History continued...

[Dapper Dan]

My point is that many of the things we all take for granted today may not have ever been given to us if it weren't for the above people. The schools should present all of them in an equal light.

In an equal light, we can agree, with equal emphasis I don't agree. What Chavez did in organizing migrant workers, what Tubman did for the underground railroad, or what Gloria Steinem did for radical leftest feminism can in no way equate with the accomplishments of the founding fathers. Yes they were men, given to the same impulses of good and evil we all are, but their sacrifices were made with the intention of forging a new nation for all, not just their own race or sex.

The problem I have with the grade schools I went to is that so many of them told the previously mentioned "fairy-tales" that never occured. So many of the American Revolutionary leaders are very overglorified these days. Why?

I disagree. I believe the Revolutionary leaders are under-glorified if anything.

Because of silly patriotic biases. Any founding father's dream would have been a big country club with black slaves serving the white patritians. It's true. There's nothing wrong with saying that. It's just what the culture was like. I'm sure there were some poorer properties with the people mentioned in the above quote.

It is very easy for those of us who live in the twenty-first century to piously look down our noses at our ancestors and declare them the epitome of evil for enslaving others. To that end we are simply engaging in self-righteousness. Today we do recognize that the institution of slavery for the wrong it was, but slavery was an economic system that had endured for thousands of years and is still in practice today. Had we been born during their time, many of us would have abhorred it, many would have championed it, but almost all of us would accept it as part of the state of things during our time.

[b]Realise that Lincoln was not a freedom activist. Freeing the slaves was a simple political move. But the schools would like our children to believe the opposite.

We are in complete agreement on that point, however, I'm gonna stop here in hopes of avoiding a hornet's nest as it concerns "Honest Abe."

[Dapper Dan]

I think "ordinary" people throughout history who try to change the way things are are also very important. In this country there are many of them, but are they mentioned in the curiculum? what Tyler, John Ball, Tom Paine. What about John Muir who helped to found America's national parks? The Tolpuddle Martyrs ... The list is very large indeed ... but not when you're at school because really all that happens there is, 'getting ready for the world of work' ... That isn't education, it's brain-washing.

I don't disagree with you but I think it's important to remember that everyone mentioned in history books WERE at one point ordinary people until they did extraordinary things. It is by their accomplishments and actions they are remembered, not by their birth or title. There have been many Kings and Queens who history has also forgotten because they didn't do much of historical significance.

[fingal]

There have been many Kings and Queens who history has also forgotten because they didn't do much of historical significance.

I have a lot of respect for Queen Boudicca. I watched a film about her a while ago, and I want to try and find it on DVD. I have no trouble imagining her final battle.

She's the only historical queen I like though.

[chopin1810]

I disagree. I believe the Revolutionary leaders are under-glorified if anything.

Why? They are just figures in history. You just have a patriotic bias and for us to be able to engage in any debate will require you to get rid of that bias. These founding fathers were just men who believed in something and who were in the right place at the right time. That's all I can say. You may not want to believe that, but it is true. They were just minor waves in the ocean of history. I find the idea of patriotism to be very silly when you consider that we are all human beings and when you consider all of the trouble patriotism has caused. I can only imagine how violent the world will become very soon all due to the rise of patriotic tendencies and the desire to see your "land" win.

[Dapper Dan]

chopin1810, I do not wish to sound unkind but you obviously believe this thread, or at least its present course, is about something that it is not. Either that or you are just bent on redirecting its course into an area that will allow you to make unfounded claims and accusations. For what reason, I haven't the faintest idea. Why are you going on about "patriotism," and "seeing your land win," and making the charge against me that I somehow have a "patriotic bias?" That has nothing at all to do with what we have been discussing. The original point I made was that our schools are now neglecting historic figures who rightly should be included in the history books with others that have played a far less important role in the history of the United States. Now if you wish to disagree with me on that point, fine. Explain to me how Cesar Chavez's organization of migrant workers is more historically significant than Robert E. Lee who, with half as many resources in men, horses, cannons and ammunition outfought a vastly superior Army of the Potomac at almost every battle in which his army was engaged, for four years until Appomattox Courthouse, during the most tumultuous event in U.S. history. This has nothing to do with a patriotic bias but everything to do with recognizing what is more historically significant, and the people who were central to those events.

[chopin1810]

Fine then. I never said that the accomplishments of Chavez or Tubman were more important. I simply said that all of their accomplishments should be presented in equal light as there are many arguments that people could make, like a Mexican nationalist saying "Chavez is more important" or a black nationalist saying "Tubman was more important". Ultimatly, Tubman may have been more important or Chavez may have been more important through the Butterfly Effect. Some people will consider them more important for many different reasons. Your "most tumultuous event in U.S. history" is a simple opinion.

[Vergil83]

I'm ashamed to say that I don't know much about American history

I think "ordinary" people throughout history who try to change the way things are are also very important. In this country there are many of them, but are they mentioned in the curiculum? what Tyler, John Ball, Tom Paine. What about John Muir who helped to found America's national parks? The Tolpuddle Martyrs ... The list is very large indeed ... but not when you're at school because really all that happens there is, 'getting ready for the world of work' ... That isn't education, it's brain-washing.

Okay - that's all I really had to say.

If you ever have sometime, read a book about american history. I bet you will find it very interesting, because it will be new to you! I know I find "UK" history much more interesting than US because a lot of it is new me.

And if you like history from the view of underdogs, take a look at A People's History of the United States. That is exactly what it is.

Paine is an excellent example. In the US you learn he wrote some pamphlets supporting the american revolution. You don't learn that he was an anti-organized religion deist. He really did believe in an egalitarian society (unlike people like Jeffereson), in the traditional Tyler and the levelers. . He was a radical.

[fingal]

And if you like history from the view of underdogs, take a look at A People's History of the United States. That is exactly what it is.

I just ordered it from Amazon, so thanks. I rather like the fact that you seem to know something about social history ... It's a pet topic of mine, though not from any academic point of view.

Strangely, I used to visit a small village in Lincolnshire called Alford. On the wall of a post office there is a blue plaque that says, "Tom Paine was village postmaster* and worked here ..." So things like that tend to engage me. I would go there once a year.

Something Dan said was interesting though ... about being able to imagine historical events. I'm lucky because I have a very 'visual' imagination, and I almost think I can 'see' something take place ... I could imagine Thomas Paine stepping outside his post office for a drag on his cigar (he is - of course - wearing brown leather boots and a long blue coat ... he's not happy there: Lincolnshire is staunchly Conservative).

Reading the comments above I thought, 'History can be about battles and heros, but social history is another thing altogether.' I then kind of disagreed with myself, and thought that they are very much connected. Now I just think life is about people, and to ignore people in a historical sense is a little tedious: it makes history seem like a drag. You end up tramping around museums looking at artifacts, and the whole thing seems to lack dynamism.

I got quite a lot my social history from folk music. I thought nothing of listening to songs about Tyler, Tom Paine and many others. This might seem odd, but I think I've learned more about people - and life - from folk music than from anywhere else. There are tantalising glances of what people were thinking and feeling hidden in those old songs. Even pseudo history is interesting ... Stories about Robin Hood may be true. Who cares? I've driven through Sherwood Forest ... It's real to me.

My problem with historical texts in an over emphasis on dates, battles, statistics. To me a lot of it reads like fiction, because history is always partial. Who do you believe, the conquerors? What about the illiterate victims of history?

So there you have my ramble.

* Actually he was an excise man - I know the post office has something to do with it though. Memory fails me here.

[genesus]

I'd have to totally agree with Dan's above post about the founding fathers' importance being under-represented in today's presentation of history. I'm currently working on an article arguing a few points about traditional European constitutional theory. And guess who everything keeps coming back to? The European biggies that celebrations in France would have you believe bestowed a constitutional gift upon the world (Sieyes, Condorcet, Ariou, de Malberg, Constant, Rousseau...the list goes on) and even the great but villified German theorists (Carl Schmitt, Kelsen, the list also goes on) all comes back to a few key American "founding fathers", our principle Lawgivers to use Machiavelli and Rousseau's much more apt term. Jefferson (a great hero), Madison (a great villain), and Marshall (whose name should be beyond contempt!) were treasure troves to the founding fathers of European constitutionalism.

As an interesting sidenote Jefferson and Sieyes kept arguing back and forth as to whether a constitution should be thrown out every 20 or every 30 years to have an entirely new one writ to prevent the future from being slaves of the past Though, they were mostly joking Reverence for a mere written document to both was anathema.

[Vergil83]

I just ordered it from Amazon, so thanks. I rather like the fact that you seem to know something about social history ... It's a pet topic of mine, though not from any academic point of view.

Stories about Robin Hood may be true. Who cares? I've driven through Sherwood Forest ... It's real to me..

I hope you enjoy it

Robin Hood is a really interesting thing. Even if it is mostly legend, the reason it remains so popular today tells something about peoples wishes for society and what they think is justice.