Are you saying that in order for change to be significant, it has to be permanent?
Yeah, another reason to not talk about Vietnam, Korea, and ww2, is that those wars are so recent, that lots of people have immediate relatives, friends, neighbors, co-workers, parents, grandparents, etc. who were “in it”.
I have plenty of relatives who were in all 3 wars, and I did not “need” any teacher to tell me about those wars.
My uncles verbally told me about those wars, and there are plenty of books, and motion picture film, to fill in the gaps. I can see the invasion of Iwo Jima, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, on DVD, from actual footage.
OK, so I would need a teacher or somebody else ( i.e. not a living relative) to tell me about the Revolution, the Civil War, and ww1, but I dont need a teacher to tell me about the recent wars.
Besides, the teacher probably was not even in ww2 and may not know any more about it than I do.
I think in the larger scheme of things, in view of the entire world history, looking at the underlying trends, then an “interruption” of a couple of decades, is pretty insignificant.
Similarly, the few battles in America that the indians may have won from 1600 to the 1870’s, were temporary, insignificant, and did not really change anything, nor the major trend, as far as Europeans conquering and taking over the entire United States. An indian can brag about Custers Last Stand all he wants , or even brag about the entire Souix/Cheyenne wars, but it it didnt really change anything.
Not so much “permanent” or not permanent, but rather, it is more like a " blip". A blip is not that significant compared to the major trends of world history.
My hunch is, the teacher is just throwing out an outrageous question to prod the kids into wondering for themselves why WWII and Vietnam are so significant.
Not in Virginia it doesn’t. We never had more than a week of WWII any year, and most years we skipped it. Too busy teaching about the majesty that is Virginia to worry about such things.
I think it did. Prior to WWII, the US was isolationist. It had little interest in Europe’s problems. The US showed up late to WWI (which started in 1914, the US entered in 1917), and then it showed up late to WWII (which started in 1939, the US entered after Pearl Harbor in 1941).
But then came Korea, which was a UN affair, but the US still contributed more troops and materiel than any other UN combatant. Vietnam was also a UN affair; and again, the US contributed more than any other UN combatant. Grenada was totally a US affair. Gulf War I was also UN, and again, the Americans contributed the most; and while the Australians and the British contributed to the Americans’ aims in Gulf War II in Iraq, it is important to note that in that conflict, the US took the initiative, went against the UN’s wishes, and invaded anyway.
Since WWII, the US has turned 180 degrees from being isolationist to leading the aggression against interests that are not in line with those of the US specifically, and not in line with those of Western democracies generally. I believe it is as a result of WWII. The US realized in that conflict that it could not remain neutral and isolationist; and if it was to have a role in world affairs, it needed to take the initiative in armed conflicts. So it did, and it continues to today. Whether or not this is a good thing, is for history to judge. Regardless, I think we can see the roots of the US 's attitude in WWII–thus, WWII did change things.
So did I, but I did need to find out my own. I was in my late teens before I even had it clearly in my mind whether Korea or Vietnam came first. Schools exist because “let the family tell them” doesn’t work.
Tax cuts!
WWII had no impact on the U.S.? And he’s a history teacher? Oh dear god, I feel faint.
Seriously, what DOES this guy go over? BOTH World Wars had a HUGE impact on the 20th century. With WWI, you had at least three major empires fall (Russia, Austria-Hungary and the relatively new Germany), the Russian Revolution, and the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, which played a huge part in the rise of Adolf Hitler.
In both cases, you saw a huge case of maps in Europe, new technology, the role or race and women in our society. (Rosie the Riveter?) And since he’s so much about the fight on communism, without WWII, there probably would not have been a Cold War.
As one of my friends, who’s working towards getting his Ph.D. in history said, WWI was basically a 19th century war, fought with 20th century technology. We saw the first example of trench warfare, tanks, submarines, etc.
If he’s talking about “themes”, one CANNOT talk about racism without talking about WWII. The Holocaust alone would be a major example there. He can’t talk about the Depression WITHOUT mentioning WWII. Even if he doesn’t believe WWII had anything to do with getting us out of it.
So what DOES this guy teach? I know he’s your friend, but he’s really doing these kids a disservice)
They didn’t give a shit about him weaseling out of 'Nam, Quayle, Bush II, Cheney, Gingrinch, Limbaugh etc all weaseled out. They hate Cllinton because he is a Democrat.
I think it’d be nice to have a teacher that didn’t spend months on WWII. Maybe I just had bad luck, but I can honestly say I’ve never had a history class that taught anything more recent than WWII. Starting somewhere in junior high, history classes started to look the same and all of the teachers ended with us talking about Nazis and concentration camps. That’s it. Hell, most didn’t even get into WWI, except very briefly… usually as their lead-in to WWII. Vietnam never came up at all.
So, really, chances are the kids will learn all about it from every other history teacher they’ll have. Let the guy talk about something else!
My American history class in college was kind of like this. This was the second semester covering from the Reconstruction through the present. The majority of the time was spent covering Reconstruction and the Great Depression. We had maybe two lectures each on WWI and WWII. We didn’t even get to Vietnam. This was the direct opposite of my high school curriculum, which seemed to consist of nothing but wars. Not to mention all the damn History Channel shows about the wars, I didn’t need to sit through that bullshit again. It was great going into detail on parts of history that I had not been exposed to.
Come to think of it I did the leadup to WW2 from memory, but nothing about WW2 itself. And I suspect it was similar to that, that WW2 is done so much that the decision was to focus on other less famous but important aspects of history, and not wars themselves.
But my class was general history rather than focussed on the US (well for me NZ) alone.
Otara
In 1066, the Norman French invaded and conquered the British Isles, displacing native government with their own French-speaking royalty. However, their reign did not last long: It ended in 1453, a mere blip on the broad scope and majesty of European history, and by 1666, the English were back in charge of England and eating pork and veal in their grand mansions with royal titles that went back, in some cases, over three centuries. It must have been more or less a waste of time, right?
Martin Luther only lived from 1483 to 1546. He promulgated his 95 theses in 1517, sparking a conflict that would only last about 62 years. Heck, his mother looked like that dude from Sling Blade! How significant could this tiny little fart in the wind possibly be?
You think that teacher is bad; my high school American History class not only didn’t cover the Vietnam War at all, but they didn’t even mention it in the slightest. No analysis, no timeline, no nothing.
'Course that’s because it hadn’t happened yet. 
can he name one other event (or a combination of several events) in the 20th century that had equal impact on world history? The technological advances, the final end to European and American colonialism, the rise of global relationships such as IMF, UN, free trade (eventually), the establishment of the EU, many many others. All those were either created or radically accelerated by WWII. Sounds like this teacher is just stirring the pot to generate some interest in history. People have to study some history to refute him. Everyone wins!
Most teachers only spend a day on World War II not for any deep philosophical reasons but because they generally don’t get to them until the end of the school year where everything gets shoved together.
I’ve never had much sympathy for that. They should have better syllabuses. Especially after they’ve taught for a few years and know what topic tend to take more time.
As for the topic, if anything, more recently history is more important, not less. It has a more direct effect on today. The further back you go, the less important, punctuated by small bits of importance.
Also, I had a class in college that covered from prehistory to modern day in just a semester. It can be done.
What is his opinion on the Holocaust?
Is he afraid/leary of the Red Menance and Atheism VS YANKEE/Christian stuff?
How old is this guy? Is his whole family this way?
I dont agree with you at all. I dont think 400 years of adverse foreign rule is just a: “blip”.
I also think that if Hitler had ruled all of Europe for 400 years, then it would be worth studying…but he didnt. WW2 did not last very long. The war in Afganistan has already lasted twice that time period, and I still dont think a 10 year Afghanistan war is worth studying either.