sexual orientation in history books

Been reading a bit of this in my home state, and thought it was a good discussion.

There will be a new bill going before California State reps that states that sexual orientation (homosexuality in particular) will be included in California school history books (starting in elementary).

The reasoning is that gays have been ostrasized and and made fun of in school because of the lack of awareness of gays in history.

Now my thoughts are sexual orientation need not be discussed in the classroom. . . at least until maybe college??? I don't see the relevance that stating someone's sexual preference in history books. . .unless it is directly linked to their choice.

To me it's another crazy bill, from the San Fran Libs. . .the main problem I have with my state.

Any ideas or thoughts on this?

JHC

You mean people had sex in the past? That's shameful!

I see your point in holding off on the "straight/gay" discussion until college, maybe an advanced-prep history course in high school. Unless it's relevant (i.e., James Buchanan as the first gay President, followed by the second gay president, the current Commander in Chief :p ).

Frankly it's one of those "could go either way" ideas (in terms of bad or good). Some kids might become more tolerant, others might snicker everytime they see a picture of J. Edgar Hoover. Depends, really

Well if it#s historically accurate tolerance they're after....what about some books where the pyraminds were built by black people, like the people in Egypt were at the time.

I think there's no need to raise the issue, but if raised it should be discussed honestly, fudgepackers have done many good things in history....not least inventing the device I'm using to make this post ( which is why i find online homophobes hilarious)

I took AP History in my junior year in high school. The book used was the first time I heard about gay and lesbian soldiers in WWII.

Cozzie,

Outof curiosity, what was the reasoning for having the sexual orientation of the soldiers? Did it have direct relevance with WWII or was it some addition that was a bit that was simply thrown in there? Really interested.

JHC

I guess it's just a fact that was thrown on there. That was a surprise to see the fact in the history book for the first time. It was a college level history book.

I feel that puting sexual orientation in history books to teach tolerance, won't have the desired effect they are trying to achieve.

I feel that it all starts in how parents raise their children. If the parents teach tolerance and show their children tolerance by example, then there is a greater chance of their children being tolerant. If they don't show tolerance, it won't matter what is in a text book at school, the chances of it working slim.

As far as I'm concerned itt all starts at home and until people start to understand this, things won't change.

Psy

That could be true. When I read it, I was mature enough to accept the historical fact. Don't forget, this was a college-level course taught in high school.

the earlier the better. Children need to learn diversity at a young age. Tolerance is nurture.

Psylocke Smythe wrote: I feel that puting sexual orientation in history books to teach tolerance, won't have the desired effect they are trying to achieve.

I feel that it all starts in how parents raise their children. If the parents teach tolerance and show their children tolerance by example, then there is a greater chance of their children being tolerant. If they don't show tolerance, it won't matter what is in a text book at school, the chances of it working slim.

As far as I'm concerned itt all starts at home and until people start to understand this, things won't change.

Psy

this is also true, but books can't hurt.

I understand the idea of tolerance, and agree that it has it's place. however, are history books putting in random facts that have correlation to the subject taught not confusing the topic?

Using Cozzie's example of WWII soldiers. . .what relevance does it have to the war and are other similar facts being put alongside it. For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's battle tactics or interior friction. . .I could understand. What good does a random fact do, but confuse the students in what they are learning?

Here's a good article from today as a referance:

How politics are dumbing down students' textbooks

How does tolerance fit in a history book as a random fact thrown in at the last minute?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: I understand the idea of tolerance, and agree that it has it's place. however, are history books putting in random facts that have correlation to the subject taught not confusing the topic?

Using Cozzie's example of WWII soldiers. . .what relevance does it have to the war and are other similar facts being put alongside it. For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's battle tactics or interior friction. . .I could understand. What good does a random fact do, but confuse the students in what they are learning?

Here's a good article from today as a referance:

How politics are dumbing down students' textbooks

How does tolerance fit in a history book as a random fact thrown in at the last minute?

JHC

i understand your point, but would you omit historical facts about black soldiers in WWII.

ghost rider wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: I understand the idea of tolerance, and agree that it has it's place. however, are history books putting in random facts that have correlation to the subject taught not confusing the topic?

Using Cozzie's example of WWII soldiers. . .what relevance does it have to the war and are other similar facts being put alongside it. For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's battle tactics or interior friction. . .I could understand. What good does a random fact do, but confuse the students in what they are learning?

Here's a good article from today as a referance:

How politics are dumbing down students' textbooks

How does tolerance fit in a history book as a random fact thrown in at the last minute?

JHC

i understand your point, but would you omit historical facts about black soldiers in WWII.

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

Case in point: Navajo code talkers during WWII had a direct impact. With them, the Japanese could not decifer the radio transmissions, a VERY important advantage on the battlefield. So the Navajo Indians should be included with special note in history books.

The question I have is how did sexual orientation shape the battlefield, or history during the time period they decide to mention it? And if it does not have such a direct impact, is it worth mentioning at all?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

James Thomas wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

I think you are missing my question. I only used the military history as it was brought up by other posters. I am asking in regards of ALL history. I think the history of war has been brought up mainly because history books are mostly filled with that stuff, and less social history.

I agree that we should NOT change or smudge over our history books. At the same time, not every detail can possibly be covered, so choices need to be made on what is relevant and important in the classroom. Cozzie's example was a fact that seemed thrown-in-the-mix, it seems for the reason toshow that homosexuals fought in WWII. Now is that a relevant fact that needs to be in our history books? Omitting it is not blinding our eyes to history, it simply not reporting an extra fact not necessary for the student to understand WWII. Are we being so politically-correct that the history that is important is being lost amongst superfluous facts? Is it important to report sexual orientation, when it did not directly influence the history?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

James Thomas wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

I think you are missing my question. I only used the military history as it was brought up by other posters. I am asking in regards of ALL history. I think the history of war has been brought up mainly because history books are mostly filled with that stuff, and less social history.

I agree that we should NOT change or smudge over our history books. At the same time, not every detail can possibly be covered, so choices need to be made on what is relevant and important in the classroom. Cozzie's example was a fact that seemed thrown-in-the-mix, it seems for the reason toshow that homosexuals fought in WWII. Now is that a relevant fact that needs to be in our history books? Omitting it is not blinding our eyes to history, it simply not reporting an extra fact not necessary for the student to understand WWII. Are we being so politically-correct that the history that is important is being lost amongst superfluous facts? Is it important to report sexual orientation, when it did not directly influence the history?

JHC

Presumably some of your best friends are gay?

If you're serving in WWII, and your life and that of your comrades is under threat every single day, the I'd say a bit of physical intimacy would probably be pretty fucking important to you as a human being. And given that war has endlessly been portrayed as the ultimate 'male' referent, I'd say it's pretty fascinating culturally, socially, politically and - oh yes - historically.

History is heterosexist, and I guess you'd like to keep it that way. Is this a lesson ion how conservatives would like to keep history straight and boring, do you think?

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

James Thomas wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

Omition of black soldiers shouldn't happen, agreed, however I also don'e see the need of putting in ethinicity as well, unless of course it had a direct impact on the historical event.

JHC

You are making the assumption that books are written from a purely military point of view. Some books are also written from a social history point of view and so it is absolutely correct that it is pointed out that the US army segregated black soldiers during WWII. With the way information is now freely available and the increasing amount of books published from every viewpoint, it is now impossible to compartmentalise and that can only be a good thing.

If you take the view that delicate subjects should be taken out of the history books because they have no relevance from one point of view, you end up with the situation of Japanese history books where generations of Japanese grew up unaware of the atrocities committed by their country during the war.

68Pontiac wrote: For instance, if the discussion was on the amount of hetro vs. homo and how it effected the Army in it's ...interior friction. . .I could understand.

I think you are missing my question. I only used the military history as it was brought up by other posters. I am asking in regards of ALL history. I think the history of war has been brought up mainly because history books are mostly filled with that stuff, and less social history.

I agree that we should NOT change or smudge over our history books. At the same time, not every detail can possibly be covered, so choices need to be made on what is relevant and important in the classroom. Cozzie's example was a fact that seemed thrown-in-the-mix, it seems for the reason toshow that homosexuals fought in WWII. Now is that a relevant fact that needs to be in our history books? Omitting it is not blinding our eyes to history, it simply not reporting an extra fact not necessary for the student to understand WWII. Are we being so politically-correct that the history that is important is being lost amongst superfluous facts? Is it important to report sexual orientation, when it did not directly influence the history?

JHC

Presumably some of your best friends are gay?

If you're serving in WWII, and your life and that of your comrades is under threat every single day, the I'd say a bit of physical intimacy would probably be pretty fucking important to you as a human being. And given that war has endlessly been portrayed as the ultimate 'male' referent, I'd say it's pretty fascinating culturally, socially, politically and - oh yes - historically.

History is heterosexist,

Yes, thats totally true Martin, but I think you miss 68's point - which is simply that the fact needs to be inserted in a relevant way. Obviously it is easy to see that colour segregation in WWII was an issue & there is historical relevance; but was there any sexual-preferance segregation? any unusual statistics about the ammount of gays who fought/died in specific wars/battles? - in which case, give the facts & theorise about possible reasons. Or were they all thrown in together without a thought? - in which case, why mention it?

I think it all depends on the age of the student. If they're so young they haven't been taught the facts of life yet, there's no need to bring up a confusing topic like sexual orientation, because it doesn't really make any sense yet.

On the other hand, there is relevance in discussing sexual orientation at later ages-- for example, the fact that gay soldiers served in WWII has relevance today, because the military bans gays from service today.

as has been mentioned before, history is not about battles, kings and queens, and memorizing dates (or at least it shouldn't be). in many schools you'll find a more hermeneutic approach towards the teaching of history, which encompasses literature, sociology, politics, anthropology, and so forth.

if a person's sexual orientation is relevant to the subject it should certainly be included within the text. one example is j. edgar hoover. hoover's fear of his own homosexuality led him to persecute homosexuals by using his power within the FBI. likewise, as comrade wrote, banning gays and lesbians from the military is a part of american history and should be discussed and debated. as should gay marriage and the potential constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

i don't think the california legislature plans on including corner boxes in textbooks that read: 'gay moments in american history,' but wishes to include legal precedents and disagreements that affect homosexuals, the treatment of homosexuals in america throughout history, and instances where a person's sexual orientation has affected his or her political position (harvey milk, for example) or how a person has been denied a position because of his or her sexual orientation.

history is not a study of dead, white, straight men. however, i have a copy of my grandfather's history book from the teens. its title? eugenics.

On the surface this sounds good and appropriate, and don't misunderstand me, I do think it is important to discuss. However, if something is added to the class something else needs to be either condensed or omitted. What information will disappear if sexual orientation is discussed in history class?

Now tolerance and understanding should be taught, but if every ethnicity and diversity had it's "tolerance" history included, there would be no time to discuss U.S. history.

Slavery, civil rights, Women's rights, and the holocaust are all "nation-changing" events. Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation. Gay marriage is not history yet, so it is better discussed in some sort of govt. course. A minor correction, as gays are not necissarily banned from the military as there is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and even so I don't see it as "nation-changing" history. What could be mentioned other than sidebars on historical events? And what information will be displaced for this new addition?

JHC

Come one - all history is implicitly "straight" and the legislation is (I presume) being introduced to correct that to a small degree. I find it diffficult to understand the idea that schoolkids are too young to deal with issues of non-straight sexuality but mature enough to learn about mass slaughter???!!!?? From my own personal history I can tell you that shagging was a lot more important to me at 15 than tanks and guns and dead bodies.....

The question just seems implictly homophobic, whether that's intentional or not. The queers aren't taking over or displacing "proper" history, they're just finally getting a voice is all. About time, I reckon.

68Pontiac wrote: Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation.

well, for one, the stonewall riots of 1969 were a turning point for gay and lesbian rights. why should the fight for gay and lesbian rights have any less meaning than any other civil rights movement? we learn about plessy v. ferguson and brown v. board of education, so why not romer v. evans, the supreme court decision that declared unconstitutional colorado's amendment 2, which would deny homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws? the passing of amendment 2 by the voters of colorado opened the door for similar propositions in other states. i would consider this 'nation-changing.'

AgentWood wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation.

well, for one, the stonewall riots of 1969 were a turning point for gay and lesbian rights. why should the fight for gay and lesbian rights have any less meaning than any other civil rights movement? we learn about plessy v. ferguson and brown v. board of education, so why not romer v. evans, the supreme court decision that declared unconstitutional colorado's amendment 2, which would deny homosexuals access to anti-discrimination laws? the passing of amendment 2 by the voters of colorado opened the door for similar propositions in other states. i would consider this 'nation-changing.'

I agree..

I had something typed and then I see that Christy is saying everything I want to say...

My second degree is in Women's Studies. Did you study that as well?

68Pontiac wrote:

Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation.

How about the Harvey Milk incident? I have only learned about it a couple years of ago when I heard of a high school named after him.

A food for thought. The times eventually showed that racism and sexism go hand in hand. Take the Civil Rights Movement for instance (I read a book about this for my college's summer reading program). An overwhelming majority of Southerners were afraid of school integration because they were afraid that their daughters would marry black men. To put the sexism and racism in an equation, James Baldwin said something along these lines to a white man (paraphrase), "Sir, you are not afraid of me marrying your daughter, but afraid of marrying your wife's daughter.

Thank you for some of those topics. I was not aware of Harvey Milk for one. Read up a little and found his life interesting. So I now realize there are a few "nation-changing" events.

This is what I was hoping for from this thread. I know alot of people start threads only to hear themselves talk or to have others agree with them, but I am really interested in other's opinions, especially those that are different from mine.

Now with that said, one of my questions wasn't really answered.

Now tolerance and understanding should be taught, but if every ethnicity and diversity had it's personal "tolerance" history included, there would be no time to discuss U.S. history.

I know a few NOOLers are wrapping around the axel because it's entitled "sexual orientation", but for the moment let's forget that.

At what point are we retelling important history correctly vs. putting politically charged items in our history books?

That is my concern in a nutshell.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: On the surface this sounds good and appropriate, and don't misunderstand me, I do think it is important to discuss. However, if something is added to the class something else needs to be either condensed or omitted. What information will disappear if sexual orientation is discussed in history class?

Now tolerance and understanding should be taught, but if every ethnicity and diversity had it's "tolerance" history included, there would be no time to discuss U.S. history.

Slavery, civil rights, Women's rights, and the holocaust are all "nation-changing" events. Off the top of my head I can not think of any "nation-changing" events for sexual orientation. Gay marriage is not history yet, so it is better discussed in some sort of govt. course. A minor correction, as gays are not necissarily banned from the military as there is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and even so I don't see it as "nation-changing" history. What could be mentioned other than sidebars on historical events? And what information will be displaced for this new addition?

JHC

The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits witch hunts. However, the policy of the military is still to ban gays from service. If you're gay, and you're out, you won't be allowed to enlist, and you'll be discharged if you're already serving. Put that in the context of heterosexuality-- imagine a policy that said "don't ask, don't tell" that applied to any expressions of sexual orientation. Show the guys a picture of your girlfriend? You're out. Wear a wedding ring? Tell the guys about the girl you just met? You're out. Only that doesn't happen, because military policy only bans expressions of gay sexual orientation.

Given that set of facts, it's possible to imagine a discussion about Alexander the Great, for example, or Julius Caesar, or Richard the Lionhearted, when discussing sexual orientation and military service.

Or if we're in the arena of public service, could an openly gay man or woman be elected to the Presidency? In the context of that discussion, it's been hypothesized that Abraham Lincoln was gay. James Buchanan lived with a man who is thought to have been the first gay vice-president, and it's generally well-known now that Eleanor Roosevelt was lesbian.

Or if we're talking about intolerance, discussing Oscar Wilde's sexuality seems particularly relevant.

If the idea is to teach tolerance, discussing the sexual orientation of revered figures like Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Rossevelt is one way to establish the fact that gay men and women have contributed to our history and culture. And if the idea is to discuss contemporary issues such as gay marriage, gay service in the military or public arena, etc, the sexual orientation of historical figures becomes relevant to the discussion.

ChrissMari wrote: I had something typed and then I see that Christy is saying everything I want to say...

My second degree is in Women's Studies. Did you study that as well?

never took a class in women's studies. i did go to barnard, though. surely, that must count for something. ;)

AgentWood wrote: never took a class in women's studies.

I did. :D

how was it?

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: how was it?

Great. :)

It was a Women's History class.

Just out of interest, what is covered in American history books? Did much happen before 1800 that is of importance? How much is devoted to genocide of the native americans? Do the books used in the South and North differ with respect to the civil war or is there a common concensus?

In my AP US History course, we got a bit about that (the Indian genocide thing). Prior to that, when it cropped up, it was always how the natives were a bunch of peace-loving harmless people who were totally raped by the white man. While I agree they certainly got a raw deal, and it's an extremely low point of American history, I feel that view leaves out the fact that there were tribes who had no qualms about killing each other (i.e. the Aztecs), though I don't think that justifies what we did at all...

Anyhow, I think it's incredibly dumb to force sexual issues into history when they aren't really relevant. I mean, who was gay and who wasn't was a topic that came up in my AP European History when discussing the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XII, but it was at least slightly relevant to the politics of the time. Just trying to force it into books in the name of political correctness is just a terrible idea. American History is already dull enough without adding more extraneous social history in it. My history teacher, who was fairly liberal, used to hate how our book tried to add womens' and racial issues into chapters when it wasn't at all relevant to the rest of it. There were instances where it would spend the whole chapter discussing economic change in America, and randomly switch to womens' rights issues at the end. It really felt as if the writers were like, "Shit, we haven't made a point about how gender-neutral and tolerant we are in this chapter, better add something".

I love history, but I hate it when it's used in this sort of way by politicians. All this will do is give adolescents a slightly larger library of bad sexual innuendo if they even bother paying attention during class...

-end rant

Thanks for the honest post Red Pheonix, interesting to hear.

James Thomas wrote: Just out of interest, what is covered in American history books? Did much happen before 1800 that is of importance? How much is devoted to genocide of the native americans? Do the books used in the South and North differ with respect to the civil war or is there a common concensus?

James,

one of my biggest pet peeves is how our history books cover the Civil War. Ask the average American today and they hold steadfast to the idea that it was over slavery. This, of course, is only patly true, as slavery was the last issue the North and South argued about. The whole thing was really over which government would be over the other, state government (like classical Greece) or a strong Federal government. How this whole issue has been swept under the carpet astounds me.

US History usually starts with Christopher Columbus. Most books leave out how he lived in the Americas for many years and made many trips back and forth to England. Also how he tortured, murdered and killed off an entire race of peoples for gold that never existed.

Politics doesn't belong in our history books, and as Red Pheonix was discussing, it seems that they are being crammed with more and more filler.

JHC

redphoenix11 wrote: In my AP US History course, we got a bit about that (the Indian genocide thing). Prior to that, when it cropped up, it was always how the natives were a bunch of peace-loving harmless people who were totally raped by the white man. While I agree they certainly got a raw deal, and it's an extremely low point of American history, I feel that view leaves out the fact that there were tribes who had no qualms about killing each other (i.e. the Aztecs), though I don't think that justifies what we did at all...

what do the aztecs have to do with US history?

as for the post asking if we learn anything relevant that occured pre-1800: there's that little thing called the american revolution, for starters.

an aside: for a good read about the war againt the indians in the west from an indian perspective, pick up 'bury my heart at wounded knee.'

Doh! 1776 of course, can I change that to 1750 please? Should have known especially as there's a statue to a key player in the village marketplace, pass it most days!.

Bury my heart at wounded knee was made into an excellent documentary, saw it a couple of years back.

68Pontiac wrote: one of my biggest pet peeves is how our history books cover the Civil War. Ask the average American today and they hold steadfast to the idea that it was over slavery. This, of course, is only patly true, as slavery was the last issue the North and South argued about. The whole thing was really over which government would be over the other, state government (like classical Greece) or a strong Federal government. How this whole issue has been swept under the carpet astounds me

Nonsense.

If you belong to a slave-owning aristocracy that covers that unpleasant fact with talk of "liberty," do you rouse the populace, most of whom aren't in the slave-owning aristocracy, to go to war to preserve slavery, or do you rouse them to go to war for the higher ideal of "states rights"?

And just what are those states rights? The right to prevent the emanicipation of the slaves; after the civil war, "states rights" became code for Jim Crow laws and segregation. Look a little beyond the slave-owning rhetoric, 68, it's all there plain as day.

Comrade, can't read your post.

JHC

Aha, it's been fixed, thanks.

Bury my heart at wounded knee is indeed an excellent book covering the height of the decimation of the indian nations. Would also recommend picking up a biography of an earlier Indian Chief Tecumseh, there is one very good one out there but I can't remember the author!

James Thomas wrote: Just out of interest, what is covered in American history books? Did much happen before 1800 that is of importance? How much is devoted to genocide of the native americans? Do the books used in the South and North differ with respect to the civil war or is there a common concensus?

Each state sets the standard for the textbooks used in that state. It's why we get states like Kansas teaching religion in the science classes.

I have no idea what's taught nowadays, but when I was in high school, not much was taught about the genocide of the Native Americans (although I did write a paper on Pontiac's war). I wonder how much is taught in Englsih texts about that genocide, for that matter? Lord Amherst was certainly involved-- he inquired about the possibility of giving the tribes blankets infected with smallpox; apparently, someone in the British army did pass out infected blankets while Amherst was looking into that possibility, although it was done without Amherst's knowledge. The Americans only continued the British policies of removing the natives (although they never stooped to germ warfare).

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: one of my biggest pet peeves is how our history books cover the Civil War. Ask the average American today and they hold steadfast to the idea that it was over slavery. This, of course, is only patly true, as slavery was the last issue the North and South argued about. The whole thing was really over which government would be over the other, state government (like classical Greece) or a strong Federal government. How this whole issue has been swept under the carpet astounds me

Nonsense.

If you belong to a slave-owning aristocracy that covers that unpleasant fact with talk of "liberty," do you rouse the populace, most of whom aren't in the slave-owning aristocracy, to go to war to preserve slavery, or do you rouse them to go to war for the higher ideal of "states rights"?

And just what are those states rights? The right to prevent the emanicipation of the slaves; after the civil war, "states rights" became code for Jim Crow laws and segregation. Look a little beyond the slave-owning rhetoric, 68, it's all there plain as day.

Because of the civil war we have a stronger, more centralized Federal govt. . .it never took away States rights, simply who was going to be on top.

As for the rhetoric you speak of, the same can be said for Mr Lincoln. How do you get people from the North to fight against their fellow brothers? Tell them they are fighting for a stronger Federal Govt, or that slavery needed to be abolished?

The Civil War was not needed to end slavery anyways. Given another 50 years, and the need for slaves would have disappeared in the industrial era. It was real easy for the North to sit on a high horse on the slavery issue, there income was based on industry, for which slavery is not cost effective. The South was based on agriculture, and at that time slavery was cost effective, immediate elimination of slavery would have devestated their economy (which at that time individual states economies where not as directly linked together as they are today). Jim Crowe laws were done and caused alot of hate and discontent. . . to which we are still feeling today. Slavery would have fizzled out on it's own, and the Jim Crowe laws would have been unnessisary, and alot of the racial problems in the South may have been averted.

I'm not a flag waver for the South, I simply would prefer a more unbiased version of history was present.

JHC

some people go on about conspiracy theories, but i've always thought that the small selfish details often has driven what has gone on in history... somebody trying to get laid or failing at getting laid, somebody hiding who they are buggering or somebody getting blackmailed, affairs, selfishness, petty lying and avoiding reality... but how would you ever fill up a history book with so much conjecture thou? you gotta present the big picture

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: one of my biggest pet peeves is how our history books cover the Civil War. Ask the average American today and they hold steadfast to the idea that it was over slavery. This, of course, is only patly true, as slavery was the last issue the North and South argued about. The whole thing was really over which government would be over the other, state government (like classical Greece) or a strong Federal government. How this whole issue has been swept under the carpet astounds me

Nonsense.

If you belong to a slave-owning aristocracy that covers that unpleasant fact with talk of "liberty," do you rouse the populace, most of whom aren't in the slave-owning aristocracy, to go to war to preserve slavery, or do you rouse them to go to war for the higher ideal of "states rights"?

And just what are those states rights? The right to prevent the emanicipation of the slaves; after the civil war, "states rights" became code for Jim Crow laws and segregation. Look a little beyond the slave-owning rhetoric, 68, it's all there plain as day.

Because of the civil war we have a stronger, more centralized Federal govt. . .it never took away States rights, simply who was going to be on top.

As for the rhetoric you speak of, the same can be said for Mr Lincoln. How do you get people from the North to fight against their fellow brothers? Tell them they are fighting for a stronger Federal Govt, or that slavery needed to be abolished?

The Civil War was not needed to end slavery anyways. Given another 50 years, and the need for slaves would have disappeared in the industrial era. It was real easy for the North to sit on a high horse on the slavery issue, there income was based on industry, for which slavery is not cost effective. The South was based on agriculture, and at that time slavery was cost effective, immediate elimination of slavery would have devestated their economy (which at that time individual states economies where not as directly linked together as they are today). Jim Crowe laws were done and caused alot of hate and discontent. . . to which we are still feeling today. Slavery would have fizzled out on it's own, and the Jim Crowe laws would have been unnessisary, and alot of the racial problems in the South may have been averted.

I'm not a flag waver for the South, I simply would prefer a more unbiased version of history was present.

JHC

Wow.

1. The civil war was started by the south, not by the north. Specifically, the Confederate states seceded because Abraham Lincoln was elected to the Presidency, and the southern states feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery into new territories, as he had promised. The south wasn't fighting to stop the expansion of the federal government; it was fighting to protect slavery. The seceding states seized federal property before Lincoln even took office, but President Buchanan-- you know, the first gay President-- did nothing to stop that seizure. The United States finally responded to the secession when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter.

2. "The Civil War was not needed to end slavery anyways. Given another 50 years, and the need for slaves would have disappeared in the industrial era." Would another 50 years of slavery have been an acceptable outcome then?

3. "It was real easy for the North to sit on a high horse on the slavery issue..." What other horse is there, 68?

4. "Slavery would have fizzled out on it's own, and the Jim Crowe laws would have been unnessisary" Were the Jim Crow laws necessary, then, 68?

Making the Civil War about slavery was an easy way to keep the British from supporting the Confederacy, or so I learned in AP US...

redphoenix11 wrote: Making the Civil War about slavery was an easy way to keep the British from supporting the Confederacy, or so I learned in AP US...

So what do you think it was about, if it wasn't about slavery? And what evidence do you have?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

redphoenix11 wrote: Making the Civil War about slavery was an easy way to keep the British from supporting the Confederacy, or so I learned in AP US...

So what do you think it was about, if it wasn't about slavery? And what evidence do you have?

Actually, now that I think about it, it was the Emancipation Proclamation that forestalled British intervention. The war had always been about slavery, with Lincoln against the expansion of slavery into new territories, and the south in favor of the expansion of slavery into new territories. However, the Emancipation proclamation, which freed the slaves in the rebel states (but not in southern states that remained in the Union) effectively prevented the British from siding with the Confederacy.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: I have no idea what's taught nowadays, but when I was in high school, not much was taught about the genocide of the Native Americans (although I did write a paper on Pontiac's war). I wonder how much is taught in Englsih texts about that genocide, for that matter? Lord Amherst was certainly involved-- he inquired about the possibility of giving the tribes blankets infected with smallpox; apparently, someone in the British army did pass out infected blankets while Amherst was looking into that possibility, although it was done without Amherst's knowledge. The Americans only continued the British policies of removing the natives (although they never stooped to germ warfare).

Aye. The 'bad stuff' from British history is included in college texts. We haven't covered it up too much, although we do tend to wait a generation til the full story is revealed. Winston Churchill's mass gassing/genocide of the Kurds in 1920 in Iraq is now widely documented, and if you want to go back further, the Crusades are an extremely shocking tale of rape and mass murder.

How do US texts compare? I get the impression that revealing weakness or distinct errors of 'judgement' are frowned upon in US publications.

As for homosexuality, no problem mentioning relevant facts. A number of British monarchs were homosexuals. Surely this is relevant, is it not?

Don't suppose it's worth pointing out that "history" is, almost by definition, political to its very core?????

Gormless fucking wankers.

James Thomas wrote: Doh! 1776 of course, can I change that to 1750 please? Should have known especially as there's a statue to a key player in the village marketplace, pass it most days!.

No idea who that key player is.

My guess is that most U.S. Histories begin with Columbus's discovery of the new world, and the subsequent European colonization, and in particular, the establishment of the 13 original colonies that declared independence in 1776.

An insight: Maybe that fact about gay soldiers serving in WWII could be an indication of the discrimination that they faced (not a random fact, as I pointed out at first).

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Don't suppose it's worth pointing out that "history" is, almost by definition, political to its very core?????

Gormless fucking wankers.

history is only 'by definition' political if the school board chooses to use texts that make it so, or if the teacher teaching the class makes it so. nearly all research demonstrates that students show more interest in history when they learn about people with whom they can empathise or in whom they show an interest. this is why you find an upsurge in the teaching of social history in (many) schools.

there's no doubt that it's hard to get some teachers to change their ways--to focus less on revolutionary war battles and civil war battles and more on greater themes. the national association for gifted children has an excellent model: the parallel curriculum. through this model, students learn not chronologically but through the study of themes: such as justice, prejudice, war, etc. the students learn how each of these themes are woven into history. they read both primary and secondary sources from all sides and learn how historians approach the study of history--not how the text book has written history. then, the students relate these themes to their own lives, which allows them to realize that history has value and that they are a part of history and have the power to change history. this model is similar to the renzulli model, which allows students to look at topics of their own interest in greater depth: by obtaining professional mentors, creating in-depth studies of historical eras that interest them, and critiquing historical writings about that era. both of these methods are, essentially, horizontal extensions of the study of history. these methods are becoming more popular in school, although there are those who still practice rote memorization, a style which researchers note is the least effective way to help students retain knowledge of history.

certainly the study of politics, presidents, kings and queens will always be in the textbooks, and they should. these are the (almost always) men who make the decisions to send citizens to war, to end slavery, to make or amend laws. but what captures students' interest is this: who were the people who went to war? what did they see? who were the people who built the pyramids? how did they accomplish such a feat? who were the slaves? how did their music and culture affect american society? these are the questions that are the 'hooks,' if you will. not to mention, they're more fun to teach.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: I have no idea what's taught nowadays, but when I was in high school, not much was taught about the genocide of the Native Americans (although I did write a paper on Pontiac's war). I wonder how much is taught in Englsih texts about that genocide, for that matter? Lord Amherst was certainly involved-- he inquired about the possibility of giving the tribes blankets infected with smallpox; apparently, someone in the British army did pass out infected blankets while Amherst was looking into that possibility, although it was done without Amherst's knowledge. The Americans only continued the British policies of removing the natives (although they never stooped to germ warfare).

Aye. The 'bad stuff' from British history is included in college texts. We haven't covered it up too much, although we do tend to wait a generation til the full story is revealed. Winston Churchill's mass gassing/genocide of the Kurds in 1920 in Iraq is now widely documented, and if you want to go back further, the Crusades are an extremely shocking tale of rape and mass murder.

How do US texts compare? I get the impression that revealing weakness or distinct errors of 'judgement' are frowned upon in US publications.

As for homosexuality, no problem mentioning relevant facts. A number of British monarchs were homosexuals. Surely this is relevant, is it not?

I remember in "History Class" that a lot of the bad stuff was never really mentioned as far as American History was concerned. History is written many times from the viewpoint of the victors. I loved history as a child. Now I see it as a political football....

Homosexuality? well givene the strong political base of the religious Right wackos in America...good luck there. I suppose they would rather I just go away..

But folks like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, etc etc...are there. Without queer folks, all that might be left is Monty hall & "Let's make a Deal"

It is just fascinating to me to see what a society is *willing* to discuss as part of history. It reflects priorities-for good or ill.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

1. The civil war was started by the south, not by the north. Specifically, the Confederate states seceded because Abraham Lincoln was elected to the Presidency, and the southern states feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery into new territories, as he had promised. The south wasn't fighting to stop the expansion of the federal government; it was fighting to protect slavery. The seceding states seized federal property before Lincoln even took office, but President Buchanan-- you know, the first gay President-- did nothing to stop that seizure. The United States finally responded to the secession when the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter.

2. "The Civil War was not needed to end slavery anyways. Given another 50 years, and the need for slaves would have disappeared in the industrial era." Would another 50 years of slavery have been an acceptable outcome then?

3. "It was real easy for the North to sit on a high horse on the slavery issue..." What other horse is there, 68?

4. "Slavery would have fizzled out on it's own, and the Jim Crowe laws would have been unnessisary" Were the Jim Crow laws necessary, then, 68?

Answers to your questions:

1. First, more correctly the war started after John Brown went on his crazy, holy stand against slavery (he claimed that God had spoken to him that he would stop slavery. . .I guess in a round-about way, he was right). Yes the South Seceded because Lincoln became president. Yes he wanted to stop the expansion of slavery. Yes the South did not want that. But that is all surface issues. The South was mad because at that time the President, or Washington, did not have the power to make such changes (Dredd Scott decision of the supreme court), it was up to the state to decide if they wanted slavery, and many other issues. Differences between the North and South had been brewing for over 50 years, slavery was not the first and only issue(Clay's bill for a National Bank (which Pres. Tyler vetoed)).
   An example that not everyone fought FOR slavery, General R.E. Lee had the opportunity to command Lincoln's Army. . .he declined and led the South. . .he had freed ALL his slaves, and had a huge plantation (now known as Arlington Cemetary). Also, simply because Buchanan never married did not make him gay.

2. Slavery is NOT good, however the forced changes, the economic costs and retrebution on the south, and the carpet baggers caused more damage. . .forming the KKK, intense racial discrimination, and many effects we are still dealing with today. Had slavery died out because of economics and technology, I highly doubt we would have the same level of these issues today.

3. ?????????

4. At the time they were percieved as necessary.

You may state that all the references support slavery as the main cause of the war, but remember, the one that wins the war writes the history.

JHC

---by the way, liked that you did a paper on my war. . .hehehe

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: No idea who that key player is.

Joseph Priestley

AgentWood wrote:

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Don't suppose it's worth pointing out that "history" is, almost by definition, political to its very core?????

Gormless fucking wankers.

history is only 'by definition' political if the school board chooses to use texts that make it so, or if the teacher teaching the class makes it so. nearly all research demonstrates that students show more interest in history when they learn about people with whom they can empathise or in whom they show an interest. this is why you find an upsurge in the teaching of social history in (many) schools.

there's no doubt that it's hard to get some teachers to change their ways--to focus less on revolutionary war battles and civil war battles and more on greater themes. the national association for gifted children has an excellent model: the parallel curriculum. through this model, students learn not chronologically but through the study of themes: such as justice, prejudice, war, etc. the students learn how each of these themes are woven into history. they read both primary and secondary sources from all sides and learn how historians approach the study of history--not how the text book has written history. then, the students relate these themes to their own lives, which allows them to realize that history has value and that they are a part of history and have the power to change history. this model is similar to the renzulli model, which allows students to look at topics of their own interest in greater depth: by obtaining professional mentors, creating in-depth studies of historical eras that interest them, and critiquing historical writings about that era. both of these methods are, essentially, horizontal extensions of the study of history. these methods are becoming more popular in school, although there are those who still practice rote memorization, a style which researchers note is the least effective way to help students retain knowledge of history.

certainly the study of politics, presidents, kings and queens will always be in the textbooks, and they should. these are the (almost always) men who make the decisions to send citizens to war, to end slavery, to make or amend laws. but what captures students' interest is this: who were the people who went to war? what did they see? who were the people who built the pyramids? how did they accomplish such a feat? who were the slaves? how did their music and culture affect american society? these are the questions that are the 'hooks,' if you will. not to mention, they're more fun to teach.

Jesus Christ. You must be fun to go for a drink with. Thanks, once again, for patronising me to within an inch of my life.

Teachers, eh?

Sweeping generalisation there Martin, steady on!

Lecherers!

James Thomas wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: No idea who that key player is.

Joseph Priestley

Discovered oxygen? Not sure what else he was a key player in...

He was a radical in England and went to America after the revolution. All sorts of links with Jefferson and Franklin. There's a foundation over there or something.

James Thomas wrote: Sweeping generalisation there Martin, steady on!

Lecherers!

Hmmmm. Seeing as random pub doormen in Manchester seemed to assume that you and the missus were swingers and I was the late-nite sandwich filling I would take more care before casting doubt on my moral fibre.

But, yeah, you have a point!

For an interpretation on history for general: Anyone for Hannah Arendt?

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: For an interpretation on history for general: Anyone for Hannah Arendt?

Never heard of her before, checked it up and her writings sound quite interesting. You have peaked my interest, any suggestions on where to start?

JHC

I haven't read any of her works. My AP U.S. History teacher said that she is significant in the study of history since she emphasized evidentarianism (self-explanatory).

for hannah arendt, try eichmann in jerusalem. it's extremely controversial, as she implies that eichmann was little more than 'middle management' and his was a show trial; israel was putting nazi germany on trial through eichmann.

ironically, even though she was jewish, arendt was (for a time) the mistress of the philosopher martin heidegger, who was a member of the nazi party.

Wood, Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.

Also forgot to mention that your last write up on the thread's topic was exactly the type of response I was looking for. . .insight from a teacher's perspective. Interesting that history can be grouped a different way. In that way I could see how this topic could be brought up in a meaningful way. . .I don't think it could really fit well in the timeline style of history teaching. Also this style of teaching that you mention, probably works best in High school and college, as I imagine timeline teaching would be necessary first, as the other concept would probably confuse elementary kids. Any more thoughts on this?

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Wood, Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.

Also forgot to mention that your last write up on the thread's topic was exactly the type of response I was looking for. . .insight from a teacher's perspective. Interesting that history can be grouped a different way. In that way I could see how this topic could be brought up in a meaningful way. . .I don't think it could really fit well in the timeline style of history teaching. Also this style of teaching that you mention, probably works best in High school and college, as I imagine timeline teaching would be necessary first, as the other concept would probably confuse elementary kids. Any more thoughts on this?

JHC

the parallel curriculum model is designed for all ages. for example, a unit based around the theme of patterns might be appropriate for early primary school, while units on racism and justice are appropriate for the middle or upper grades (i use them in the middle grades). the renzulli model works best with high schoolers who are comfortable working independently, as there is little teacher 'interference' in this model; it is not highly structured, and would not be appropriate for students who need this structure in the classroom. either way, these models are a hell of a lot more interesting than 'bueller, bueller.' :D