By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So the Texas Board of Education may rewrite history textbooks... everywhere

Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

I know you are joking but in reality, stranger shit happens (quoted from Cracked.com)

 

Major Robert Cain Kills Many Tanks, While Blind

Who?

A British army infantryman during the WWII who sported one of the most luxurious mustaches in military history.

Devastating Wound(s):

At one point during the Battle of Arnhem, Major Robert Cain decided that his days of being pounded into retreat by German tanks had come to an end. Instead, he apparently resolved to deal with any future tanks personally.

At one point, two German tanks came in his direction. Cain found a spot near a house to lie in wait, while his friend went upstairs so he could tell the Major where to fire. Naturally, one of the tanks blasted the house, killing the friend instantly and dumping a stack of rocks on the waiting Major, who didn't flinch. Just like in the movies.

Cain fired on the tank with a PIAT (like an old timey bazooka) and eventually destroyed it, but only after being wounded by machine gun fire. His attempts to take out the second tank were squashed by a defective round. And by "defective," we mean "it exploded in his face leaving him blinded and with chunks of metal in his grill."

The Awesomeness That Followed:

About a half hour later, Cain's sight came back, thus beginning a long, slow, painful road to recovery that would see him out of action for well over four years. Ha! Just joking! He got right the fuck up and went tank hunting.

Throughout the night Cain roamed the field, taking on any German tanks he found one by one... using only his hands. Well, and a big ass anti-tank gun. By the next day, he had fired the PIAT so many times that his eardrums had burst, thus setting up false ending number two. Rather than seek treatment for his fucked up ears, Cain stuffed them with bandages and continued hunting for three damn days. This guyreally fucking hated tanks.

By the end of the battle, he'd overcome at least six German tanks and an untold number of self-propelled guns, which look a lot like tanks. Easy mistake.

 



The Doctor will see you now  Promoting Lesbianism -->

                              

Around the Network
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

That's the reason. US thinks they're best in everything.  Most of my professors write their own books that we have to learn, so it's not really silly.

It's impossible to teach off the source material if you study history unless you speak a lot of languages. They do teach us about historians all around the world though, and a lot of them are Americans.

 

I do have one book written by an American though, it's called "A history of the modern world" by R.R Palmer.

 

It's not just "The USA" that believes this.

Pretty much everbody believes this... you look at the people who are experts in there field, and there are pretty much always Americans there no matter the field.  Espiecally when it comes to fairly nuetral history like "Woman's history."

It's simple really, while primary education sucks... US universites are still some of the best and can go toe to toe with any other countries universities... the difference is...

A) There are a lot more universities.

B) It's a lot easier to get funding and grants of about every kind in the USA.

C) It's a lot easier to get paid, published and get book deals in the USA.



Kasz216 said:
Khuutra said:
The revising out of Jefferson's importance doesn't even make sense from a conservative standpoint, the man was a titan of state's rights and was the face of limited federal government.

I just don't know

It's not like Texas is the most conservative state.


Texas is one of the most balanced states politcally in the USA.

If you want to see somehting that scares the crap out of republicans... it's the states based on politcal party affiliation.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx

 

Republicans live and die off of independents.

There must be some serious problem in that poll.  I have lived in several different areas of Missouri for 15 years, and there is no way in hell that it is 'Solid Democratic'.  'Competitive' or 'Leans Republican' would be more accurate.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
Switch - Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (2014/2017)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
Khuutra said:
The revising out of Jefferson's importance doesn't even make sense from a conservative standpoint, the man was a titan of state's rights and was the face of limited federal government.

I just don't know

SIt's not like Texas is the most conservative state.


Texas is one of the most balanced states politcally in the USA.

If you want to see somehting that scares the crap out of republicans... it's the states based on politcal party affiliation.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspx

 

Republicans live and die off of independents.

There must be some serious problem in that poll.  I have lived in several different areas of Missouri for 15 years, and there is no way in hell that it is 'Solid Democratic'.  'Competitive' or 'Leans Republican' would be more accurate.

The Govonor, Atorney General, State Auditor, Secretary of State and Treasuer are all Democrats... that's 5 out of 6 main state positions.


There isn't any serious problems with a poll.  It's just a "problem" with democrats.

Democrats do way better on a state level then they do a national level because national level democrats rarely appeal to everybody.

72 Million people in 2004 were Democrats... with 32% of the population reporting democrat.   Republicans are 50 Million registered as as little 20% of the population reports as Republicans.


I mean, look at it like this.

 

Big forces in the Republican party.


Neo Conservatives - Spend like Drunken sailors, terrorism is the devil, social conservative values, governments deregulate buisness  Saftey is the number 1 issue

Conservatives - Don't spend money you don't have, Terrorism bad, social conservative values.  Deregulate buisness.  Saftey is the number 1 issue.

"Economists" (Your buisness owners, wall street brokers) - Don't spend money you don't have, deregulate buisness, terrorism... eh, saftey protects the market... other then that... doesn't care.  Market Deregulation = good.


That's... pretty much it.  Conservatives will go along with Neo conservatives often, because despite their disagreements, they agree on the biggest issue.

 


Big Democrats focus

Extreme Liberals - Spend like crazy, single payer healthcare, social justice issues, protect the enviroment.  Main issue social justice issues.

Union Democrats - Don't spend money you don't have, Terrorism bad, socially a mixed bag, against public healthcare,  becuase they plans they'll get will be worse then the ones they have.  For green energy, but against carbon caps and anything that can actually hurt their companies so they basically want the government to fund car companies and the like for more jobs for them, wants buisness fairly deregulated, except when it comes to making sure unions get what they deserve.

Single Interest Democrats -  These people are fairly moderate, but identify Democrat because the issue they care about most is one the Democrats care about... there aren't many republicans like this because it has to be a proactive choice.  For example, pot legalization, abortion, racial equality... etc.

Moderate Democrats - Don't spend money you don't have, care about social justice issues, and the enviorment, but don't want to go too far because they feel there are more pressing issues, like the economy, jobs etc.  Basicaly your middle class families that aren't union workers.

 

It's so much easier for Democrats to lose votes because of the split.  Union Democrats... they're REALLY hard to win, and it's why states like Michigan and Ohio are always so close... there are way more of them, but they've constantly been more or less lied to about getting their interests across.


Single Interest democrats.... if you don't play up to that interest their gone....

As for Moderates and extermists... if you go one way, you lose extremists to Ralph Nader types.  If you go the other way, you lose the moderates.... often to Republicans... or even more often disinterest.



I mean if you'll notice... this Healthcare debate has largely been a fight between the Liberals vs the Union Democrats and Moderate Democrats.  Otherwise this would of passed months ago.  The republicans are a cute distraction, but they need republicans soley because they couldn't get all the democrats.

Even in state levels this can cause great divisions that cause to losing votes when it comes to vote for a senator.


In reality, Democrat is more a catch all for "not like the Republicans."



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

That's the reason. US thinks they're best in everything.  Most of my professors write their own books that we have to learn, so it's not really silly.

It's impossible to teach off the source material if you study history unless you speak a lot of languages. They do teach us about historians all around the world though, and a lot of them are Americans.

 

I do have one book written by an American though, it's called "A history of the modern world" by R.R Palmer.

 

It's not just "The USA" that believes this.

Pretty much everbody believes this... you look at the people who are experts in there field, and there are pretty much always Americans there no matter the field.  Espiecally when it comes to fairly nuetral history like "Woman's history."

It's simple really, while primary education sucks... US universites are still some of the best and can go toe to toe with any other countries universities... the difference is...

A) There are a lot more universities.

B) It's a lot easier to get funding and grants of about every kind in the USA.

C) It's a lot easier to get paid, published and get book deals in the USA.

I'm not disputing the fact that American historians are important, but the danger in reading American books is that they often have a "we're superior" feeling.

You might say that Europeans also have a feeling of being superior, but that's not true at all in my university. It's not like I think Europe is superior, heck the east was far superior to us for a long time. I want to vomit sometimes when I hear Americans talk about history.



Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

That's the reason. US thinks they're best in everything.  Most of my professors write their own books that we have to learn, so it's not really silly.

It's impossible to teach off the source material if you study history unless you speak a lot of languages. They do teach us about historians all around the world though, and a lot of them are Americans.

 

I do have one book written by an American though, it's called "A history of the modern world" by R.R Palmer.

 

It's not just "The USA" that believes this.

Pretty much everbody believes this... you look at the people who are experts in there field, and there are pretty much always Americans there no matter the field.  Espiecally when it comes to fairly nuetral history like "Woman's history."

It's simple really, while primary education sucks... US universites are still some of the best and can go toe to toe with any other countries universities... the difference is...

A) There are a lot more universities.

B) It's a lot easier to get funding and grants of about every kind in the USA.

C) It's a lot easier to get paid, published and get book deals in the USA.

I'm not disputing the fact that American historians are important, but the danger in reading American books is that they often have a "we're superior" feeling.

You might say that Europeans also have a feeling of being superior, but that's not true at all in my university. It's not like I think Europe is superior, heck the east was far superior to us for a long time. I want to vomit sometimes when I hear Americans talk about history.


That seems... weird. I mean there isn't even that many historic subjects the US has been involved in for that to come across that I can tell. If it's just recent history... what with the US being a super power... I don't know how you could get a sense of much anything else... the US being one of only 2 super powers.

Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

That's the reason. US thinks they're best in everything.  Most of my professors write their own books that we have to learn, so it's not really silly.

It's impossible to teach off the source material if you study history unless you speak a lot of languages. They do teach us about historians all around the world though, and a lot of them are Americans.

 

I do have one book written by an American though, it's called "A history of the modern world" by R.R Palmer.

 

It's not just "The USA" that believes this.

Pretty much everbody believes this... you look at the people who are experts in there field, and there are pretty much always Americans there no matter the field.  Espiecally when it comes to fairly nuetral history like "Woman's history."

It's simple really, while primary education sucks... US universites are still some of the best and can go toe to toe with any other countries universities... the difference is...

A) There are a lot more universities.

B) It's a lot easier to get funding and grants of about every kind in the USA.

C) It's a lot easier to get paid, published and get book deals in the USA.

I'm not disputing the fact that American historians are important, but the danger in reading American books is that they often have a "we're superior" feeling.

You might say that Europeans also have a feeling of being superior, but that's not true at all in my university. It's not like I think Europe is superior, heck the east was far superior to us for a long time. I want to vomit sometimes when I hear Americans talk about history.


That seems... weird. I mean there isn't even that many historic subjects the US has been involved in for that to come across that I can tell. If it's just recent history... what with the US being a super power... I don't know how you could get a sense of much anything else... the US being one of only 2 super powers.

I've been told quite a few times that Europe doesn't have a big history... By Americans.... 



Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Samus Aran said:


I study history and not a single book I have to learn is written by Americans.

They tend to avoid those books here because they suck most of the times.

 


well that's just silly. The US is generally known to have some of the worlds best historians. As for textbooks, i'd think countries would think most would use their own textbooks. All textbooks pretty much suck no matter what country your in. Hence why the good teachers don't even use them and teach off the source matieral.

That's the reason. US thinks they're best in everything.  Most of my professors write their own books that we have to learn, so it's not really silly.

It's impossible to teach off the source material if you study history unless you speak a lot of languages. They do teach us about historians all around the world though, and a lot of them are Americans.

 

I do have one book written by an American though, it's called "A history of the modern world" by R.R Palmer.

 

It's not just "The USA" that believes this.

Pretty much everbody believes this... you look at the people who are experts in there field, and there are pretty much always Americans there no matter the field.  Espiecally when it comes to fairly nuetral history like "Woman's history."

It's simple really, while primary education sucks... US universites are still some of the best and can go toe to toe with any other countries universities... the difference is...

A) There are a lot more universities.

B) It's a lot easier to get funding and grants of about every kind in the USA.

C) It's a lot easier to get paid, published and get book deals in the USA.

I'm not disputing the fact that American historians are important, but the danger in reading American books is that they often have a "we're superior" feeling.

You might say that Europeans also have a feeling of being superior, but that's not true at all in my university. It's not like I think Europe is superior, heck the east was far superior to us for a long time. I want to vomit sometimes when I hear Americans talk about history.


That seems... weird. I mean there isn't even that many historic subjects the US has been involved in for that to come across that I can tell. If it's just recent history... what with the US being a super power... I don't know how you could get a sense of much anything else... the US being one of only 2 super powers.

I've been told quite a few times that Europe doesn't have a big history... By Americans.... 


Have you been told that by Americans who were europeon historians... because otherwise, i don't see how that would effect books written by americans.


Well, they have to learn the nonsense they say somewhere. I guess that place is school unless they don't teach history there ;o
And I've read quite a few "American" books where I was thinking "Is this guy being serious here?"

That said I do know the importance of American historians to history. I had to learn all their names and a summary of their theories. It was horrible, over 300 names(not all of them were Americans, but the majority was).