Something tells me that the average kid coming out of high school history class today doesn’t give it much thought at all.
Well, I’m pleased to see that you have at least half a brain. Now, let’s see if you have a whole one. No, Indians were not a monolithic* block, but neither were the whites. The French, English and Spanish all allied themselves with various Indian tribes against each other, as did the Confederacy and the Union. Tell me, what was the relevance of your point supposed to be?
I have neither the time nor the inclination to look up cites.
- Why do lefties love that word “monolithic” so much? Every time you make some perfectly reasonable general statement, they accuse you of portraying something as “monolithic.”
The fact is that there were waves of religious revivalism in America, and the time of the Revolution was in between these. Clearly many of the intellectuals who argued for the revolution were not Christians in the sense of the Puritans or those who came after. Because of this, clearly the statement that the US was not a Christian nation was not very controversial. Do you think such a statement would pass today - pass, not to mention pass unanimously.
Clearly the Founding Fathers understood the difference between their personal beliefs and that which drives the country - thus no mention of God in the Constitution. If some members of the Texas Board of Ed. believed the same.
Nope, it depends on a case by case basis, now if you can demonstrate that all treaties had a reason to be broken because all tribes had no control then I would agree.
As for history, I can say that to be more precise it is not until 1903 that Indians began to see US governments that respected treaties.
I got taught, in my New York liberal high school education, that the French were relatively good to the Indians, the Spanish were real shits, and the English and Americans were somewhere between. Perfect Indians seem to come from movies and TV, (as did evil ones) - I’m not aware that any got into history books. The massacres did make it in, which might be the reason some people are so mad.
And the US government often had little control over its citizens either. The invaders having more power is irrelevant. If it was wrong for the whites to do it, it was no less wrong for the Indians to do it. Painting the whites as the bad guys in this scenario is not only simple-minded moralizing, it’s a superb example of the anti-white racism of the left.
And I ignored the part where you cited that, because it doesn’t exist.
Quite frankly, I was wondering the same of you. What difference does it make if various tribes warred against each other? How does that make what we did any less shitty?
Forgive me if I don’t take the accusation of racism by a white nationalist seriously.
As I said before it depends on the tribe involved.
That alone should be enough to demonstrate how idiotic is to claim anti-white racism in this case.
But you are showing a perfect example of avoiding time lines (or the march of time itself!) that is almost a syndrome shown by many right wingers. The courts of today will dismiss your reasons.
Because you see, the Indians are portrayed as noble, innocent victims of the evil white people. The anti-white prejudice of that view is so blatant that it should be obvious to anyone who hasn’t been blinded by ideology. We’re not talking about a back alley mugging or a barroom brawl here, we’re talking about a clash of cultures and civilizations which took place over centuries, yet you want to apply the same simple moral judgments to both of them.
Oh, that’s quite all right, you’re certainly forgiven. After all, I haven’t taken anything said by the average liberal seriously for a good many years now.
Oh, it’s not just this case. Anti-white prejudice has become the distinguishing characteristic of the liberal mentality.
On the contrary, you’re the one making simple minded moral judgments which ignore history here. I don’t see what “the courts of today” have to do with it. This isn’t a civil suit or a criminal case we’re talking about.
But before you come up with an interpretation, you need the facts first. History at the grade school level should begin with as complete and objective presentation of the facts as possible with interpretation gradually introduced at the more advanced levels. The problem with people like the Christian zealots who control the Texas Board of Education is that they only want to present some of facts and with a pro-Christian slant on them.
:rolleyes:
Yeah right.
Yep, unable to see. I rest my case regarding the time line syndrome. 
I do not care how noble or not Indians were, I do know that there is evidence to show many ancient Indian civilizations came to an end because they screwed up their environment. I only care now that judges today will dismiss your points. Treaties serve as the basis for the trust and the direct “government‐to‐government” relationships between the United States and the tribes more than it was then. It is the best evidence of how rotten the actions of previous governments were regarding the US Indians.
Wow, never thought about it like this. Hell, this makes it all OK; it doesn’t matter what these children are being taught. :rolleyes:
If it’s anything like my High School Thomas Jeffersons religious affiliation wasn’t even on the curriculum. Hell in most of my history classes we didn’t even make it to twentieth century history because we ran out of time.
The sheer audacity of the con that we can teach 300 years of history let alone 5000 in 45 minute classes every day for 36 weeks with at least 1/3 of that time spent telling kids to shut up is one of the bigger problems we have.
To be honest, as far as problems with education go, teaching them the virtues of Christianity is one of the least significant. The way that classes are scheduled and the way they are structured is far more damaging to our children than some Christian propaganda. The system is broken, the subject matter is almost of passing relevance next to that.
I think we are straying from the point here. If we are to teach that Christianity is the basis for American exceptionalism, then we have one of two choices:
-
We were different from other countries of that time in that we were Christian. This is clearly not true.
-
We were different from the natives because we were Christians. If so, do we really want to teach children that Christianity is better than the native american religions and it justified us taking over what had been their land?
The other arguments on whether Europeans were just doing the same stuff as the Indians is an argument against exceptionalism, and as such would preclude what the Texas BOE clowns are trying to teach.
Right.
I have a problem with the way you frame the question. We shouldn’t need to justify it at all. The question of justification is irrelevant nonsense. As a result of population and political pressures in Europe people went and settled somewhere. The indigenous population lost out to the better educated/organized invaders. To much wasted air is spent trying to hate Christianity for what was done, or trying to uplift Native American culture. Neither is productive or serves and useful purpose. What’s done is done, it’s over, there is no reason for current generations to feel guilty about it or to hate their ancestors for the circumstances as history, it’s so much wasted emotion.
True. I would prefer a realpolitik view of it. We came and conquered, they lost. Here are the reasons put forth for it, now you judge those reasons for yourself. As no one in a modern setting really holds the same beliefs as those people in the past there is no reason to maintain the baggage of guilt.
However, I admit that I would be happy to teach how parishioners in American Churches “flipped the bird” to loyalist priests.
At least in Arizona, History got very little attention because it is still not a part of the tests that are used to qualify schools. This will change because next year it will be.
I would not have trouble if the influence of Christianity is mentioned early in the history of the US, but these yahoos in Texas want to inject unrelated religious explanations even to recent events.
No, that’s the point. They are trying to say it was justified because we were a Christian nation, not that it just happened.
I can agree with that. History class in elementary/middle school is about what happened in 1882, not judging it.
I’m good with this, but then neither do we have anything to celebrate. If we’ve no real connection to the past, your dry list of dates, events, and proferred rationales should be adequate, without the spin of “American exceptionalism,” reverence to the role of Christianity, or other hoary concepts no one in a modern setting really holds anymore. That was them; this is us.