California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[Valmy]

but one way or another I'd expect a college bound American high school grad to be able to recite a list of presidents.

Well you are out of touch with the times.

Well at least they should know the all stars.  You know Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts and know basically who those dudes were and what basically they did.  Franklin Pierce not so much 

[Barrister]

What constitutes "history" doesn't change because some cabal reconstructs history, but because peoples' interests change.  British history used to include memorizing long lists of monarchs, as American history did long lists of presidents.  Not so much any more, and this isn't because the History Cabal has changed - it is because people no longer believe in the Heroic/Villainous Leader model of history.

That is a sign of dumbing down standards, not progress. If you don't know who was president during the 1820s, then you aren't very knowledgeable about that period. I'll grant that becoming knowledgeable about periods so that you can recite a list isn't the same as memorizing a list, but one way or another I'd expect a college bound American high school grad to be able to recite a list of presidents.

You know what, I couldn't tell you who was president in the 1820s.  I can make some educated guesses (Jefferson? Jackson?), but I don't know for sure.

I think there's more to being informed than giving out rote information of names and dates.

And I googled it, and was wrong.  Jefferson was a decade before, Jackson only the last two years.  The 1820s saw the memorable presidencies of Munro and John Quincy Adams.

[Valmy]

The 1820s saw the memorable presidencies of Munro and John Quincy Adams.

They were pretty memorable actually.  But only if you, you know, have an interest in the party system of the US. 

[Razgovory]

They were both capable.

[Valmy]

They were both capable.

Well Adams was memorable for showing what happens when you do not purge the executive branch when you take over and his election led to the formation of the modern Democratic Party.  Both watershed moments.

Monroe was the last of his generation and the last of the old Jeffersonian Republican Party.  Oh and he has a city in Africa named after him.

Oh and Adams created the 'Monroe Doctrine' when he was Monroe's Secretary of State.  Also very important and memorable.

[Agelastus]

You know what, I couldn't tell you who was president in the 1820s.  I can make some educated guesses (Jefferson? Jackson?), but I don't know for sure.

Wouldn't your equivalent benchmark be something like the prime-ministers of Upper and Lower Canada, though?

Presidents, Kings, Emperors...I've always thought that they serve as a useful chronological framework to hang more targetted studies of themes and areas on; more useful than simple dates that may not otherwise have anything memorable to them (for example saying "during the presidency of" rather than "between 1817 and 1825")

Of course, one of the earliest things I can remember doing in an actual specific history class is memorising a rhyme that gave you the kings and Queens of England in order from William I to Victoria, so I may be a little biased.

[Valmy]

I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical

[HVC]

I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical

damn you

[Malthus]

It is disingenuous to assert that "it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time" when what is regarded as "history" changes through time, as any good historical scholar knows.  What constitutes "history" doesn't change because some cabal reconstructs history, but because peoples' interests change.  British history used to include memorizing long lists of monarchs, as American history did long lists of presidents.  Not so much any more, and this isn't because the History Cabal has changed - it is because people no longer believe in the Heroic/Villainous Leader model of history.

There is no need to make reference to a "History Cabal" for remarking that people who wrote history, and selected deeds, did so conscienciously in order to emphasize this or that point, nor to simply remark that the writing of history in the form we recognize is extremely recent. If one holds that these authors have no relevance - which may be a valid point - because it is the context in which they wrote which is important, then it becomes more difficult to brush aside Marty's point about having culturally bound notions of what is, or isn't interesting. It thereafter poses the difficult problem of explaining change in such culture (when, why, did notions of what is remarkable, or interesting shift from great men to economics, from elites to people) and thereafter becomes also difficult to wish to censor individual, or collective initiatives, in the name of a cultural change that will emerge spontaneously.

I can tell you, without going into the need for reciting theory, that the teaching of history in Ontario in the early 1980s was a dismal failure because it was deadly boring, and it was deadly boring because of the earnest intent to establish as much as possible 'correctives' to the traditional narrative in the form of bolstering the esteem of visible minority groups, workers and women.

It does not take a degree in psychology to understand that such pandering is not as interesting to children as tales of royal scandals, political skullduggery, and military conflict.

Children may be ignorant but they are not generally stupid, and can recognize (and be bored by, and resent) a point being crammed down their throats - even if the intentions behind the cramming are of the best.

[Barrister]

You know what, I couldn't tell you who was president in the 1820s.  I can make some educated guesses (Jefferson? Jackson?), but I don't know for sure.

Wouldn't your equivalent benchmark be something like the prime-ministers of Upper and Lower Canada, though?

Well no, since the lieutenant governor held most of the power back then, plus I REALLY couldn't tell you who the Lt Governors were.

I couldn't tell you a single remarkable thing that happened in 1820s Canada actually.   Decade ebfore we had 1812, decade after we had the Rebellion, but the 20s?  Nada.

[crazy canuck]

Presidents, Kings, Emperors...I've always thought that they serve as a useful chronological framework to hang more targetted studies of themes and areas on; more useful than simple dates that may not otherwise have anything memorable to them (for example saying "during the presidency of" rather than "between 1817 and 1825")

Its a cultural thing.  Our list of Prime Ministers doesnt start until relatively late in the day compared to US Presidents.  So it is more useful to say between x and y date.  There is sometimes reference to time period by Prime Minister but that more rare. 

[Agelastus]

Presidents, Kings, Emperors...I've always thought that they serve as a useful chronological framework to hang more targetted studies of themes and areas on; more useful than simple dates that may not otherwise have anything memorable to them (for example saying "during the presidency of" rather than "between 1817 and 1825")

Its a cultural thing.  Our list of Prime Ministers doesnt start until relatively late in the day compared to US Presidents.  So it is more useful to say between x and y date.  There is sometimes reference to time period by Prime Minister but that more rare.

And I suppose it doesn't help that George III and Victoria reigned so long either; neither of their reigns is really a conveniently bite sized chunk of time.

[Maximus]

I couldn't tell you a single remarkable thing that happened in 1820s Canada actually.   Decade ebfore we had 1812, decade after we had the Rebellion, but the 20s?  Nada.

I tried to find something but couldn't. It appears that nothing actually happened.

[crazy canuck]

Presidents, Kings, Emperors...I've always thought that they serve as a useful chronological framework to hang more targetted studies of themes and areas on; more useful than simple dates that may not otherwise have anything memorable to them (for example saying "during the presidency of" rather than "between 1817 and 1825")

Its a cultural thing.  Our list of Prime Ministers doesnt start until relatively late in the day compared to US Presidents.  So it is more useful to say between x and y date.  There is sometimes reference to time period by Prime Minister but that more rare.

And I suppose it doesn't help that George III and Victoria reigned so long either; neither of their reigns is really a conveniently bite sized chunk of time.

That is also a good point which explains the difference.

[Agelastus]

I couldn't tell you a single remarkable thing that happened in 1820s Canada actually.   Decade ebfore we had 1812, decade after we had the Rebellion, but the 20s?  Nada.

I tried to find something but couldn't. It appears that nothing actually happened.

Apparently the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay Company were forcibly merged in 1821.