I was wondering how much history Americans learn. I mean they don’t have that much of it :p . I spent my early years with stories of Vikings and Scottish kings killing each other, but what type of events are taught as early history to US kids?

The reason I got interested in this is that I was reading ‘A study in Scarlet’ where Sherlock Holmes solves a murder based on a forced marriage in the US Mormon community. The notes at the back detail the history of Salt Lake City which is fascinating and quite informative to the current state of affairs. Do students learn any of this, or just the ‘American Dream’?

I doubt the Mormon move west is taught in any great detail, since it's a relatively minor portion of American history. The focus is on the Revolution, the Civil War, and the World Wars.

Granted every countries history education is geared towards wars and kings…but there is a move in the UK to teach relative history, not just the his-story of the wealthy. It strikes me that teaching that type of history would be counter to the American Dream. I’d assume that no one wants to teach New York children about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in 1911.

I don't think that poverty is counter to the American Dream, but rather the foundation. The American Dream is starting poor, and getting rich. Granted, you can focus on people after they've gotten rich, and edit the poverty out of the telling, but there's no inherent conflict between discussing poverty and the American Dream.

I agree that poverty plays an important role in the American Dream, in particular the idea of a progression from poverty to wealth, indeed as a foundation. However the fact which remains is that a lot of people didn’t get rich and, indeed, died because others were exploiting them to get rich. I have no idea how issues like the dust bowl are dealt with but I’m guessing the class would end on an optimistic note, not with an environmental caution…?

US history education is much more than dead presidents and dates. US educational guidelines for course curriculums at both the HS and middle school levels are rather broad and comprehensive in scope. At least in the public schools in the local district here. But I suspect they are reflective of the national level. College professors in the US presume a certain amount of knowledge from incoming freshmen. After all, they are the ones contributing to what is found in the textbooks at all levels. So students entering college should have had a fairly comprehensive preparation at both middle and high school,

And then there's the real world.

The problems tend to be a mix of what goes on in the classroom, and how closely it is monitored by both the school administration and the parents, as far as what the teachers actually choose to teach from the required curriculum guidelines. As anybody who has been paying close attention to the national news here lately, too many teachers in too many systems can't pass their own certifications, but are still allowed to remain in the systems because there aren't enough qualified teachers to fill the ranks. Far too many teachers themselves don't have the skills, or the nerve, to challenge their students with any subject(s) that require critical thinking, because they themselves wouldn't be capable of assessing the students' analysis. They take the easiest and shortest route to the end of the year, and if they are not challenged by either the admins or the parents, they are not going to change their style. And parents get copies of school district requirements, so they should know what their child is supposed to be getting. I'm afraid too many don't pay enough attention, and neither do many admins. Most admins are too swamped dealing with the bureaucracy of the system. And for all of the requirements in history curriculums, history really gets scant attention on the HS exit exams. T-CAP and Gateway exams put most of their focus on English, Math, and Biology, while History and Geography get very little, if any, attention on exit exams.

Schools have become inferior in educating the populace. 80% of what I have learned has come from my own study independent of the mundane and literally pointless grunt work that passes for education in public schools (perhaps in private schools too). My grades at school were as average as you could get: Bs and Cs. I found no interest in the trivial (like researching an aquatic mammal-wtf?) garbage they fed me. History and social philosophy was always my passion and by visiting the school library I would spend hours absorbing information about what I enjoyed. Schools are too rigid in that they don't let you pursue a particular path that you find the most interest in.

Schools used to be a place where children would learn to live on their own: managing bills, cooking, cleaning, finding a job, being a solid citizen- these are very poorly promoted in the school.

Most of the people I know have no comprehension of their own government and they go off and form punk-anarchic groups without any knowledge of how the world works, and perhaps that is the saddest part of all.

History and Geography both really do take a back seat in American public schools. Most American history taught to me, for instance, before high-school was sort of the doctored "Gee isn't America great" sort of fluff that I'm sure most would expect, either that or it neither went into enough detail that I should have a feel for the context of events, just dates and names. High school was a bit better, but then I had a pair of young and fairly enthusiastic teachers right out of college hell bent on teaching their class the history that they usually don't even bother putting in the text books. This isn't to say that they tried to editorialize in class, but they'd at least not shy away from admitting that we've done a lot of really awful stuff.

I can distinctly remember, however, that I only ever had one "world history and geography" class, which turned out to be quite a disappointment. I can still remember a review for our midterm in which one of the students in our class was called up to the front of the room and asked to point out China on a map, and couldn't quite manage it.

I had a similar experience not so long ago when I started corresponding with a guy in Canada, and it inspired me to look at an actual map of Canada for the first time in my life, it was kind of nice to see the placement of those locations which had been, until that point, just a bunch of abstract funny names to me.

For the most part, American History concentrates on the Revolution, How the North "gloriously" won the Civil War (Is it obvious I'm a Southerner?), and how we saved everyone in both world wars, and defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Basically the same "Gee isn't America Great" stuff Mystech was talking about. You don't really get into the nitty gritty until College-level Survey of American History and American Lit. courses. Kind of sad, really.

For the most part, American History concentrates on the Revolution, How the North "gloriously" won the Civil War (Is it obvious I'm a Southerner?), and how we saved everyone in both world wars, and defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Basically the same "Gee isn't America Great" stuff Mystech was talking about. You don't really get into the nitty gritty until College-level Survey of American History and American Lit. courses. Kind of sad, really.

Aside from the obvious issue of military competence, there's no real difference between Robert E. Lee and John Walker Lindh.

I'd agree that American history has not really given up on the Manifest Destiny, though. Or rather, the glorification of it. I think part of the problem is that textbook publishers have to appease idiots from the far left and the far right, which essentially means there's not a lot of substantative debate.
There's a good, albeit very liberal, examination of that problem in Lies My History Teacher Told Me.

"American history" starts scholastically with Christopher Columbus--a sunny, hopeful, courageous story about a stalwart captain who overcame the ridiculous prejudices of royalty and the superstitious grumblings of a weak crew to triumphantly discover America by accident ....

And then it rolls right through to the Revolution, and from there leaps forward to cover the run-up to the Civil War, usually starting with the Missouri Compromise (1820-ff). The Emancipation Proclamation is played off altruistically, and the whole of Reconstruction is dominated by the illusion that the liberation of black slaves was primarily good-natured and honorably-intended. Some words are given to the Industrial Revolution. World War I is blamed on incestuous Europeans, and World War II is glossed over.

There's not much critical thinking taught in schools these days; it's largely reserved for AP classes and even then it's often pabulum. Unless you major or minor in history in college, you'll never be willingly exposed to a proper American history.

Ask Americans about the time we invaded Russia. Most of them won't know what you're talking about.

And all of this is why, if I might borrow a soapbox for a moment, so many people were pissed at Disney's "revisionism" (Pocahontas marries and lives happily ever after) or Spielberg's presentation of Amistad (while we eventually got it right, it took two tries, not one, which changes the form of the narrative moral structure and thus changes the story vitally). Most folks who see these things won't know better because they're actually taught around those points.

I mean, you can sit there with Columbus' diaries in hand and point out his discussion of how he treated the indigenous peoples, and some in America still believe the discussion of Columbus' murders is an anti-American fantasy fostered by liberals.

People really do believe that "the Commies started it," in terms of the Cold War. Tell them about Americans sent to undermine the Revolution, the soldiers on Russian land--they've never heard of it, and don't believe its true.

Tell them about the Haymarket Martyrs. I can't count the number of people--including some in a classroom--who have responded that the Haymarket Martyrs couldn't possibly have been executed so unjustly. You can put the condemnation in front of them--"You are being executed not because you are guilty of murder but because you are Anarchists," and people will still deny it. I mean, really ... I always loved it when some student would freak out all over a professor. It happened a few times. Once in an American history class, once in a world history class, and once in a Christian history class, I can remember, at least one student would sit there with a blank look on their face and tell a PhD, "No. That didn't happen. That's just a lie."

Loewen's Lies My Teachers Told Me is, indeed, a very good book. (Good call, So8.)

I also recommend Cady's The American Writer, which discusses parts of history rarely discussed.

Meh ... the American/European intervention in the Russian Civil War was largely half-assed and unproductive. That isn't say we didn't do it, just that we didn't accomplish all that much. The Japanese and English were much more involved.

For the most part, American History concentrates on the Revolution, How the North "gloriously" won the Civil War (Is it obvious I'm a Southerner?), and how we saved everyone in both world wars, and defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Basically the same "Gee isn't America Great" stuff Mystech was talking about. You don't really get into the nitty gritty until College-level Survey of American History and American Lit. courses. Kind of sad, really.

Which can be explained in large part because exit exams only emphasize English, math, and biology. History and geography take a backseat, and explains the significant number of athletic coaches that get thrown into the department to teach these courses. While I don't want to universally condemn these men/ women, nevertheless for the most part they are not interested in the curriculum, and will do the bare minimum in the classroom.

The lack of historical education in the US is evident by the acts of Americans today. How they fight, how they rally, and how they passively let rights be stolen from them.

American children learn what's given, meaning, the rosy version. Same in other countries.
Americans as adults are free to study facts and opinions as much as they want, since the amount of information is huge in the libraries, book stores, and internet. Actually, Americans on Sciforums are well-informed ;)

Americans have to be ignorant of history, it's one of the tenets of our culture. You can't be aware of history and live the way we do.

For example (I've used this before so maybe you've already seen it) suppose we decide we really want to understand enough about history to actually help solve the Israel/Palestine conflict.

We can say hey, that's the Israelites' historic homeland, even though due to circumstances they didn't live there for a long time. You gotta give it back to the modern Israelis. Then the nearest Palestinian refugee will pop up and say OK, then you guys gotta give Arizona back to the Navajos!

So you say oh, well the Palestinians have lived there most recently and for a long time, so they have the right of posession. So then a Sabra jumps up and says fine, then you guys have to give Arizona back to the Mexicans!

If we understood our own history we'd all have to leave.

Frag, every piece of land in the world originally belonged to a people besides the one living there now, near as I can tell, whether that's the Norman descendants in England, or the Koreans who became the Japanese royal family, so by that logic, everybody should leave.

you think american history is boring
war of independance, slavery, civil war, vietnam, WWI, WWII, cold war and other interesting things

Australian History, now that is boring.
according to my school textbooks, australias history started at 1771, we did nothing till 1901 where we became independant, then we had WWI and WWII and then i wrote this post

lucky americans

Where as we British, have a long and well established "cough" "cough" ill spare you. I wouldve thought that the americans learn alot of their history, they all seem to be quite patriotic.

Im British (well well, surprise surprise...) and this year i did the suffragettes, Nazi Germany, and Tudor history. The focus of my history education has been pre-war Germany, so it seems were obsessed with someone else's history!

From the aforementioned Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James Loewen:


High school students hate history. When they list their favorite subjects, history invariably comes in last. Students consider history "the most irrelevant" of the twenty-one subjects commonly taught in high school. Bor-r-ring is the adjective they apply to it. When students can, they avoid it, even though most students get higher grades in history than in math, science, or English. Even when they are forced to take classes in history, they repress what they learn, so every year or two another study decries what our seventeen-year-olds don't know. (Loewen, 12)

It's hard to explain why this is true, but it seems to be. When I was a senior in high school, a writer I admired told me to avoid writing and literature as college endeavors and turn instead to social studies. This was at once puzzling and revealing. Thitherto in my life, I had been taught to focus on math, science, and the stuff of business. Social sciences and liberal arts were wastes of time. After I graduated from high school I moved to Oregon where, from the newspapers and such I gleaned the most disturbing perception that what people were fighting about was, essentially, the idea of a well-rounded education. Now, this was strange to me. In fact, it's part of my childhood anticommunist education, that the well-rounded education was one of the benefits of a free society; the Russians, after all, herded people into vocations and took away future choices. Well, that seemed to be what a lot of people were arguing for, that the high schools should be more voc-tech oriented (e.g. developing the early career path) as compared to preparing students with the necessary skills to carry on in the daily aspects of living. "Specialization" was to occur earlier and earlier. Writers starve, poets are crazy, and historians are inconvenient to aggressive commercial expansion. If it doesn't teach you directly how to make money or make something you can sell for money, Americans like it less and less as time goes by.

Until I met that writer, who also told me to calm down and slow down, else I would burn out before I was thirty, the best advice I ever got on writing was, "You don't want to be a writer. Writers starve." I should correct that notion. Someone gave me a copy of Rilke's "Letters to a Young Poet." That was exceptionally valuable, too. And about the same time.

The whole point is that American students aren't supposed to like history. Listen to the way the public discourse treats people who are aware of history: they're decried as advocates for terrorism, with much the same sensibility as claiming that pacifists are bloodthirsty. Whatever opposes the blind march of the greedy has always been popularly decried. It's always an easier appeal to people's desire than to their common sense, and history screws that all up for people. History turns idiocy into a moral issue because awareness means you ought to know better than to do what you already know is wrong, anyway. Without a sense of history, Americans can rely on an anemic pleading of not having understood the wrongness of their actions.

And so history is reduced to a comedy routine, an insult, a conspiracy theory, a waste of time and money and effort.

In other words, a nation that prints, "In God We Trust" on our money somehow has a problem with studying history because it is, technically, a lie agreed upon.

This is, in part, why conservative diatribes against proper historical examinations often rely on what seem superficial and, furthermore, defy common sense insofar as they seem somehow politically-suicidal, except that the audience doesn't care ... because in preaching to the choir, you don't need to explain why history is always wrong, immoral, or otherwise not valid for consideration. e.g. The Columbus Debate. It's not a huge issue five-hundred years later, except that we have a national holiday dedicated to a mass-murderer. First was denial--you could show people Columbus' diaries and they still had trouble swallowing it, and now it's a case of, "The people are tired of this debate. They already know about it." Well, yes. The response to the issue was to lie and lie and lie and then say the people are sick of it and never once stop to say, "Yeah, we do take a day off to honor a man who proudly mutilated and murdered thousands." If at any point the public discourse would soberly and respectfully acknowledge the propriety of the consideration, the issue would go away, because we would have had it out. But people who don't have a sense of history don't see the need to have the discussion in the first place, and this is why it's popular to characterize historical study as negative, radical, subversive, political, or otherwise dubious. And over time, the process has a huge effect.

History doesn't make money. So Americans don't like it. History sometimes inhibits the making of money, so Americans revile it. These days history only seems useful to most Americans if it can be used to hurt the political credibility of an opponent. Why every tool of humanity needs to be used as a weapon is a question that only history will answer, but not yet.
____________________

• Loewen, James W. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

Originally posted by Hastein
Most of the people I know have no comprehension of their own government and they go off and form punk-anarchic groups without any knowledge of how the world works, and perhaps that is the saddest part of all.

America needs more people like you, Hastein. People that are aware about the world and their government and that don't bitch and moan about everything because they're too stupied to get the big picture. I see it everyday in school. "The government sucks, we have to create anarchy! Down with the police! Blah blah blah." They say this without having any clue about whats going on around them

you think american history is boring
war of independance, slavery, civil war, vietnam, WWI, WWII, cold war and other interesting things

Australian History, now that is boring.
according to my school textbooks, australias history started at 1771, we did nothing till 1901 where we became independant, then we had WWI and WWII and then i wrote this post

lucky americans

Heh.

And this makes ten.

It's been stated here that American schools concentrate on the American Revolution, but I have met very few people who know the first thing either about the Revolution or the people who made it. Most of my fellow Americans' knowledge of, say, George Washington, appears to extend no farther than the fact that his face appears on the $1 bill and that he was our first president. I also meet essentially no one who knows even the basics of the history of science, and that is even among educated people. I must conclude that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching history.

I mean, you can sit there with Columbus' diaries in hand and point out his discussion of how he treated the indigenous peoples, and some in America still believe the discussion of Columbus' murders is an anti-American fantasy fostered by liberals.


Schools never mention the fact that the Native Americans were locked in a state of endless warfare and ethnic cleansing against each other long before Columbus came. Does that justify Columbus' exploitation? No. But it goes to show that the world had a very different mentality then it does now, and that the wars of the past are often mislabelled "genocide" for political aims. Columbus and the Natives had the same goals: spreading more of themselves.

FROM www.newspeakdictionary.com


Genocide - Traditional warfare. Virtually every war in the past had generally the same goal - securing more land for your 'tribe'. If the native inhabitants were useful, they were allowed to stay on the land and work - and turn over a portion of their production to the new rulers. Otherwise, they were forced from their land. The only exception was 'civil wars', which were fought between members of the same tribe. Today's society is much more advanced. We fight wars for purely 'economic' reasons only - such as securing our oil supply (Desert Storm), or preventing the spread of anti-capitalist governments (Korea, Vietnam). Fighting a way to improve the life of 'your people' interferes with the UN's desire to rule the world - which requires all the people of Earth to 'get along'.

America needs more people like you, Hastein. People that are aware about the world and their government and that don't bitch and moan about everything because they're too stupied to get the big picture.

Thank you, I've actually gotten that response from others when I've voiced my opinion of society. But knowing myself, I would end up starting a dictatorship.

The level of stupidity in regards to history and government is unfathomable. One of the prime reasons for this is that people are afraid to suffer for any reason, they are afraid to sacrifice. They bitch until they have gold plates, and then they see another starving mouth and scream of injustice until we give them gold plates too.

TOP COMPLAINTS I HATE ABOUT THE UNPOLITICAL:

1. These taxes are too high.
If I get a tax chunk taken out of my paycheck, I just suck it up and deal with it, because I know that the money is going towards the infrastructure of society (even if it is going toward bombs and not books) and ensuring that I have the everyday resources I need to survive.

2. There isn't enough social equality.
To hell with equality. The fact that you are a human being doesn't entitle you to your own swimming pool.

3. There aren't enough minorities in this (institution, business, etc)
Racial quotas are a form of racism, and tell you more about what these leftists really think about 'non-whites': that their race is more important then their character and that they are incompetent because of it.

4. Put an end to conformity.
And what is left? Go listen to Fifteen while your culture dissolves before your eyes.

It's been stated here that American schools concentrate on the American Revolution, but I have met very few people who know the first thing either about the Revolution or the people who made it.

That's most likely because most of the people you know probably forgot everything they ever learned in high school. History is a mandatory requirement of every high school in America. If most people you know don't know it, then that speaks of their memory.

Well, why would they forget the origins of their country more than they would forget any other subject, or are you saying that no one remembers much of anything he learned in school? It seems more plausible to me that it's taught poorly than that most people forget everything.

It's been stated here that American schools concentrate on the American Revolution, but I have met very few people who know the first thing either about the Revolution or the people who made it.

If the students don't retain any knowledge of it, then it is the failure of the instructor to promote critical thinking through analysis of the subject, instead only requiring rote memorization of names and dates, then tests with multiple choice/true and false exams, and at the end of the day believes they have done their job as an educator.

I'd agree with that. It's not made to be interesting. The problem is that high school teachers are not paid very well. A lot of them are bitter trolls that want nothing more than this pathetic school year to end. Which in a way unites them with their students. A common despisal of the system in which they are trapped. Of course, there are some good teachers out there. I came across a couple in my school. Not a good ratio though.

Another problem with retaining history (and other subjects) is that they don't come into play in life very often. Most people do forget most of what they learn in school. Except for those aspects that they constantly reinforce.

The truth is most people are not interested in history. They couldn't care less about the Revolutionary War or even WWII for that matter. They have too much on their plate memorizing makes and models of cars and sports statistics.

I pretty much agree with this, and it's a pity too, because some of history is important to know.

how much history to people from other countries remember?

i think the issue is what people remember vs what people learn from history courses. i remember learning a lot from history school american history:
landing on america, formation of the colonies, atlantic slave trade route, revolutionary war, creation of the declaration of independence, lousiana purchase, enlightment & the awakening, wars with native americans, the gold rush, civil war, abolish of slavery, womens rights, implementation of steam engine, new canal routes, trains throughout NE US and then transcontinental railroads, treatment of Irish Americans & other immigrants (I most remember the Jewish & Italians), a lot of history from NYC including the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire & slums... how the working class were treated as depicted by Karl Marx, the Great Depression/Dust Bowl, WWI, WWII, African-America rights, MLK, Black Panthers, Vietnam War, the Iranian hostage situation.

Those are a couple of things I can remember off the top of my head. I don't remember all the specific dates though but most of the important events I can still recall.

and I completely left out the Cold War... our US history class spent maybe a month on that topic & I remember having to write a ten page paper on communism... We also made a video recreation of Holocaust events when we were studying WWII. Yes I do think that history education emphasizes wars because we did spend a lot of time covering them.

and then there's primary & middle school lol... that was a lot of history dealing with the missionarys in California & the Mexican-American War

Many people think that history is a dull subject. Dull? Is it "dull" that Jesse James once got bitten on the forehead by an ant, and at first it didn't seem like anything, but then the bite got worse and worse, so he went to a doctor in town, and the secretary told him to wait, so he sat down and waited, and waited, and waited, and waited, and then finally he got to see the doctor, and the doctor put some salve on it? You call that dull?
- Jack Handey (aka Jack Handy)

http://web.archive.org/web/20021017021255/www.hutchville.com/jack_handey.shtml

Sorry, couldn't resist.

This is common knowledge for most who would be reading this. But it is relevant, and also demonstrates why it is crucial for more Americans to become aware.

Now, our systematic falsification of history… well, let’s just take where we’re talking right now:

Well, we’re here in New England because religious fanatics, extreme fanatic religious fundamentalists, very much like Islamic fundamentalists, landed here and mercilessly destroyed the indigenous population. So we’re here. That’s not the way it’s taught, but that’s the way it was. And the founding fathers were well aware of it. And they recognized it, sometimes with regret, sometimes not, and it continued until the national territory was conquered. There were, after all, maybe 7 or 8 million or maybe more inhabitants here, they weren’t around by the year 1900. And the U.S., for example, conquered half of Mexico. Well, the Mexicans know it; we don’t get taught it in school. When the U.S. took over the Philippines, they killed a couple hundred thousand people. Filipinos, they know it, we don’t talk about it.

And this falsification of history has consequences. In fact, we saw some of them on Sept 11th. Here, the commentary often… much of the commentary is: "Well, why do they hate us?" And a lot of the commentary, op eds, in The New York Times and so on, by big thinkers, was: "Well, they hate us because we stand for freedom and democracy and prosperity and therefore they hate us."

Well, that’s a nice, comforting point of view, but it’s totally false. And some of the press, to its credit, did begin to look at the history. So the Wall Street Journal very soon, within a few days, began running articles on actual attitudes of people in the Middle East towards the United States. They sampled the wealthy and the privileged - the people who they’re concerned about - not beggars and rural people, but bankers, and lawyers for international corporations, businessmen, and they did several good studies of their attitudes. And, it turns out, that they’re very bitter and angry and frustrated about the United States though they’re very pro-American and, in fact, all involved in the U.S. system.-Noam Chomsky
http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/207.html

Generally I find most of the people I meet to know little or nothing about their own history. And it's almost pointless to talk to them about it because they're not much interested.

Speaking as someone who does reenacting, (though am not very good at talking to members of the public) and has also read this thread, and lives in the UK, there is plenty of appetite for history. I have forgotten how many peopel have said "i saw something about whatever last night on the telly." And you get many people at reenacign events asking questions, some ratehr sensible, others not very ("is that a real fire?") The impression I get is that history is a somewhat hard subject to teach, without the right hook to it. but that a lot of people are interested in different facets of history, but there is so much out there that they dont necessarily get a good idea of history. Its all split up into little bits.

Hastein:
" tell you more about what these leftists really think about 'non-whites': that their race is more important then their character and that they are incompetent because of it."
WEll, no. Hardly any of them think that way at all. I can see how you think thats what they think because it is another way of looking at the outcome of the situation, but itsn ot what they actually think. I am rather lefty myself, but dont support quotas, just a good education available for all, etc, and a sensible anti discrimination policy.

"And what is left? Go listen to Fifteen while your culture dissolves before your eyes."
Hey, isnt the free market economy all about individuality and freedom? or have i been reading too much propaganda?

History and Geography were my favorite text-book classes. Engligh was the most boring class to me. I wish I got more into science but the teachers sucked. Not to mention you can't take the more fun science classes until doing all the precursor ones so there was no way in heck I was gonna deal with 2 years of horrible and boring teachers just for that. I aced my first year and a half in math but didn't bother doing anymore because during the second year some lame integrated math program was introduced which had lessons taught in a way as if you're in the 6th grade.. it was a total joke. The only reason why I barely passed by not going is because the teacher I had was the same I had my first year so he knew I at least knew the stuff but didn't choose to do it.

The most fun I had though was in woodshop and phys ed especially since I ran the classes (foreman and aid). Mexican Chicano literature sucked too and I never went back after the first day so I helped run another period of phys ed. Why they put me in that class, I have no idea. Not to mention I hate reading fiction.

The computer classes were a joke as well.. using outdated computers and books I only came when tests were taken and I'd ace them so the teacher gave me a passing C grade because of my knowledge but couldn't be better due to me doing no homework or classwork and rarely being there. Heh, the only times I went other than for tests is when I was bored and decided to screw around on the computer and write some mini-progs.

Then there was a dumb movie class where you just watch movies and write about the movie that I never went to either because it seemed so silly. Most classes were just an insult to my intellegence and I'm not claiming to be a super smart person so that says a lot about the classes, heh.

The main reason why I didn't like most of my classes is because I didn't get to pick any single damned one I wanted. Everything was picked for me and it was all lame stuff so I basically focused on three classes and ditched the rest. I had around 4 months of absences in most of my classes so if you add in summer vacation and other breaks, I was rarely in school, heh. And the only reason why I passed high school is because I talked my way through it so my teachers gave me barely passing grades (C's or D's but A's in the classes I actually went to). I don't even remember much of high school, the same for Jr high. Everything I know is all basically self-taught or due to a couple community college classes taken in subjects that are actually worthwhile and helpful unlike chicano literature and "let's watch lame movies" class.

- N

I have had a different experience with history that previously described here. I grew up in the south, but i have gone to schools all over. I have found that believe it or not, as we all know there are always many different versions of history (the winner gets to write it and so on and so forth) the versions of American history that are told in different parts of our country differs wildly depending on where you are learning it.

For instance, in the south i learned about the "war of northern aggression" (aka the war between the states), but go north and look in their textbooks and the story "techniqually" is the same but its much less about slavery and all that and more about preserving the "union" and Lincoln is seen as the "savior" of the country.

I actually had a good education when it comes to history, but thats cuz i had good schools. And i kinda already like history to begin with. I was one of THOSE students that actually enjoyed going to things like colonial williamsburg and watching civil war reinactments... i know i know, im a dork :eek:

yes you are. with those beadie eyes and that dego (sp) mustache and your greasy hair

yes you are. with those beadie eyes and that dego (sp) mustache and your greasy hair


oh hush up! i dont have a mustache ;)

cultural diversity is probably the reason u were in the class