting of American bison to force Native Americans into reservations.

That's not a particularly disputed fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hunt ... extinction

Ainin wrote:

To Quoc Duc wrote:
That is rediculously false. The reason for the decline of the buffalo was encroachment of farming into the American west, unsettling the top-soot that grew the plants the bison ate, as well as industrial scale hunting because of massive demand for product made from buffalo hide. There was no fiendish plot by the government to starve the native americans into submission. Who-ever told you that lied to you.

Actually, there was. The US Army actively promoted the hunting of American bison to force Native Americans into reservations.

That's not a particularly disputed fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hunt ... extinction

It may be false, but I read last year that people would take railroad trips in the Plains and shoot buffalo herds going by. Even if people didn't just kill them for the purpose of starving Injuns and it was all fun to them- they left the buffalo to rot- the Plains Native Americans were likely finding it hard to get buffalo themselves.

I humbly request you forgive my ignorance! I apologize.

To Quoc Duc wrote:I humbly request you forgive my ignorance! I apologize.

Goddammit, what is it with all of these people admitting it when they're wrong on a bit of factual information lately? I thought that this was NSG!

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

To Quoc Duc wrote:I humbly request you forgive my ignorance! I apologize.

Goddammit, what is it with all of these people admitting it when they're wrong on a bit of factual information lately? I thought that this was NSG!

I'm a man and not a child, when I'm mistaken I admit the fact like an adult