sexual orientation in history books
Archived65 replies · 1,245 views
[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.
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.
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.
"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?
"It was real easy for the North to sit on a high horse on the slavery issue..." What other horse is there, 68?
"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:
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.
"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?
"It was real easy for the North to sit on a high horse on the slavery issue..." What other horse is there, 68?
"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:
- 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.
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.
?????????
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
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?
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!
