And those lefty changes would be what exactly?
They are certainly significant issues, but not compared to the scope of the war. Let kids learn why we fought the war before you teach them what we did wrong while fighting it.
The involvement of the United States in World War II, while opposed by
most Americans prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, vaulted the United
States into global political and military prominence and transformed both
American society and the relationship between the United States and the
rest of the world. (WOR-4) (WOR-7) (ID-3) (ID-6) (POL-5)
A. The mass mobilization of American society to supply troops for
the war effort and a workforce on the home front ended the Great
Depression and provided opportunities for women and minorities
to improve their socioeconomic positions.
B. Wartime experiences, such as the internment of Japanese
Americans, challenges to civil liberties, debates over race and
segregation, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb raised
questions about American values.
C. The United States and its allies achieved victory over the Axis
powers through a combination of factors, including allied political
and military cooperation, industrial production, technological
and scientific advances, and popular commitment to advancing
democratic ideals.
• Atlantic Charter, development of sonar, Manhattan Project
D. The dominant American role in the Allied victory and postwar
peace settlements, combined with the war-ravaged condition of
Asia and Europe, allowed the United States to emerge from the war
as the most powerful nation on earth.
I've asked twice.
B. Raised questions about American values?From the AP framework document:
What do you disagree with?
B. Raised questions about American values?
I'd love to see an example of an American history school text with multiple notations of George Washington Carver and none on George Washington. Got some titles we can check out?
And, if you could find us an example of an American history school text that covers the 2nd world war only "significantly after Pearl Harbor", that would be appreciated as well.
B. Raised questions about American values?
well let's see...
I attended public schools from elementary through college.
Never in any one of those years did I ever have a class that covered WWII. or even WWI.
In elementary school, i had classes that covered the american revolution. (but didn't cover french involvement in the american revolution, which I think in retrospect really needs to be called out. we wouldn't have a country if it weren't for the french.) In college, classes covered the civil war. (specifically, it was called women in american history from 1860 to present... so its coverage of the civil war was... limited.)
I think school's coverage of history is abysmal. and bullshit classes like 'women from 1860 to present' don't help one bit.
We had fucking concentration camps because of political hysteria and bullshit. Does that not raise questions about American values? Cause sure as hell should.
Where the hell did you go to school?
At the college level basic American History is usually covered in 2 classes, one that goes to 1877 and then the second class covers from 1877 to the present day.
Hell, we were torturing people recently and we are still arguing about whether something like that is justifiable. American values are apparently quite flexible in their application.We had fucking concentration camps because of political hysteria and bullshit. Does that not raise questions about American values? Cause sure as hell should.
I didn't even bother with American history in college (my "history" requirement was more of a class on both history and political philosophy with regards to Europe, from about the time of Beowulf to the modern day, over 2 quarters).
As for the other wars - WWI and WWII, we covered those in my days of public schooling - both when American history is taught in 7th grade and again when I took AP US History in 11th grade.
I'm also not quite following why a history class called "Women from 1860 to present" would be a bullshit class. Could it be that the college is trying to offer more than the traditional history classes to get people interested and to provide new perspectives on historical events?
Hell, we were torturing people recently and we are still arguing about whether something like that is justifiable. American values are apparently quite flexible in their application.
B. Raised questions about American values?
I just don't understand why discussing how American values either got challenged or changed by WWII is wrong, especially in the context of a college course.
And that's what's so frustrating as I watch southern state after southern state attempt to sanitize and neuter their AP courses because, you know, the children and all.....yet their local university is teaching the same class/curriculum and no one is getting apoplectic about that.
To me, that's the tragic part of all this. The kids being affected by this attempt to sanitize the curriculum are the college bound kids and the class(es) being taught are college credit/substitute classes. Essentially, by excelling, these AP/Honors kids are being penalized by not being exposed to what their contemporaries are being introduced to.
there always has to be someone who's first, but in the context of the liberal revolutions in the west it's not exceptional.American exceptionalism is a fact since its first country founded on idea the people are sovereign
Mentioning that concentration camps existed in the US is just another example of liberal bias. Clearly, politicians have a better grasp on what should be taught than those commies in the history department.
That AP document is entirely uncontroversial, or at least should be. The anti-knowledge aspect of modern US conservatism is one of its worst features.
We had fucking concentration camps because of political hysteria and bullshit. Does that not raise questions about American values? Cause sure as hell should.
... clip...
Regarding the way this thread has progressed, I would be fucking embarrassed to find myself on the same side as vapid talking point generators like ttown.
My only "talking point" was a question on whether liberals/democrats ever get tired of their party lying to people instead of using honest statements.
So far, lots of questions trying to pick apart why I don't like Obama/liberals/AP history/etc... but just one partial answer to my question that only temporarily exhibits honesty.
And before you and nearly everyone else ducks my question again... Yes, I dislike whenever someone from my party does.
Fine, but notice what DIDN'T get mentioned? What we accomplished for the world. Is that not just a wee bit more important than hand-wringing over Japanese-American internment? Is the debate over whether we should have dropped the hydrogen bomb meaningful without covering the rape of Nanking or the battles of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, bloody Peleliu? Are "challenges to civil liberties" more significant to an understanding of our nation that Leyte Gulf, when the little boys took on fucking battleships and drove them off? Those men took on a task from which they had no reasonable chance of survival; is that so unworthy of passing along to future generations?Did we live up to our values and ideals when we interned Japanese Americans? That discussion is within a broader context of the war and its impact on American society if you look at everything in that list.
On the west coast, sure. There was no reason to believe that Japan had the strength to invade continental America. But let's not forget that in Hawaii, encoded radio transmissions in the Japanese language had been intercepted for weeks before Pearl Harbor. We simply interpreted their meaning wrong, so we lined up our planes wing tip to wing tip to guard against the sabotage we expected rather than the massive strike the Japanese were actually planning. When the Japanese did attack, they had very good intelligence on our dispositions because they did have agents among the loyal population.We had fucking concentration camps because of political hysteria and bullshit. Does that not raise questions about American values? Cause sure as hell should.
Conservatives would prefer that kids be taught what our nation did right before they are taught what it did wrong. There is little chance of the former happening and little chance of the latter not happening at university, so high school is pretty much our only shot.I just don't understand why discussing how American values either got challenged or changed by WWII is wrong, especially in the context of a college course.
And that's what's so frustrating as I watch southern state after southern state attempt to sanitize and neuter their AP courses because, you know, the children and all.....yet their local university is teaching the same class/curriculum and no one is getting apoplectic about that.
To me, that's the tragic part of all this. The kids being affected by this attempt to sanitize the curriculum are the college bound kids and the class(es) being taught are college credit/substitute classes. Essentially, by excelling, these AP/Honors kids are being penalized by not being exposed to what their contemporaries are being introduced to.
Fine, but notice what DIDN'T get mentioned? What we accomplished for the world. Is that not just a wee bit more important than hand-wringing over Japanese-American internment? Is the debate over whether we should have dropped the hydrogen bomb meaningful without covering the rape of Nanking or the battles of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, bloody Peleliu? Are "challenges to civil liberties" more significant to an understanding of our nation that Leyte Gulf, when the little boys took on fucking battleships and drove them off? Those men took on a task from which they had no reasonable chance of survival; is that so unworthy of passing along to future generations?
Something else here too - the left ALWAYS depicts this as the internment of Japanese-Americans, because the left means to cast this as racism. But let's not forget that 49% of those interned were not ethnically Japanese, but were ethnically German, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian. Let's also not forget that the Japanese likewise interned Allied civilians, not only in Japan but in the areas they conquered, and often with brutal treatment. Is there no room amongst the America-bashing to recognize like behavior among literally every other nation?
On the west coast, sure. There was no reason to believe that Japan had the strength to invade continental America. But let's not forget that in Hawaii, encoded radio transmissions in the Japanese language had been intercepted for weeks before Pearl Harbor. We simply interpreted their meaning wrong, so we lined up our planes wing tip to wing tip to guard against the sabotage we expected rather than the massive strike the Japanese were actually planning. When the Japanese did attack, they had very good intelligence on our dispositions because they did have agents among the loyal population.
Conservatives would prefer that kids be taught what our nation did right before they are taught what it did wrong. There is little chance of the former happening and little chance of the latter not happening at university, so high school is pretty much our only shot.
Dude, I am sure every single person on these boards with two functioning brain cells knows which of us is more partisan.So you are complaining about history being left out and yet you are ok with the right wanting to remove some negative things because "liberals" didn't include more good things?
I hope that's not your position because it's fucking retarded! The logical position would be that you do not support the rights position but you believe that the "liberals" need to add more "important" things.
However you can't do that because your CBD is so strong that condemning those on your team is contrary to every fiber in your body.
Dude, I am sure every single person on these boards with two functioning brain cells knows which of us is more partisan.
Conservatives would prefer that kids be taught what our nation did right before they are taught what it did wrong. There is little chance of the former happening and little chance of the latter not happening at university, so high school is pretty much our only shot.
But these things have always been part of American history and no one has objected. It's only that now the curriculum is being altered to emphasize these bad things and delete or de-emphasize what makes America great and unique.I think the point you are missing is that some conservatives don't actually want kids to study that we can and in fact did do wrong (or at least highly questionable) things. There were a number of instances in WWII where our leaders exercised questionable moral and ethical judgement. Being able to examine and debate these is events more important than wrote memorization of particular military engagements which, I assure you, are also covered in depth.
Hiding behind what we refer to today as American Exceptionalism to justify avoiding such uncomfortable topics is just jingoist whitewashing that serves no educational purpose.
Other democracies exist too, and there are other countries that enjoy a slightly better standard of living and have more personal freedoms. We like to commonly think that we're the best at everything. Living with your flaws can be easier than fixing them.But these things have always been part of American history and no one has objected. It's only that now the curriculum is being altered to emphasize these bad things and delete or de-emphasize what makes America great and unique.
Good. Emphasize the hell out of them!Opponents say the revised guidelines for the history course cast the United States in a harsh light by giving undue emphasis to topics such as slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, while distorting events such as the U.S. involvement in World War Two.