History Books

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm REALLY tired of having white, conservative, Christian males as Presidents, though. I either want a minority or non Christian as my next President.

Why, what would that accomplish? Simply electing a minority President won't automatically fix the problems in this country.

The President is supposed to represent the majority of the people and the majority in this country are white Christians. So that's why almost all the Presidents have been white Christians. The only minority candidates tend to be racist, socialists like Jesse Jackson and thankfully there are no where near enough racist Socialists to elect him. I think Colin Powell might be ok if he ever ran, but he won't. What other potential candidates have enough credibility and experience to even get a nomination?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"He speaks so well!"

[Guest Some Guy]

huh?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Colin Powell. <g> It's a Chris Rock routine. "He speaks so well! He's so well-spoken! He speaks so well!" Never mind.

[Guest EricMM]

Anyway, I hate that whole Native Americans were wonderful folk until whitey came along.

 

heh I just said they had a rich and valuable cultural heritage, not that they weren't sometimes violent bastards EEVERYONE has been violent bastards at some point. I think.

 

Some Guy I think you need to stop thinking about teh Socialists. There really aren't that many, I've never heard Jesse Jackson talk about economics at all... But I may have missed that speech. The point is that there is no way at least currently for us EVER to have a minority President (and this is importatant) MERITS OR NOT. Hell JFK was a surprise because he was Catholic. Whos to say that Gore or Bush were the best people to control the state? What if some woman was? But it can't happen, not today I don't think. It's very sad. I've heard people say that minorities have noone to look up to, and it can seem true. I've heard it said that if you are black in America, it seems you have to be a athlete or a rapper. Certainly not a president. What does THAT say about America.

 

Equal paychecks for all! Sike!

 

Wasn't Chris Rock implying that Colin Powell was pretty white? Pretty unthreatening for people?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No.

[Guest EricMM]

Oh sorry. Nevermind then.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Chris Rock was saying that white people would never vote for Colin Powell.

 

"Every time white people compliment Colin Powell, it's the same damn thing. The same damn compliment. 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken! He speaks so well!' What the fuck is that shit? He's a fucking educated man! 'He speaks so well...' that's some shit you say about a retarded person. What the fuck kind of voice were you looking to come out of his mouth? 'Ah'm a drop me a bomb today?'"

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Of course, I live in the South where old people refer to Native Americans...

There's no such thing as a Native American. I should be considered Native American because I was born here and I've grown up here. Indians immigrated to America just like everyone else did.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

There's no such thing as a Native American. I should be considered Native American because I was born here and I've grown up here. Indians immigrated to America just like everyone else did.

 

What would that make people from India?

 

And what is wrong about learning about the truth with regards to Columbus. You learn about Cortez & Pizzaro don't you? They were far worse. Columbus wasn't even that important.

[Guest MrRant]

"I don't care about learning about what happened but if you are going to devote the whole class to that then fuck you"

 

um... if you don't care what happened then why were you taking the course?

That was a typo.. I meant to say I care.

[Guest MrRant]

ok here's the deal.

 

schools are funded with federal dollars. therefore, schools are told to purchase textbooks that preach the ideologies and beliefs of the federal govt. period. if you skim through a history textbook and it's HISTORICALLY inaccurate then what's the point?

 

"I don't want to sit here and have my fucking time used up by you telling me how bad my ancestors are so go fuck yourself."

 

as for your ancestors, they probably didn't slaughter the Indians until after they starved them out.

 

"I don't care about learning about what happened but if you are going to devote the whole class to that then fuck you"

 

um... if you don't care what happened then why were you taking the course?

 

 

"Just because you teach doesn't mean that you are better than a guy who makes burrito at Taco Bell... nor does that mean you are smarter. And don't give me shit about working through 4 years of college when some people don't even get the chance. Why should a teacher make more than say a lawyer or a doctor who went to school for more time then the teacher? I mentor (help train people) at my work and I don't get paid more for it. I could teach what elementary school teachers teach and I did when I was a TA. It isn't some holy quest and people need to give that idea up. Its an honorable occupation that does give back to children but doesn't mean its more important than any other postition. "

 

you're wrong on all accounts. the guy making burritos at taco bell is there because he doesn't have the education or skills or experience to work in a better occupation. And moist teachers don't get in it for the money or they wouldn't go into teaching. For most, it really is a "quest" to help kids learn. With your poor attitude and closed-mind, I seriously doubt you could handle teaching and I am thankful you're not in that role. Teaching the kids isn't more important than any occupation? It's not important for us to be literate nation? Remember, while you are training people at your work, these teachers will be the ones babysitting and teaching your kids so have a little more respect for a profession. As for the teacher salary, when something as valuable as teaching becomes commodified and placed on the bottom of a govt. agends, who loses? everyone involved.

I have a very open mind and most teacher's do try to teach their values to kids. You yourself are going to be a teacher... are you going to let your anti-capitialist few points into the classroom? What right does it give you to infuze your views into the curriculim? In a discussion like I said it is ok, but far too many teachers put their politcal, religious, or other views into what they are teaching.

 

I have plenty of respect for SOME teachers that don't bring try to warp a child's view of something. A kid should have the right to form his own opinion of events.

 

The guy making the burrito may have never had the chance to go to school because perhaps something happened. But if the guy works hard to feed his family it makes a teacher no better because they went to school for 4 years.

 

And if most teachers aren't in it for the money... why do they whine so much about it? I know of a few teachers that went on strike because they wanted more money but they had the exact same amount of kids as my parents and were making $50,000 but my parents were only making $30,000 and weren't complaining? And when teachers go on strike they harm children. That is why if I become a teacher I will refuse to join one of those goddamn unions.

[Guest goodhelmet]

"I have a very open mind and most teacher's do try to teach their values to kids. You yourself are going to be a teacher... are you going to let your anti-capitialist few points into the classroom? What right does it give you to infuze your views into the curriculim? In a discussion like I said it is ok, but far too many teachers put their politcal, religious, or other views into what they are teaching. "

 

--when a teacher puts his own political views in front of the curriculum, surely that is wrong. but i have this gut feeling that if your teacher was ruch limbaugh, instead of questioning his ideology, you would think to yourself "wow, that's a great point".

 

 

--back to the point about teachers personal views in the classroom:

I think we agree on one point- certain things (religion, sexual preference, even political party) have no place in a classroom. But when you insist on only telling one part of the story or ignoring the other half then there is a problem. Would it be too difficult to explain the concept of laissez faire and then explain the opposition to laissez faire? no. While telling the children that communism is bad could certainly be understandable when examining the totalitarian regimes of stalin and castro do you simply discredit marx without understanding that his examination of the exploitation of the capitalist system. Do you even understand how capitalism is an EXPLOITATIVE economic system built on imperialism? as for infusing personal views into a classroom, is making people aware of not necessarily my own personal views but BOTH opposing sides of the argument rather than having them live under a false consciousnes worse? do you understand exploitation and the contradictions of the "laws of capitalist development"? when you do THEN we'll have something to talk about.

[Guest EricMM]

Would it be too difficult to explain the concept of laissez faire and then explain the opposition to laissez faire? no. While telling the children that communism is bad could certainly be understandable when examining the totalitarian regimes of stalin and castro do you simply discredit marx without understanding that his examination of the exploitation of the capitalist system. Do you even understand how capitalism is an EXPLOITATIVE economic system built on imperialism?

 

This is a rediculously good point. How can you teach the virtues of Capitalism without teaching Communism? To do otherwise is vaguely dishonest if you have an agenda and incomplete if you don't. I know I was always more reassured when we learned why people chose capitalism, because I always also learned why we chose capitalism. Of course Capitalism is one of the only ways (the only way I know) to run a state this large, but to not teach what things like Fascism, Communism, and Theocracies are and why they do things well is one sided.

 

I don't know much about the whole money situation, but I hate it when teaching is devalued. Who called it a part time job? Substitue teaching is part time, and being a shitty teacher is part time, but being a good teacher means giving a lot of your own time to lesson planning, grading, and extracurricular work. My latin teacher ran a latin club and he didn't get payed extra. He also created a lot of good lessons that definitely did not come out of some book. For that reason his class was popular and a lot of kids learned latin (and while you may not think latin is an important class, it helped me on my SAT's AND this point could easily go for maths or writing or history).

 

You're right if a teacher is trying to change a child's mind in regards to certain points, or covering up a viewpoint in class then that teacher is flawed. But in my experiance even liberal history teachers taught that capitalism works. And they had to teach that Communism has never worked on a large scale. They will discuss why they think communism could work on a smaller or better scale, but if this is done during high school, students should be able to voice their own opinions.

 

And this type of history is IIRC not really taught in Elementary School. That age was all about what, middle and high school is when I learned the why.

[Guest GenerationNever]

Of course, I live in the South where old people refer to Native Americans...

There's no such thing as a Native American. I should be considered Native American because I was born here and I've grown up here. Indians immigrated to America just like everyone else did.

Yes, from Asia. However the point is moot because Native Americans didn't believe in owning land. But it doesn't really matter who or what our ancestors are, it's not like we did anything they did. In a perfect world we wouldn't say humans were of differant "races" by their skin color, because we are all a member of the same race: the human race. BTW, Indians are those in India, not the original human natives of America.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The problem is, nobody will be happy 100% with the finished product after history books are re-written. I don't mind that at 9 years old I didn't know that Native Americans were slaughtered. Although, at the same time I think it is important we did find out the truth later on.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Chris Rock was saying that white people would never vote for Colin Powell.

 

"Every time white people compliment Colin Powell, it's the same damn thing. The same damn compliment. 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken! He speaks so well!' What the fuck is that shit? He's a fucking educated man! 'He speaks so well...' that's some shit you say about a retarded person. What the fuck kind of voice were you looking to come out of his mouth? 'Ah'm a drop me a bomb today?'"

Like most black people would vote for Colin Powell. He'd be called an Uncle Tom and a sellout by people like Jesse Jackson.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Very probably.

[Guest BorneAgain]

Personally I'm against any socialist-leaning text being taught in our schools. But that's just because I'm a staunch capitalist.

 

As for the whole Native American issue....my mother's heritage is almostly completely Native American. "Indians" on both paternal & maternal sides of the family. They're my ancestors.

 

That said, I have never (and will never) moaned or complained about how the white man, way back when, slaughtered my people.

 

I hate to sound cold and insensitive, but it was classic cultural warfare. One side took out the other. It's very sad, and some of the atrocities committed by both sides rank right up there amongst the worst crimes ever committed by human beings, but ultimately the Native Americans and their way of life died so that this country could progress to become, with time, the greatest country upon the planet. Progress is never easy; it takes a lot of bloodshed. We wouldn't be where we are today if not for the fierce Manifest Destiny we possessed, if not for the Civil War, if not for the World Wars.....

No, No, No you've got it all wrong. You can talk about the Indian's way of life all you want, but that fact is Indians tried to acculturate. The problem was that whites wouldn't let them do so. Any time an Indian was even moderately succesful jealous white neighbors would usually rob or burn their homes. Native Americans weren't victims of progress, rather they were never given opportunities to be progressive.

[Guest Some Guy]

No they weren't given the opurtunity at the time. I think what he meant was that America would not be what it is today had the Indians not been taken out. Which I believe to be true. We have a very different way of life than that of the Indians.

[Guest MR. COOLING]

I think you guys are skating round the big question of what is school history actually for?

 

Is it just a impartial subject where you discuss certian events and theories, what caused them, their pros and cons, etc, etc OR is it in effect a piece of indocrtination to get the masses to not only know about their country and its history but to be proud in their country and its history?

 

Now yes on the face of it school history should be impartial and objective BUT such a style of history (as used in Britain) is not only boring to those who aren't interested in history but leads to a lack of national pride and identity (it also has a nasty habit of turning into historical sociology) on the other hand a nationalistic history full of the wonderful stories all countries have is far, far, far more interesting as can be seen by the succes of series like Simon Schmca and David Starkey on British TV and the likes of AJP Taylor before them.

 

Now this might not be exactly ethical but I think for the good of any nation the "masses" must be instilled with a pride in their country, its laws, its insistutions. Most of all a nation must have some sort of narrivative i.e. America and the founding fathers. States without such a narrivative are artifical and unsuccesful, just look at the differance between India which has Ghandi and the independence movement and Pakistan which had no such icon or movement. School in general and history in particular are ideal for this process.

 

Again this is probably not ethical but in my opinion its vital all the same.

 

p.s I should note that I believe its impossible to have "impartial" history we all look at events in history through the prism of our values, religion, politics and nationality.

 

p.p.s Whatever you do don't confuse Marx with Soviet style regimes, Marx's ideal society was closer to a hippy comune than the USSR.

 

p.p.p.s Remember it was Adam Smith who said that if captialism was not tempered by human emotions such as sympathy then it WOULD lead to expoltation and alienatition.

 

William

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

The real use of history is not to repeat the mistakes of the past. In order to learn something, you have to actually know what happened.

 

It is not enough to know that Hitler was evil, and we kicked his ass. If you ignore what actually happened for Hitler to gain power and begin his march to war, then you run the possibility of allowing another Hitler to run amok.

[SuperJerk 0]

Many teachers get paid plenty. It's part time work, 2 weeks off in December, a week im Feb, another week in April, and three months off in the summer. Are the tax payers supposed to make them millionaires?

Tenured teachers in my town make $60,000 year that's not too shabby IMO. I bust my ass in 100 degree heat in a bakery for $8.50 a hour and they cry the blues about $60,000.

I've finally found the most retarded thing ever written at TSM.

[SuperJerk 0]

This thread is very broken.

 

Basically I just made a post in response to this...

 

Many teachers get paid plenty. It's part time work, 2 weeks off in December, a week im Feb, another week in April, and three months off in the summer. Are the tax payers supposed to make them millionaires?

Tenured teachers in my town make $60,000 year that's not too shabby IMO. I bust my ass in 100 degree heat in a bakery for $8.50 a hour and they cry the blues about $60,000.

 

Because that's the sort of thing that sits so well with me.

 

Everytime I do a topic search, I wind up at the beginning of time to back when neanderthals were posting on this board.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Y2Jerk

[The Czech Republic 0]

Everytime I do a topic search, I wind up at the beginning of time to back when neanderthals were posting on this board.

The WWE folder must be a time warp or something

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I want to know where that town is where teachers make $60K a year, because my wife wasn't making half that after three years of teaching high school, so I want to move to wherever that town is. Because I'm sure once she gets tenure the salary will magically double...

 

I love how we put such an emphasis on "the importance of good schools and a strong education" in this country, but barely pay teachers enough to get by.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I want to know where that town is where teachers make $60K a year, because my wife wasn't making half that after three years of teaching high school, so I want to move to wherever that town is. Because I'm sure once she gets tenure the salary will magically double...

 

I love how we put such an emphasis on "the importance of good schools and a strong education" in this country, but barely pay teachers enough to get by.

Supply and demand. There's a huge number of students working towards their teaching certifications.

[SuperJerk 0]

I want to know where that town is where teachers make $60K a year, because my wife wasn't making half that after three years of teaching high school, so I want to move to wherever that town is. Because I'm sure once she gets tenure the salary will magically double...

 

I love how we put such an emphasis on "the importance of good schools and a strong education" in this country, but barely pay teachers enough to get by.

Supply and demand. There's a huge number of students working towards their teaching certifications.

True, but not true.

 

Teaching is a field where things are very specialized. And some of those specialized fields are higher demand than others. For every math teacher graduating, there's 10 social studies teachers. However, the social studies teachers with 3 years experience and 16 hours towards his masters degree makes the same $35,000 for 180 contract days that the math teacher with 3 years experience and 16 hours towards his masters degree does.

 

Supply and demand is not a factor, because the salaries are mandated across the board for years of experience + number of graduate hours, rather than how badly math teachers are needed.

[Vampiro69 0]

Like Invader3k said, I want to know where the heck these teachers are making 60K at. Up in North Dakota we start off at 23,000 dollars. OUr cost of living maybe low but not that low.

[Guest InuYasha]

Boy, someone really dragged this one out of it's grave, kicking and screaming.

 

Teachers are among the most vital, yet under-appreciated people on earth. We've got billionaire sports stars who can barely say they graduated high school, yet we can't pay teachers enough money to be able to teach our children sufficiently not to be complete screw-ups later in life.