American History

[Patrick Chewing]

Does anyone believe American History will still be taught in schools 50 years from now?

Personally, I think American History is on its last legs and the course will change to something like Western Culture and History.

Let's face it, Millenials don't give a shit about America's forefathers and can't even name 10 presidents or are familiar with historical documents, wars, events and such.

Plus, illegal and legal migration to this country will only continue to boom and we will eventually see a complete loss of American culture to what will become a multi-cultural society where all nations of the Western Hemisphere will be represented.

[Akrazotile]

Does anyone believe American History will still be taught in schools 50 years from now?

Personally, I think American History is on its last legs and the course will change to something like Western Culture and History.

Let's face it, Millenials don't give a shit about America's forefathers and can't even name 10 presidents or are familiar with historical documents, wars, events and such.

Plus, illegal and legal migration to this country will only continue to boom and we will eventually see a complete loss of American culture to what will become a multi-cultural society where all nations of the Western Hemisphere will be represented.



Honestly I do sometimes wonder if future generations will not be so consumed with technological stimulation that they simply don't have any concept or concern for history. In school the emphasis on mastering computers/technology will only increase and begin at earlier and earlier ages. How important will they even consider non-technological areas to be?

Time only moves in one direction, and human social evolution is definitely on the move. Things are going to be DRASTICALLY different for future generations than anything we grew up accustomed to. For us it may seem bleak and unfulfilling, but for future generations who won't have known anything different... it'll just seem like the logical way.

[NumberSix]

British history isn't taught in British schools. America is on the same path.

[Patrick Chewing]

British history isn't taught in British schools.


That amazes me. There is so much History in Great Britain from King Arthur to Churchill. Thank God for HBO.

[GimmeThat]

as long as they teach the flaws that of American history, as well as how others had viewed America during different time periods, even that of criticism, as well as legitimizing their view.


who cares.


it's not the subject matter that is poisoning. but presenting both sides of the matter that is the subject at hand.

you know, the heart of the matter.

[BasedTom]

That amazes me. There is so much History in Great Britain from King Arthur to Churchill. Thank God for HBO.
I thought you were a troll. Now I know for a fact that you're a troll.

[Dresta]

The way it's presently taught they might as well not bother at all tbh. Probably the deplorable state of US history teaching has a lot to do with recent generations' growing ignorance and rejection of history. The way certain individuals such as FDR and Kennedy are lionised in American classrooms, despite being rather nasty pieces of slime, gives the youth of today a completely false impression of the progression of US history.

Cultures with little knowledge or awareness of their history (or care for it) will inevitably crumble into some kind of semi-dystopian nightmare. What was antecedent to the rise of Nazism and of Communism was the rejection of former history and culture (Nazism was anti-culture in its essence, and obviously Marxist ideology defined the period before the 'proletarian revolution' as 'pre-history' and were also quick to expunge any history or culture that didn't fit with the Marxist mould).

To destroy your culture and history is to destroy natural human collective identity (something human beings need), and so it will be sought elsewhere: in religion, in sports, in political ideology, in race etc. Destroy the collective identity of the people and the country will wither and splinter.

[DonDadda59]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_s-DS4mgvlmw/TEy7ULK689I/AAAAAAAACLo/ZyHT-faJq10/s400/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg

[GimmeThat]

To destroy your culture and history is to destroy natural human collective identity (something human beings need), and so it will be sought elsewhere: in religion, in sports, in political ideology, in race etc. Destroy the collective identity of the people and the country will wither and splinter.


if I gave you a list of X amount of rules/requirements

and that you are only allowed to apply/practice Y amount


and of course, X being greater than Y


that IS the constant destruction as well as the ability to rebuild.


I guess people add more on to the X's as they research/trial/develop new ideas

and as for determining what Y ought to be, it's more or less that of an immune system/tolerance/adaptation one has with it

[JohnnySic]

The "history" they teach in schools is so bare bones its barely worth teaching anyway.

"Columbus discovered America"
"Lincoln freed the slaves"
"The Americans, British and Russians beat the Germans in WW2"

History is one of those things you need to pursue on your own, if you're interested in it like I am.

[RidonKs]

remember that time reagan funded terrorists in nicaragua killing several hundred thousand people and was found guilty by the international criminal court of unlawful use of force? and how instead of paying reparations for its heinous crimes it simply laughed off the verdict and continued to economically strangle nicaragua until the people there finally voted in the "right" leader? that continued into the bush 1 years

does anybody even know that actually happened?

jeez talk about american history and go straight back to the gods amongst men founders and jerk off on them i guess is what you're promoting with this thread

[DwnShft2Xcelr8]

I wonder how future generations, say 1000 years from now, will look back at our time period..

Will they mention Barack Obama is the first colored president, or will that be irrelevant in a (future) world full of mixed people?
Will they discuss how technology turned the majority of the 1st world population into lame ducks?
Will our time period be called something by historians, such as the New Renaissances?

Actually, will our time period even be worth discussing? Will 1980-2014 be completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?

[NumberSix]

I wonder how future generations, say 1000 years from now, will look back at our time period..

Will they mention Barack Obama is the first colored president, or will that be irrelevant in a (future) world full of mixed people?
Will they discuss how technology turned the majority of the 1st world population into lame ducks?
Will our time period be called something by historians, such as the New Renaissances?

Actually, will our time period even be worth discussing? Will 1980-2014 be completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?
Nobody will care that Obama was the first "colored" president.

Think of it like this. How much do you care that Kennedy was the first catholic president? It was a huge deal at the time, but who even cares now?

[Swaggin916]

I just can't imagine like 5k years from now when people will have infinitely more written history to go off of... I wish I could be around to see what was really considered important by the test of time.

[MavsSuperFan]

The "history" they teach in schools is so bare bones its barely worth teaching anyway.

"Columbus discovered America"
"Lincoln freed the slaves"
"The Americans, British and Russians beat the Germans in WW2"

History is one of those things you need to pursue on your own, if you're interested in it like I am.
This.

There was never a time in american history were a majority of our citizens were well educated about our history.

[MavsSuperFan]

remember that time reagan funded terrorists in nicaragua killing several hundred thousand people and was found guilty by the international criminal court of unlawful use of force? and how instead of paying reparations for its heinous crimes it simply laughed off the verdict and continued to economically strangle nicaragua until the people there finally voted in the "right" leader? that continued into the bush 1 years

does anybody even know that actually happened?

jeez talk about american history and go straight back to the gods amongst men founders and jerk off on them i guess is what you're promoting with this thread
Yes, and honestly I would have been ok with missile strikes against the ICJ for infringing on our sovereignty by daring to suggest they had the authority to pass judgement on an american president.

US laws binds american presidents.
International laws do not. Any american president that endangers american interests in anyway to complie with international law should be impeached.


After five vetoes in the Security Council between 1982 and 1985 of resolutions concerning the situation in Nicaragua [5], the United States made one final veto on 28 October 1986[24] (France, Thailand, and United Kingdom abstaining) of a resolution calling for full and immediate compliance with the judgment.[25]

Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States vetoed a resolution (11 to 1, 3 abstentions) calling on all states to observe international law.
:applause: :applause: America asserting its sovereignty.
Reagan was wrong obviously, but it isnt the ICJ's place to judge an american president.

Eg. I want Cheney and Rumsfeld brought up on charges by a US court. Would support military action if an international body or another country dared arrest them.


jeez talk about american history and go straight back to the gods amongst men founders and jerk off on them i guess is what you're promoting with this thread
the founding fathers were horrible men, by modern standards.

[MavsSuperFan]

remember that time reagan funded terrorists in nicaragua killing several hundred thousand people and was found guilty by the international criminal court of unlawful use of force? and how instead of paying reparations for its heinous crimes it simply laughed off the verdict and continued to economically strangle nicaragua until the people there finally voted in the "right" leader? that continued into the bush 1 years
also to be fair some of america's actions were in defense of El Salvador, to help it to respond to attacks by Nicaragua sandinista government.

The contras were bad, but the sandinista was worse. Reagan violated american law by selling weapons to iran and founding the contras, this is true. But lets not pretend the sandinista goverment in nicaragua were angels.

Also once again it isnt the ICJ's place to judge an american president.

Eg. technically obama violated Pakistan's sovereignty to kill bin laden. Any future administration should protect obama no matter what for this action.

[Dresta]

Yes, and honestly I would have been ok with missile strikes against the ICJ for infringing on our sovereignty by daring to suggest they had the authority to pass judgement on an american president.

US laws binds american presidents.
International laws do not. Any american president that endangers american interests in anyway to complie with international law should be impeached.


:applause: :applause: America asserting its sovereignty.
Reagan was wrong obviously, but it isnt the ICJ's place to judge an american president.

Eg. I want Cheney and Rumsfeld brought up on charges by a US court. Would support military action if an international body or another country dared arrest them.


the founding fathers were horrible men, by modern standards.
:hammerhead:

You really have a delusional view of people by thinking they have fundamentally improved in any way over a couple hundred years. Your calling current man modern man and judging him as superior to those previous is rather myopic and completely ahistorical. It is only 70 years since we had the most destructive war in human history, so much for our being 'modern' smh. The character of many of the founding fathers was 10x that of any President we've had in a looong time.

But no, 'horrible men' why? Because some of them owned slaves like every other person of any power and influence did at the time (throughout pretty much the whole world btw)? Jefferson, Franklin and Paine were certainly no fans of slavery. Regardless, owning slaves back then shows nothing of an individuals character, and it was not even necessarily the best thing for a slave or slave-owner simply to free said slaves.

[RidonKs]

also to be fair some of america's actions were in defense of El Salvador, to help it to respond to attacks by Nicaragua sandinista government.

The contras were bad, but the sandinista was worse. Reagan violated american law by selling weapons to iran and founding the contras, this is true. But lets not pretend the sandinista goverment in nicaragua were angels.
very controversial statements there msf. particularly calling support for the contras a defense of el salvador. what kind of government was holding court in el salvador at the time? do you know? what's the timeline for the nicaraguan civil war, if you can even call it that since it's much more clearly a proxy war? what was the recent/distant history in nicaragua, namely concerning the somoza family dictatorship? what was the american relationship with that brutal repressive regime for decades before reagan intervened? how did the sandonistas gain so much influence and power?

these are all crucial questions. but i expect your only response will be "well the sandanistas were just as bad as the contras if not worse and look here's a list of all the bad things they did"

the contras were attacking civilian targets indiscriminately. what are called "soft targets". hospitals, schools, community hubs, businesses, etc etc etc



Also once again it isnt the ICJ's place to judge an american president.
why do you say this?

[RidonKs]

Yes, and honestly I would have been ok with missile strikes against the ICJ for infringing on our sovereignty by daring to suggest they had the authority to pass judgement on an american president.

US laws binds american presidents.
International laws do not. Any american president that endangers american interests in anyway to complie with international law should be impeached.


:applause: :applause: America asserting its sovereignty.
Reagan was wrong obviously, but it isnt the ICJ's place to judge an american president.

Eg. I want Cheney and Rumsfeld brought up on charges by a US court. Would support military action if an international body or another country dared arrest them.


the founding fathers were horrible men, by modern standards.
goodness gracious. i can't believe you believe this. ignore the last question in my post above, it'd be a waste of time. what you're espousing here is a purely nationalist and totalitarian viewpoint and it's hard to read.

you also sound like a raving lunatic, no offense, with the "they come and try to arrest our president we bomb the shit outta em" jeez man