Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

mook · Nov 25, 2003, 10:11 pm

I think that, in my twelve years of education, I haven't once taken a mandatory history class that taught me anything past World War II. Well, I'll take that back--in the eighth grade, we touched on the assasination of John F. Kennedy before the semester's end. But in general, my history classes seem to drag through months of studying imperialism, months of looking at the American Revolution, months of westernization, months of World War I.. followed by two weeks of rushing through World War II before the semester ends. It's pure idiocy. I have learned about the Battle of Bunker Hill 12 times. I have hardly even scratched the surface of what went on during Vietnam (though I've read up a little on it independently). The entire history curriculum is terribly flawed. I know this for a few reasons:

First and foremost, when schools do not educate people about recent history, people are bound to be ignorant of what helped form the modern world. When students rarely get past the end of WWII, obviously no one will know about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the times of massive change that took place during the Reagan administration, the Iran/Iraq war, the rise of Palestinian terrorism in Israel (or Israel's wars before that), the Korean War, or virtually anything else. Sure, it's important to educate kids about the American Revolution, but certainly not to teach it 12 times at the sacrifice of teaching them the issues that helped shape the face of the modern world more than anything that happened that long ago.

Next, teaching students about more recent history will increase the likelihood of actually getting them to care about the history classes they are in. Let's face it: Everything prior to 1900 is boring. It's essential knowledge, certainly, but it is not material that students can easily relate to or grasp onto. Teaching more recent events will most certailny allow the students to relate better; they could relate the content to modern current events, and additionally have a better grasp on the material because their parents probably lived through all of it.

I don't know if this is true everywhere, but for myself and my peers it certainly has been. I've been in three different school systems over the course of my life and this is always how the history classes are managed. Surely something's wrong when no one I know has even the tiniest bit of knowledge about the country we just sent members of our military into two years ago.

I don't know if any of you will agree or not. I wish I could find some sort of poll proving my point, but I don't know if there's anything like that out there. If there is something out there of the sort, tell me, I might write a speech on it or something. Because it drives me crazy.

Impenitent · Nov 26, 2003, 12:48 am

of course you are correct... the school systems teach only what they want you to learn... how can you know that socialism and communism failed miserably in the soviet union if you never study it? how can you learn which party passed the civil rights legislation in the sixties? it wasn't the democrats, but they don't want you to know that... which party kept us in vietnam and underfunded the military so we couldn't actually fight and win the conflict? it was the democrats, but you can't learn that in public schools... and you have to ask why certain history isn't taught in public school? the politics of the teachers union forbids it...

if you want to read a good story about keeping information away from people, read umberto eco's "The Name of the Rose" ... yes it was made into a movie with connery and slater... but the book is better from a philosophical point of view...

fedfem · Nov 26, 2003, 01:56 am

Geesh, Impenitent, I love that book.

I agree the dumbing down is terrible. I attended private school and the curriculum was very different than public school. I think the issue is that our youth are trained to be blue collar for the most part. It does seem to reek of discrimination. If you cannot afford private school, or college then your children seem destined to get the bare minimum in education as well as career.

That said, parents and teachers should encourage students to thirst for knowledge and not just get by. Libraries, and now the internet, have more information than was ever available before. It is up to society to demand better schools and better public education. The teachers unions are not to blame for what the school boards decide to teach on the local or state level.

Mook, you are talking about the education system in the US. We seem to have one of the worst in the industrialized world--it is shameful. The powers that be do not want an intellectual majority.

Ever notice that the first to speak out against the government are the educated?

Ever notice the first to scream patriotism are the uneducated?

A blindly religious and/or uneducated population is the easiest to dupe.

darwinist · Nov 26, 2003, 07:10 am

Yes, it is indeed and sad state of affairs.

As i was brought up and educated in Britain. I was taught all about the kings and queens. The war of the roses and such like. Never in public school was i taught about the imperilst Britain, stamping on The Empire. Or how we shaped the problem in the middle east. Or the Suez crisis.

I totally agree fedfem. The uneducated are easier to control.

castille · Nov 26, 2003, 08:54 am

Well the problem is nobody *wants* to learn about the Cold War. Nobody wants to know about the Cuban Missile Crisis and the negotiations between the US and USSR, or the Berlin blockade and its resolution and results, and the various gurellia wars fought and sponsered by the US/USSR.

Basically most students consider it boring.

If you want to learn about the Cold War, you enjoy stuff on Russians and Americans screaming at each other (ie. Kruschev's shoe!), then sign onto a specific class. I did late-20th century history, and we covered a lot of that.

G. Adams · Nov 26, 2003, 12:35 pm

I personally feel that up to 14 they should stick to interesting history. Subjective I know, but who wouldn't pick the Aztecs and Conquistadors over the Industrial Revolution? Its not like they teach you about the good bits of the industrial revolution, like Europe tearing itself apart over the new politics released and enabled by the French revolution, combined with new techs. No, it was god damned trains and the spinning jenny. WHO CARES?

If anything will turn kids away from history it the fact that they know every time they get in that room they are gonna be bored to death. But if you get them interested in history early on then later they will appreciate history more, and will put up with the boring bits because they'll see it as part of a bigger, more interesting package.

Have to say though that my british state education in history was pretty good, (apart from industrial revolution) but I was lucky to continually get good teachers. And we didn't do our topics as small as you were saying, months at a time. In first year secondary school, we did a year of classical history, mainly rome mind. Next year it was a year of british medieval history, from norman conquest to war of the roses, third year it was half tudors then industrial revolution. Fourth year I took history as an option so got extra classes, we did world history from 1912 to 1939, fifth year was world history from 1939-1975, with coursework on Vietnam 55-75.

I say it was pretty good, but its astounding how much extra I've learned about the same topics since then, and I havn't even studied it since.

mook · Nov 26, 2003, 05:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Well the problem is nobody *wants* to learn about the Cold War. Nobody wants to know about the Cuban Missile Crisis and the negotiations between the US and USSR, or the Berlin blockade and its resolution and results, and the various gurellia wars fought and sponsered by the US/USSR.

Basically most students consider it boring.

If you want to learn about the Cold War, you enjoy stuff on Russians and Americans screaming at each other (ie. Kruschev's shoe!), then sign onto a specific class. I did late-20th century history, and we covered a lot of that.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What makes the Cold War any less interesting than the (as has been mentioned) Industrial Revolution? You can hear the snoring from halfway across the high school when the teacher's going on about.. *yawn*.. the rise of industry and.. *zzz*.. the expansion of western agricul... *collapses*

I know it is somewhat subjective, but I can assure you that more high schoolers (and those younger than them) would find the Cold War to be more interesting. They'll be able to connect better to the modern "superpower" America--far more than they could connect to the America of 150 years ago.

I'm just saying that writing off the Cold War period as boring is no excuse to not educate students about it. There are far more boring subjects (that we are taught about countless times), and even if it were the most boring subject, it would still be essential to educate the masses about it.

I understand that the option is commonly given for 20th century history classes, but that's just the thing: It's an option. After years of enduring the same garbage over and over they're typically so sick of history that the motivation to take the class is not there. The end result is the same, either way: Only those interested in learning more about recent history take the time to do so. Everyone else goes on living without such knowledge.

castille · Nov 27, 2003, 08:15 am

Er....the industrial revolution IS boring.

Most history classes have 3 areas:

1) Propaganda about your race/country (ie. we rock, they suck)
2) World War 2
3) World War 2 (again)

I think China was the only place I ever learnt about Cold War history (considering that a powerful China was established DURING that period, its obvious).

Speaking of which....does the Brits still teach monarchist stuff?

G. Adams · Nov 27, 2003, 11:52 am

Nah, not really. It does teach about the royals in the medieval period, but that is important to British history because it demonstrates how many of our institutions were established, such as Magna Carta, unification of England properly, the CofE and the establishment of the UK. But our classes focus more upon the periods than the figures of periods, analysing why these events happened etc

PunkRabbit · Dec 6, 2003, 06:55 am

I live in Belgium and at my university we do study the cold war. We have a class called modern history, everyone has it and it's mainly about the world after WW2.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)

1) Propaganda about your race/country (ie. we rock, they suck)
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Exactly the opposite over here. We don't have "patriotic" history classes. We know that one of our former kings ordered mass murders in Congo. We know our King during WW2 almost chickened out.
That's why we also know JFK was a power-hungry president who wasted a lot of cash on weapons at a time the SU wanted to stop the race in weapons.
Or that the US supported dictators who ran Cocaine plants during the cold war. Or that they supported Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, etc...
We look at everything with a more critical view.

These are the reasons why a lot of Europeans sometimes critize the US. Because it seems that a lot of the "normal" Americans don't know the "less pleasant facts" about their history.

Sodfather · Dec 9, 2003, 02:05 pm

Well, a short and sweet answer to your topic question would be "yes." I was educated beyond WWII into the Viet Nam War, but then again I had a rather extraordinary (high school) history teacher. This was during sopohomore year.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 11:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Er....the industrial revolution IS boring.

Most history classes have 3 areas:

1) Propaganda about your race/country (ie. we rock, they suck)
2) World War 2
3) World War 2 (again)

I think China was the only place I ever learnt about Cold War history (considering that a powerful China was established DURING that period, its obvious).

Speaking of which....does the Brits still teach monarchist stuff?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
They should teach more about the rise of the British empire and it's rule, I mean without the empire there wouldn't have been a USA or globalisation at the stage we have it today.

Impenitent · Dec 12, 2003, 12:38 pm

as well as the rise of portugal, spain and france... they invaded and colonized far more of the globe than the british did...

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 01:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
as well as the rise of portugal, spain and france... they invaded and colonized far more of the globe than the british did...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But the British empire exerted more influence and spread their culture more so than those empires, at the peak it covered a quarter of the world and same amount in population...closest thing to a global government. Why do you think english is a global language?

Impenitent · Dec 12, 2003, 03:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
as well as the rise of portugal, spain and france... they invaded and colonized far more of the globe than the british did...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But the British empire exerted more influence and spread their culture more so than those empires, at the peak it covered a quarter of the world and same amount in population...closest thing to a global government. Why do you think english is a global language?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

not really, north, central and south america as well as most of africa were controlled by the spanish, french and portugese... a quarter of the world? not in population, control perhaps, but not at the same time... why is english the global language? because america invents the technology and the entertainment for most of the world... winning the world wars helped as well... but english is not the only language spoken in the world...

Waychel · Dec 12, 2003, 03:38 pm

I encounter people in college who don't even know who Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander the Great were. If HS kids can't even handle national and world history up to WWII, why expect them to learn anything more we add into their curriculum(sp)?

Most of the real important history you learn is in college with government and history classes. Not to mention sociology classes help you to understand why history played out the way it did a-lot more. I also consider college my first real glimpse at history as well, because you're going to learn a-lot more from that professor than you would from a HS teacher repeating a one-sided history out of a textbook for verbatim.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 05:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

not really, north, central and south america as well as most of africa were controlled by the spanish, french and portugese... a quarter of the world? not in population, control perhaps, but not at the same time... why is english the global language? because america invents the technology and the entertainment for most of the world... winning the world wars helped as well... but english is not the only language spoken in the world...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
lmao, you honestly think that English is the international language because of the US? I think you need to do your research. But I must say, I exagerated a bit, at the height of its power it controlled 20% of the world and 23% of the world's population (1909).

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 05:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I encounter people in college who don't even know who Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander the Great were. If HS kids can't even handle national and world history up to WWII, why expect them to learn anything more we add into their curriculum(sp)?

Most of the real important history you learn is in college with government and history classes. Not to mention sociology classes help you to understand why history played out the way it did a-lot more. I also consider college my first real glimpse at history as well, because you're going to learn a-lot more from that professor than you would from a HS teacher repeating a one-sided history out of a textbook for verbatim.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
There's a difference between struggling to cope with the data and unwillingness or lack of interest in a subject.

Sodfather · Dec 12, 2003, 07:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I encounter people in college who don't even know who Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander the Great were.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Alexander is a given, but, um...Lawrence of Arabia? I don't think I've ever heard of him so I think you've made a bad choice to prove your point. You could have used someone along the lines of Caesar, Augustus, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, Philip of Macedon, Hammurabi, Joan d'Arc, Lincoln, Patton, Ike, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill--but, no, you use Lawrence of Arabia? Hmm...

RebelWithanAK · Dec 12, 2003, 07:52 pm

Lawrence of Arabia: Brit during the 19-teens who fought - unsuccessfully - for independence of many Arab countries, including Jordan and Lebanon. So now you know.

Nov 25, 2003, 10:11 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
mook Molten Ash Posts: 32	I think that, in my twelve years of education, I haven't once taken a mandatory history class that taught me anything past World War II. Well, I'll take that back--in the eighth grade, we touched on the assasination of John F. Kennedy before the semester's end. But in general, my history classes seem to drag through months of studying imperialism, months of looking at the American Revolution, months of westernization, months of World War I.. followed by two weeks of rushing through World War II before the semester ends. It's pure idiocy. I have learned about the Battle of Bunker Hill 12 times. I have hardly even scratched the surface of what went on during Vietnam (though I've read up a little on it independently). The entire history curriculum is terribly flawed. I know this for a few reasons: First and foremost, when schools do not educate people about recent history, people are bound to be ignorant of what helped form the modern world. When students rarely get past the end of WWII, obviously no one will know about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the times of massive change that took place during the Reagan administration, the Iran/Iraq war, the rise of Palestinian terrorism in Israel (or Israel's wars before that), the Korean War, or virtually anything else. Sure, it's important to educate kids about the American Revolution, but certainly not to teach it 12 times at the sacrifice of teaching them the issues that helped shape the face of the modern world more than anything that happened that long ago. Next, teaching students about more recent history will increase the likelihood of actually getting them to care about the history classes they are in. Let's face it: Everything prior to 1900 is boring. It's essential knowledge, certainly, but it is not material that students can easily relate to or grasp onto. Teaching more recent events will most certailny allow the students to relate better; they could relate the content to modern current events, and additionally have a better grasp on the material because their parents probably lived through all of it. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but for myself and my peers it certainly has been. I've been in three different school systems over the course of my life and this is always how the history classes are managed. Surely something's wrong when no one I know has even the tiniest bit of knowledge about the country we just sent members of our military into two years ago. I don't know if any of you will agree or not. I wish I could find some sort of poll proving my point, but I don't know if there's anything like that out there. If there is something out there of the sort, tell me, I might write a speech on it or something. Because it drives me crazy. history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Nov 26, 2003, 12:48 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	of course you are correct... the school systems teach only what they want you to learn... how can you know that socialism and communism failed miserably in the soviet union if you never study it? how can you learn which party passed the civil rights legislation in the sixties? it wasn't the democrats, but they don't want you to know that... which party kept us in vietnam and underfunded the military so we couldn't actually fight and win the conflict? it was the democrats, but you can't learn that in public schools... and you have to ask why certain history isn't taught in public school? the politics of the teachers union forbids it... if you want to read a good story about keeping information away from people, read umberto eco's "The Name of the Rose" ... yes it was made into a movie with connery and slater... but the book is better from a philosophical point of view... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 26, 2003, 07:10 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Yes, it is indeed and sad state of affairs. As i was brought up and educated in Britain. I was taught all about the kings and queens. The war of the roses and such like. Never in public school was i taught about the imperilst Britain, stamping on The Empire. Or how we shaped the problem in the middle east. Or the Suez crisis. I totally agree fedfem. The uneducated are easier to control. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 26, 2003, 08:54 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Well the problem is nobody wants to learn about the Cold War. Nobody wants to know about the Cuban Missile Crisis and the negotiations between the US and USSR, or the Berlin blockade and its resolution and results, and the various gurellia wars fought and sponsered by the US/USSR. Basically most students consider it boring. If you want to learn about the Cold War, you enjoy stuff on Russians and Americans screaming at each other (ie. Kruschev's shoe!), then sign onto a specific class. I did late-20th century history, and we covered a lot of that. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 26, 2003, 12:35 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I personally feel that up to 14 they should stick to interesting history. Subjective I know, but who wouldn't pick the Aztecs and Conquistadors over the Industrial Revolution? Its not like they teach you about the good bits of the industrial revolution, like Europe tearing itself apart over the new politics released and enabled by the French revolution, combined with new techs. No, it was god damned trains and the spinning jenny. WHO CARES? If anything will turn kids away from history it the fact that they know every time they get in that room they are gonna be bored to death. But if you get them interested in history early on then later they will appreciate history more, and will put up with the boring bits because they'll see it as part of a bigger, more interesting package. Have to say though that my british state education in history was pretty good, (apart from industrial revolution) but I was lucky to continually get good teachers. And we didn't do our topics as small as you were saying, months at a time. In first year secondary school, we did a year of classical history, mainly rome mind. Next year it was a year of british medieval history, from norman conquest to war of the roses, third year it was half tudors then industrial revolution. Fourth year I took history as an option so got extra classes, we did world history from 1912 to 1939, fifth year was world history from 1939-1975, with coursework on Vietnam 55-75. I say it was pretty good, but its astounding how much extra I've learned about the same topics since then, and I havn't even studied it since. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 26, 2003, 01:56 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Geesh, Impenitent, I love that book. I agree the dumbing down is terrible. I attended private school and the curriculum was very different than public school. I think the issue is that our youth are trained to be blue collar for the most part. It does seem to reek of discrimination. If you cannot afford private school, or college then your children seem destined to get the bare minimum in education as well as career. That said, parents and teachers should encourage students to thirst for knowledge and not just get by. Libraries, and now the internet, have more information than was ever available before. It is up to society to demand better schools and better public education. The teachers unions are not to blame for what the school boards decide to teach on the local or state level. Mook, you are talking about the education system in the US. We seem to have one of the worst in the industrialized world--it is shameful. The powers that be do not want an intellectual majority. Ever notice that the first to speak out against the government are the educated? Ever notice the first to scream patriotism are the uneducated? A blindly religious and/or uneducated population is the easiest to dupe.

Nov 26, 2003, 05:18 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
mook Molten Ash Posts: 32	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Well the problem is nobody wants to learn about the Cold War. Nobody wants to know about the Cuban Missile Crisis and the negotiations between the US and USSR, or the Berlin blockade and its resolution and results, and the various gurellia wars fought and sponsered by the US/USSR. Basically most students consider it boring. If you want to learn about the Cold War, you enjoy stuff on Russians and Americans screaming at each other (ie. Kruschev's shoe!), then sign onto a specific class. I did late-20th century history, and we covered a lot of that. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What makes the Cold War any less interesting than the (as has been mentioned) Industrial Revolution? You can hear the snoring from halfway across the high school when the teacher's going on about.. yawn.. the rise of industry and.. zzz.. the expansion of western agricul... collapses I know it is somewhat subjective, but I can assure you that more high schoolers (and those younger than them) would find the Cold War to be more interesting. They'll be able to connect better to the modern "superpower" America--far more than they could connect to the America of 150 years ago. I'm just saying that writing off the Cold War period as boring is no excuse to not educate students about it. There are far more boring subjects (that we are taught about countless times), and even if it were the most boring subject, it would still be essential to educate the masses about it. I understand that the option is commonly given for 20th century history classes, but that's just the thing: It's an option. After years of enduring the same garbage over and over they're typically so sick of history that the motivation to take the class is not there. The end result is the same, either way: Only those interested in learning more about recent history take the time to do so. Everyone else goes on living without such knowledge. history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Nov 27, 2003, 08:15 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Er....the industrial revolution IS boring. Most history classes have 3 areas: 1) Propaganda about your race/country (ie. we rock, they suck) 2) World War 2 3) World War 2 (again) I think China was the only place I ever learnt about Cold War history (considering that a powerful China was established DURING that period, its obvious). Speaking of which....does the Brits still teach monarchist stuff? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 27, 2003, 11:52 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Nah, not really. It does teach about the royals in the medieval period, but that is important to British history because it demonstrates how many of our institutions were established, such as Magna Carta, unification of England properly, the CofE and the establishment of the UK. But our classes focus more upon the periods than the figures of periods, analysing why these events happened etc Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Dec 6, 2003, 06:55 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
PunkRabbit Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	I live in Belgium and at my university we do study the cold war. We have a class called modern history, everyone has it and it's mainly about the world after WW2. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) 1) Propaganda about your race/country (ie. we rock, they suck) <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Exactly the opposite over here. We don't have "patriotic" history classes. We know that one of our former kings ordered mass murders in Congo. We know our King during WW2 almost chickened out. That's why we also know JFK was a power-hungry president who wasted a lot of cash on weapons at a time the SU wanted to stop the race in weapons. Or that the US supported dictators who ran Cocaine plants during the cold war. Or that they supported Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, etc... We look at everything with a more critical view. These are the reasons why a lot of Europeans sometimes critize the US. Because it seems that a lot of the "normal" Americans don't know the "less pleasant facts" about their history. http://users.skynet.be/punkkonijn/sigs/sig.jpg

Dec 9, 2003, 02:05 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	Well, a short and sweet answer to your topic question would be "yes." I was educated beyond WWII into the Viet Nam War, but then again I had a rather extraordinary (high school) history teacher. This was during sopohomore year.

Dec 12, 2003, 11:12 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Er....the industrial revolution IS boring. Most history classes have 3 areas: 1) Propaganda about your race/country (ie. we rock, they suck) 2) World War 2 3) World War 2 (again) I think China was the only place I ever learnt about Cold War history (considering that a powerful China was established DURING that period, its obvious). Speaking of which....does the Brits still teach monarchist stuff?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They should teach more about the rise of the British empire and it's rule, I mean without the empire there wouldn't have been a USA or globalisation at the stage we have it today. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 12:38 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	as well as the rise of portugal, spain and france... they invaded and colonized far more of the globe than the british did... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 12, 2003, 01:11 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) as well as the rise of portugal, spain and france... they invaded and colonized far more of the globe than the british did...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But the British empire exerted more influence and spread their culture more so than those empires, at the peak it covered a quarter of the world and same amount in population...closest thing to a global government. Why do you think english is a global language? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 03:32 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) as well as the rise of portugal, spain and france... they invaded and colonized far more of the globe than the british did...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But the British empire exerted more influence and spread their culture more so than those empires, at the peak it covered a quarter of the world and same amount in population...closest thing to a global government. Why do you think english is a global language?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> not really, north, central and south america as well as most of africa were controlled by the spanish, french and portugese... a quarter of the world? not in population, control perhaps, but not at the same time... why is english the global language? because america invents the technology and the entertainment for most of the world... winning the world wars helped as well... but english is not the only language spoken in the world... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 12, 2003, 03:38 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I encounter people in college who don't even know who Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander the Great were. If HS kids can't even handle national and world history up to WWII, why expect them to learn anything more we add into their curriculum(sp)? Most of the real important history you learn is in college with government and history classes. Not to mention sociology classes help you to understand why history played out the way it did a-lot more. I also consider college my first real glimpse at history as well, because you're going to learn a-lot more from that professor than you would from a HS teacher repeating a one-sided history out of a textbook for verbatim. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 12, 2003, 05:17 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) not really, north, central and south america as well as most of africa were controlled by the spanish, french and portugese... a quarter of the world? not in population, control perhaps, but not at the same time... why is english the global language? because america invents the technology and the entertainment for most of the world... winning the world wars helped as well... but english is not the only language spoken in the world...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> lmao, you honestly think that English is the international language because of the US? I think you need to do your research. But I must say, I exagerated a bit, at the height of its power it controlled 20% of the world and 23% of the world's population (1909). War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 05:24 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I encounter people in college who don't even know who Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander the Great were. If HS kids can't even handle national and world history up to WWII, why expect them to learn anything more we add into their curriculum(sp)? Most of the real important history you learn is in college with government and history classes. Not to mention sociology classes help you to understand why history played out the way it did a-lot more. I also consider college my first real glimpse at history as well, because you're going to learn a-lot more from that professor than you would from a HS teacher repeating a one-sided history out of a textbook for verbatim.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There's a difference between struggling to cope with the data and unwillingness or lack of interest in a subject. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 07:50 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I encounter people in college who don't even know who Lawrence of Arabia or Alexander the Great were.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Alexander is a given, but, um...Lawrence of Arabia? I don't think I've ever heard of him so I think you've made a bad choice to prove your point. You could have used someone along the lines of Caesar, Augustus, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, Philip of Macedon, Hammurabi, Joan d'Arc, Lincoln, Patton, Ike, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill--but, no, you use Lawrence of Arabia? Hmm...

Dec 12, 2003, 07:52 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Lawrence of Arabia: Brit during the 19-teens who fought - unsuccessfully - for independence of many Arab countries, including Jordan and Lebanon. So now you know. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.