http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-bill-teach-gay-history-012938470.html
QuoteA bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation.
Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has not said publicly whether he supports the bill, which he has 12 days to sign or veto once it reaches his desk later this month. If he takes no action, the measure would become law automatically.
The bill gained final passage from the state Assembly on a vote of 49-25, without a single Republican supporting it. The measure cleared the state Senate in April.
California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.
Supporters of the latest bill said it would simply include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals in that existing requirement, making it part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes.
"It's unfair to leave out or exclude an entire portion of our population from history," said Carolyn Laub, executive director of San Francisco-based Gay-Straight Alliance Network.
The group, which supported the bill, said no other state has passed similar legislation requiring the teaching of gay and lesbian contributions to society.
In fact, Laub pointed to a bill that passed the Tennessee state Senate this year that would prohibit the state's schools from teaching about homosexuality before secondary school.
The Tennessee proposal, which detractors have nicknamed the "don't say gay bill," has still not passed the state House of Representatives.
California Assemblyman Donald Wagner is one of the Republicans who opposed the state's bill requiring teaching about the accomplishments of gays and lesbians.
"Writing these provisions into textbooks will further an agenda rather than teach facts," Wagner said. "When we do things, we politicize them because that's the nature of politics. We should leave education to the educators."
The bill was written by state Senator Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat who represents San Francisco and surrounding communities.
Even if the bill is signed by the governor, it could be several years before California students start reading in textbooks about gay accomplishments.
The California Department of Education has said that, because of the fiscal crisis facing the state, the agency does not expect to adopt new textbooks until 2015.
What is it about morons and forcing pet stuff to be taught in schools? You always get that. A person saying "... should be taught in school!" is always a moron.
Awesome. Now about that budget...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2011, 01:19:29 PM
Awesome. Now about that budget...
QuoteThe California Department of Education has said that, because of the fiscal crisis facing the state, the agency does not expect to adopt new textbooks until 2015.
:P
Has a transgender weirdo ever committed an act that would be historically significant? I mean, maybe you could make an argue for a gay (although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society), but lesbians, bisexuals and crossdressers are pretty low-quality.
Wasn't J. Edgar Hoover gay? Although I doubt that he's the sort of person that the California hippies would want to laud.
OTOH it is somewhat amusing that any legitimate historical impact of persons who also happened to be gay will be regarded as suspect since the persons will appear to have been affirmative actioned into the books. No one will take gays in history seriously. Just like women.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:18:50 PM
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
I disagree. I don't think anyone before Oscar Wilde, or so, can be considered "gay". "Gay" is more of a cultural thing (it is not synonymous with homosexual).
We already have minority and woman stuff so I guess this is just logical. Of course I would rather kids be taught, you know, the basic facts of what happened before we tough on specific themes like this. My experience is that generally the curriculum spends alot of time telling us the themes (freedom good! Capitalism good! Minorities are nice to! and in Texas: Christianity is why American exists!) without actually teaching the history.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 02:26:11 PM
We already have minority and woman stuff so I guess this is just logical. Of course I would rather kids be taught, you know, the basic facts of what happened before we tough on specific themes like this. My experience is that generally the curriculum spends alot of time telling us the themes (freedom good! Capitalism good! Minorities are nice to! and in Texas: Christianity is why American exists!) without actually teaching the history.
I think (hope?) this is more according to the lines of having a lesson or two on the gay movement (like Stonewall etc.) which is also history, as much as Brown vs. Board of Education is. And telling kids so-and-so was gay, where it was relevant (for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't). I think it is more about not "white-washing" (or straight-washing) history than anything else.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:18:50 PM
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
I disagree. I don't think anyone before Oscar Wilde, or so, can be considered "gay". "Gay" is more of a cultural thing (it is not synonymous with homosexual).
So, apart from the aforementioned Alan Turing, it's going to be an awfully short section of the curriculum then... :)
Actually, if this does encourage more study of classical history, I suppose it could be a boon...although personally I'd guess (considering what "British history" taught in UK schools generally amounts to) that nothing before 1775 will get included*.
*British history in our schools tends to start in 1815... :rolleyes::(
Quote from: Agelastus on July 06, 2011, 02:32:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:18:50 PM
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
I disagree. I don't think anyone before Oscar Wilde, or so, can be considered "gay". "Gay" is more of a cultural thing (it is not synonymous with homosexual).
So, apart from the aforementioned Alan Turing, it's going to be an awfully short section of the curriculum then... :)
Actually, if this does encourage more study of classical history, I suppose it could be a boon...although personally I'd guess (considering what "British history" taught in UK schools generally amounts to) that nothing before 1775 will get included*.
*British history in our schools tends to start in 1815... :rolleyes::(
As I said in the post above yours, I don't think it's as much about "so-and-so was gay" as it is about teaching kids about the gay rights movement. Which I think is fair. It is part of the history.
Also, are you saying that the 20th century is not full of gay artists, inventors and the like?
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:18:50 PM
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
I disagree. I don't think anyone before Oscar Wilde, or so, can be considered "gay". "Gay" is more of a cultural thing (it is not synonymous with homosexual).
No, that's generally correct, that heterosexuality/homosexuality as a cultural bifurcation is a relatively recent phenomenon. That said, there would be no reason to exclude discussion, and every reason to include discussion, of how sexual mores were different in the ancient world (as well as in some of our crappier contemporary cultures) in the context of gay history.
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Why do you believe this?
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Why do you believe this?
I actually have no idea, now that you ask. :lol: I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it. Is it not the case?
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 02:26:11 PM
We already have minority and woman stuff so I guess this is just logical. Of course I would rather kids be taught, you know, the basic facts of what happened before we tough on specific themes like this. My experience is that generally the curriculum spends alot of time telling us the themes (freedom good! Capitalism good! Minorities are nice to! and in Texas: Christianity is why American exists!) without actually teaching the history.
I think (hope?) this is more according to the lines of having a lesson or two on the gay movement (like Stonewall etc.) which is also history, as much as Brown vs. Board of Education is. And telling kids so-and-so was gay, where it was relevant (for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't). I think it is more about not "white-washing" (or straight-washing) history than anything else.
I am just telling you how it works over where I live. Mentioning Turing or Newton (much less who they had sex with...or didn't in Newton's case) in an American history class? LOL.
And history classes famously never get past WWII so actually getting to the gay movement in context is not likely.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Why do you believe this?
I actually have no idea, now that you ask. :lol: I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it. Is it not the case?
It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.
The Cambridge Five
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.
The Cambridge Five
Filthy communists, but relatively minor figures. They're certainly not going to be in a high school history class, especially an American history class.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 02:41:12 PM
Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.
I beg to differ.
His contribution to the war was significant. But it was nothing compared to his contributions to modern computation theory.
The Church-Turing thesis is a cornerstone of computer science.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.
The Cambridge Five
Filthy communists, but relatively minor figures. They're certainly not going to be in a high school history class, especially an American history class.
I would like Grumblers input on that. Seems to me that espionage was a significant aspect of the Cold War and the Cambridge Five are a very famous/infamous example. It may be that they would not find their way into US text books if US texts focus on American content only but its hard to think about talking about cold war intrigue and not mention at least Burgess and Mclean (sp?).
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Wasn't he eventually cured?
In a manner of speaking.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
How was he gay and not just homosexual when going with your distinction of the two? As far as I know, he didn't have any of the traits or interests that are stereotypical for gays and neither did he take part in gay culture.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
Ernst Rohm. Alfred Redl.
Quote from: Maximus on July 06, 2011, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 02:41:12 PM
Aside from being a martyr for your cause, he wasn't really a big deal.
I beg to differ.
His contribution to the war was significant. But it was nothing compared to his contributions to modern computation theory.
The Church-Turing thesis is a cornerstone of computer science.
And that's not significant enough to warrant inclusion in high-school level history courses. Computation theory isn't historically significant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 04:11:26 PM
I would like Grumblers input on that. Seems to me that espionage was a significant aspect of the Cold War and the Cambridge Five are a very famous/infamous example. It may be that they would not find their way into US text books if US texts focus on American content only but its hard to think about talking about cold war intrigue and not mention at least Burgess and Mclean (sp?).
Kim Philby should have been hanged.
Having been educated in French, most of my history classes revolved around events that took place in Quebec, but even when I was instructed in English during my later years of high school, the Cold War wasn't really discussed in depth. I can't imagine getting into it very much, seeing as how espionage, while romantic, was just a small part of the enormous struggles of the Cold War, and the proxy wars and the economic conflicts are probably more important.
In a couple of generations, it'll be interesting to see how history looks back upon the massive espionage campaigns that China is waging against the civilized world.
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:40:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Why do you believe this?
I actually have no idea, now that you ask. :lol: I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it. Is it not the case?
It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.
I took a class on the History of American Sexuality and that's what was taught.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 02:26:11 PM
We already have minority and woman stuff so I guess this is just logical. Of course I would rather kids be taught, you know, the basic facts of what happened before we tough on specific themes like this. My experience is that generally the curriculum spends alot of time telling us the themes (freedom good! Capitalism good! Minorities are nice to! and in Texas: Christianity is why American exists!) without actually teaching the history.
I think (hope?) this is more according to the lines of having a lesson or two on the gay movement (like Stonewall etc.) which is also history, as much as Brown vs. Board of Education is. And telling kids so-and-so was gay, where it was relevant (for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't). I think it is more about not "white-washing" (or straight-washing) history than anything else.
I am just telling you how it works over where I live. Mentioning Turing or Newton (much less who they had sex with...or didn't in Newton's case) in an American history class? LOL.
And history classes famously never get past WWII so actually getting to the gay movement in context is not likely.
To be honest, why do children actually need the specifics? Until they hit a certain age, it isn't like they'll actually remember any details.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2011, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:40:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Why do you believe this?
I actually have no idea, now that you ask. :lol: I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it. Is it not the case?
It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.
I took a class on the History of American Sexuality and that's what was taught.
Yeah it is pretty mainstream to suggest that the term gay doesn't carry well outside of the 20th/21st century, western world. Scholarship-wise, that is.
See, I knew I wasn't making that shit up.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 08:52:50 PM
See, I knew I wasn't making that shit up.
Yeah there's ample literature about who gays can claim as "ancestors" and how far back it really goes as far as a social convention. After all, in the past many men who were fucking men only did it as a past-time - it wasn't an identity as we perceive it.
Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2011, 04:15:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
How was he gay and not just homosexual when going with your distinction of the two? As far as I know, he didn't have any of the traits or interests that are stereotypical for gays and neither did he take part in gay culture.
He only had sex with other men and identified as such. The "being gay is cultural" is not about liking showtunes. :rolleyes:
Besides, how do you know what his interests were anyway?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2011, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:40:57 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 02:37:04 PM
The idea that there were no gay people before the 19th century is hilarious.
There were plenty of guys having sex guys, if that's what you mean. As I understand it, it was more of a fucking/getting fucked dynamic.
Why do you believe this?
I actually have no idea, now that you ask. :lol: I think I read it in a book on Greece somewhere, but I guess I can't source it. Is it not the case?
It's a pretty outrageous claim that something this fundamental would change in such a short time so it better have some outrageous evidence, 'sall.
I took a class on the History of American Sexuality and that's what was taught.
Yes a lot of what is taught is complete BS. I'm more interested in the reasoning behind this belief.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 12:20:05 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 06, 2011, 04:15:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 01:22:20 PM
although I can't think offhand of a gay who made a historically significant contribution to society
Alan Turing.
How was he gay and not just homosexual when going with your distinction of the two? As far as I know, he didn't have any of the traits or interests that are stereotypical for gays and neither did he take part in gay culture.
He only had sex with other men and identified as such. The "being gay is cultural" is not about liking showtunes. :rolleyes:
Besides, how do you know what his interests were anyway?
Oscar Wilde doesn't qualify as gay in Martworld?
The standard homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was between an older male (the active partner) and a youth (the passive partner). This was considered "normal" and acceptable especially in aristocratic circles. It was much more difficult if a man fancied a spot of passive homosexual sex after his youth was over since this was considered "womanly" and deviant.
Oscar Wilde had a wife and kids but I have no problem qualifying him as "gay". I am not an expert on queer/gender theory, so garbon would probably be a better person to answer, but as far as I understand it, the concept of "being gay" is mainly about identity in the Western culture - essentially a recognition of one's sexuality as an integral part of one's identity.
Oscar Wilde made no secret that his marriage with Constance was more a relationship of friends than of lovers, nor he made secret of his love for Bosie.
For the record, the term "homosexuality" (and the notion of someone being a "homosexual") is also quite young, having originated in the 19th century. Before that, homosexual relationships were either recognized in very special cultural framework (like the pederasty of ancient Greece or Japan) or were considered "something you do" as opposed to "something you are".
So, men did not necessarily self-identify as homosexual even if they happened to have sex only or predominantly with men. This self-identification is a necessary component of being "gay".
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 07, 2011, 01:32:30 AM
The standard homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was between an older male (the active partner) and a youth (the passive partner). This was considered "normal" and acceptable especially in aristocratic circles. It was much more difficult if a man fancied a spot of passive homosexual sex after his youth was over since this was considered "womanly" and deviant.
True, but then it goes beyond the question of sexuality and more into the realm of sexual behaviour at large, which also includes stuff like fetishism. I think discussions about gay sexuality fixate too much on specific sexual practices (notably, anal sex) but the thing is really about intimacy with a person of the same sex. Once you have this as culturally acceptable (even if within some specific confines), the question of what sex act is acceptable and what isn't becomes secondary (I mean, even with the heterosexual sex much more accepted, I bet there are specific practices which would be considered deviant, even if practiced between a husband and a wife).
Incidentally, I believe the Greeks were more into frottage than anal in the first place (even with the younger partner as the passive one).
What is the exact definition of "gay" that you are using? I've been trying to avoid asking that question but I fear I need the exact definition.
if homosexual is defined as someone who, since childhood, has only ever been attracted to their own sex, then there most certainly were homos in ancient greece--making the last page or so of this thread rather confusing
Marty, there is a recently published biography of Constance Wilde (Lloyd), I've read several reviews of it in the press. According to these reviews (and the book, natch), Constance and Oscar did enjoy a passionate sex life for some years.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/7026858/a-heart-made-to-be-broken-.thtml
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 08:58:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 08:52:50 PM
See, I knew I wasn't making that shit up.
Yeah there's ample literature about who gays can claim as "ancestors" and how far back it really goes as far as a social convention. After all, in the past many men who were fucking men only did it as a past-time - it wasn't an identity as we perceive it.
:bleeding:
Quote from: LaCroix on July 07, 2011, 02:01:26 AM
if homosexual is defined as someone who, since childhood, has only ever been attracted to their own sex, then there most certainly were homos in ancient greece--making the last page or so of this thread rather confusing
By that definition, you'd end up with a very small set of homosexuals. I had childhood attractions to girls.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 08:40:57 PM
To be honest, why do children actually need the specifics? Until they hit a certain age, it isn't like they'll actually remember any details.
Not sure what you mean.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 01:37:06 AM"being gay" is mainly about identity in the Western culture - essentially a recognition of one's sexuality as an integral part of one's identity.
I am more than my job, who I fuck, the hobbies I have and the games I like to play. I think fixating on one thing to define you isn't healthy.
Edit: Not that any single part should make me a second-class citizen, of course.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 10:51:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 01:37:06 AM"being gay" is mainly about identity in the Western culture - essentially a recognition of one's sexuality as an integral part of one's identity.
I am more than my job, who I fuck, the hobbies I have and the games I like to play. I think fixating on one thing to define you isn't healthy.
Edit: Not that any single part should make me a second-class citizen, of course.
Again as I said, there is much more to gay identity than fixating on the fuck part.
For a heterosexual person, the part that is defined by our sexuality includes everything from sex, to family, to parenthood, to marriage, to love etc. This is a huge part of one's life - some would argue that it is the most important, central part of personal happiness.
Telling that gay sexual orientation is about "who you fuck" is like telling a freshly "made" father that his entire experience is essentially about squirting some sperm into a vagina.
Edit: and then, on top of that, comes the entire commonality of experience that is shared by gays in Western culture and is quite unique (your first same sex crush on a straight friend, your coming out to your parents, your friends, etc., your experience with prejudice etc.). It can be compared to stuff like a bond that war veterans share, even if they did not get to meet each other until after the war - they know and lived through stuff other people have not.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 01:57:35 AM
What is the exact definition of "gay" that you are using? I've been trying to avoid asking that question but I fear I need the exact definition.
Well?
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 07:52:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 08:40:57 PM
To be honest, why do children actually need the specifics? Until they hit a certain age, it isn't like they'll actually remember any details.
Not sure what you mean.
You said that you want children to learn specifics over overarching themes. My contention is that overarching themes will actually stick with children better than specific details. Sure, I knew all the state capitals in 5th grade - hell if I know those now. Sure I knew precise dates for various events in WWI in 8th grade - not really sure about them now but I can still tell you broad themes/events about the conflict.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 11:00:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 01:57:35 AM
What is the exact definition of "gay" that you are using? I've been trying to avoid asking that question but I fear I need the exact definition.
Well?
We've already had this discussion many times in the past, so I'm not willing to play, grumbler. Oddly enough though, Marti's post right before yours has some detail.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2011, 11:17:26 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 11:00:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 01:57:35 AM
What is the exact definition of "gay" that you are using? I've been trying to avoid asking that question but I fear I need the exact definition.
Well?
We've already had this discussion many times in the past, so I'm not willing to play, grumbler. Oddly enough though, Marti's post right before yours has some detail.
I wasn't very clear, the question was aimed at Mart. Not you.
If you're using a word in a completely different way than normal it's good to define it. For clarity.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 11:18:29 AM
I wasn't very clear, the question was aimed at Mart. Not you.
Good luck with that, grumbler! :lol:
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2011, 11:16:07 AM
You said that you want children to learn specifics over overarching themes. My contention is that overarching themes will actually stick with children better than specific details. Sure, I knew all the state capitals in 5th grade - hell if I know those now. Sure I knew precise dates for various events in WWI in 8th grade - not really sure about them now but I can still tell you broad themes/events about the conflict.
You have the right of it. Facts not taught in conjunction with themes/stories are not retained, but themes and stories have to have some facts supporting them or
they won't be retained.
Example: I could teach that Mohandas Gandhi played on Hindu values in his independence campaign as a theme, but without any examples it won't stick. I could also teach that the Chauri Chara incident involved mob violence against some Indian policemen, but that name won't stick, either. If I teach that Gandhi responded to the Chauri Chara incident by fasting until the people abandoned the non-cooperation movement, exploiting the fact that Hindus believed that indirect consequences for their actions still created karma and delayed their spiritual advancement, students tend to remember the incident, why Gandhi responded as he did, and why his response worked.
Facts and frameworks reinforce one another, and aren't much use independently, at least for pre-college students.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 11:19:34 AM
If you're using a word in a completely different way than normal it's good to define it. For clarity.
If this was the first time we discussed this, then sure, I could understand if this use of the word was foreign. After the umpteenth time, no thanks. :)
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2011, 11:16:07 AM
You said that you want children to learn specifics over overarching themes. My contention is that overarching themes will actually stick with children better than specific details. Sure, I knew all the state capitals in 5th grade - hell if I know those now. Sure I knew precise dates for various events in WWI in 8th grade - not really sure about them now but I can still tell you broad themes/events about the conflict.
You have the right of it. Facts not taught in conjunction with themes/stories are not retained, but themes and stories have to have some facts supporting them or they won't be retained.
Example: I could teach that Mohandas Gandhi played on Hindu values in his independence campaign as a theme, but without any examples it won't stick. I could also teach that the Chauri Chara incident involved mob violence against some Indian policemen, but that name won't stick, either. If I teach that Gandhi responded to the Chauri Chara incident by fasting until the people abandoned the non-cooperation movement, exploiting the fact that Hindus believed that indirect consequences for their actions still created karma and delayed their spiritual advancement, students tend to remember the incident, why Gandhi responded as he did, and why his response worked.
Facts and frameworks reinforce one another, and aren't much use independently, at least for pre-college students.
Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that the details are unimportant, but that the overarching themes do have a big role to play.
I get the feeling that some people here somehow think that "queer/gender studies" is anything even approaching science, and/or rely on what they are being told in school or read and not on what is supported by facts.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sources regarding BDSM pre Sade and Sacher-Masoch are pretty scarce. Getting from there to "there were no BDSM fiends before the 18th century" doesn't make sense. I can certainly believe that a BDSM farmer in the 15th century didn't have a good name for what he was feeling or doing, and that the scene was primitive and that he probably didn't make BDSM his number one identity, but those are just shallow details. That fundamental facts about human sexuality would change in the course of a hundred years is not very intuitive and would need to be supported by the sources. Of course the sources don't get very meaty until the 18th century, which makes making negative statements about earlier centuries very difficult to support. My impression is that there are many similarities between the situations regarding BDSM and homosexuality in this regard.
I'm sure it's possible to define "gay" in a way that makes it hard to find examples in the sources that predate the 19th century, but my impression is that such a definition will have to be narrow enough to be near-pointless and/or still compatible with the meager sources from earlier eras.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 10:56:17 AM
Again as I said, there is much more to gay identity than fixating on the fuck part.
For a heterosexual person, the part that is defined by our sexuality includes everything from sex, to family, to parenthood, to marriage, to love etc. This is a huge part of one's life - some would argue that it is the most important, central part of personal happiness.
Telling that gay sexual orientation is about "who you fuck" is like telling a freshly "made" father that his entire experience is essentially about squirting some sperm into a vagina.
Edit: and then, on top of that, comes the entire commonality of experience that is shared by gays in Western culture and is quite unique (your first same sex crush on a straight friend, your coming out to your parents, your friends, etc., your experience with prejudice etc.). It can be compared to stuff like a bond that war veterans share, even if they did not get to meet each other until after the war - they know and lived through stuff other people have not.
You are comparing two separate things, fatherhood and sex. These are not comparable. And nobody cares about your schoolgirl crushes.
PS. You are not Western. You will never be Western. You apparently read about the gay experience, or see it on TV, but when you regurgitate it back at us it comes off sounding bizarre. It's like reading an essay that's been translated through six different languages.
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2011, 07:40:28 AMBy that definition, you'd end up with a very small set of homosexuals. I had childhood attractions to girls.
when did it phase out, and why--if you know? if some gay people have childhood attraction to girls but then lose that later in life, and others simply never have it and are always attracted to boys, then i suppose the two can be merged into a more refined definition as they both have the same end point
Quote from: garbon on July 07, 2011, 11:38:17 AM
Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that the details are unimportant, but that the overarching themes do have a big role to play.
My claim was not that there should be no themes just that those are really overemphasized (I suspect becuase they are exciting political football). The basic cause and effect of history has really suffered over the years (presuming, at least in Texas, it was ever done well which it probably was not. Other states do far better). Without those the themes do not really have much value....besides general transmission of conclusions we want them to have.
Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 11:56:04 AM
I get the feeling that some people here somehow think that "queer/gender studies" is anything even approaching science, and/or rely on what they are being told in school or read and not on what is supported by facts.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sources regarding BDSM pre Sade and Sacher-Masoch are pretty scarce. Getting from there to "there were no BDSM fiends before the 18th century" doesn't make sense. I can certainly believe that a BDSM farmer in the 15th century didn't have a good name for what he was feeling or doing, and that the scene was primitive and that he probably didn't make BDSM his number one identity, but those are just shallow details. That fundamental facts about human sexuality would change in the course of a hundred years is not very intuitive and would need to be supported by the sources. Of course the sources don't get very meaty until the 18th century, which makes making negative statements about earlier centuries very difficult to support. My impression is that there are many similarities between the situations regarding BDSM and homosexuality in this regard.
I'm sure it's possible to define "gay" in a way that makes it hard to find examples in the sources that predate the 19th century, but my impression is that such a definition will have to be narrow enough to be near-pointless and/or still compatible with the meager sources from earlier eras.
I can sort of see your point there. I think gayness as a culture and a cultural phenomenon is recent. Predominantly homosexual sexual behavior is likely older than homo sapiens itself.
You are confusing two things. It's not about "gay culture", it's about the concept of "gay" in the culture.
When people say "gay culture", they think of stuff like clubs, drag queens and show tunes - it's not about that.
What's relevant is a concept of a "gay experience/identity" which, despite the prevalence of homosexual behaviours in the past, is a new thing. In the past, even if a person was 100% homosexual and engaged in homosexual acts, he would be still not viewed as being something different from a heterosexual - it would just be treated as someone with a deviant/weird kink. He would still be expected (and himself likely expect) to get wife or kids, or at least stay celibate and/or in some sort of a "confirmed bachelor" set up.
The mainstream cultural concept of a same sex couple living in a relationship (whether long term or not) akin to that a heterosexual couple has (not just "brothers in arms" or "two friends" or whatnot) is a new one.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 12:16:54 PM
Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.
Err, how do you mean? The humanity's yearning for freedom is one of the most important, over-reaching theme in history. What makes Stonewall riots different in this respect from Spartacus' revolt, or Milk's assassination different from that of MLK's?
MLK wasn't assassinated by a disgruntled coworker, and the Stonewall riot did not involve military action or raiding and banditry.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 03:14:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 12:16:54 PM
Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.
Err, how do you mean? The humanity's yearning for freedom is one of the most important, over-reaching theme in history. What makes Stonewall riots different in this respect from Spartacus' revolt, or Milk's assassination different from that of MLK's?
I am not sure I ever referred to Spartacus, the Stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk, or Martin Luther King Jr or what the differences or similarities between them might be. But knowing about the Stonewall Riots at all might help one understand the gay movement no?
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 03:26:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 03:14:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 12:16:54 PM
Freedom being good and minorities are valuable are nice things to learn but they really are not history.
Err, how do you mean? The humanity's yearning for freedom is one of the most important, over-reaching theme in history. What makes Stonewall riots different in this respect from Spartacus' revolt, or Milk's assassination different from that of MLK's?
I am not sure I ever referred to Spartacus, the Stonewall Riots, Harvey Milk, or Martin Luther King Jr or what the differences or similarities between them might be. But knowing about the Stonewall Riots at all might help one understand the gay movement no?
Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 03:31:37 PM
Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now. :P
I should not have gone off on this tangent to begin with since it is mostly my frustration with the recent changes in the Texas curriculum and the ever expanding twisted political nature of the history curriculum that is really hamstrung by trying to pound political ideology into the kids...meanwhile their knowledge of the basics of American history are among the worst in the country. One of the characteristics is they just keep adding more and more themes.
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 02:59:01 PM
What's relevant is a concept of a "gay experience/identity" which, despite the prevalence of homosexual behaviours in the past, is a new thing. In the past, even if a person was 100% homosexual and engaged in homosexual acts, he would be still not viewed as being something different from a heterosexual - it would just be treated as someone with a deviant/weird kink.
Isn't that kinda the point of equality? Having homosexual relationships be considered just as normal as hetero ones? The whole "gay identity" concept seems to be more of a thing that spotlights different-ness. Like a self-alienating mechanism. It seems to me the focus ought to be making homosexuality part of the accepted mainstream rather than giving it its own separate "Gentile" identity.
Quote
He would still be expected (and himself likely expect) to get wife or kids, or at least stay celibate and/or in some sort of a "confirmed bachelor" set up.
The mainstream cultural concept of a same sex couple living in a relationship (whether long term or not) akin to that a heterosexual couple has (not just "brothers in arms" or "two friends" or whatnot) is a new one.
This I understand.
I don't think this is about "spotlighting different-ness", it's a simple recognition of a fact that, by sharing similar experiences, you have something in common (and something that is difficult to understand for people who do not share this experience). I suppose the more tolerant the societies become of gays, the less distinct this experience will be (and probably the identity will be less strong, as the current prejudice/persecution is likely fueling this to an extent), but I think that until there is a major shift in cultural mores, the process of a young gay person coming to terms with his or her sexuality during the formative years will still be somewhat traumatic.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 03:31:37 PM
Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now. :P
I should not have gone off on this tangent to begin with since it is mostly my frustration with the recent changes in the Texas curriculum and the ever expanding twisted political nature of the history curriculum that is really hamstrung by trying to pound political ideology into the kids...meanwhile their knowledge of the basics of American history are among the worst in the country. One of the characteristics is they just keep adding more and more themes.
To my mind, this is sorta the problem.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching gay history, or Black history, or the history of women, or whatever. All are legitimate parts of history, which after all included gays, Blacks, and women.
The problem is that the relative importance to be attached to these sub-groups is seperated from history as a whole and made subject, not to the requirement to explain history in sensible (and hopefully memorable and entertaining) manner, but to present-day political concerns - which are often as not intended to "correct" perceived imbalances in the narrative used in the past to teach the kiddies.
The problem of that approach is of course that the kiddies being taught today have no idea what was taught in the past, and so this approach makes no sense to
them and appears instead as a context-less mish-mash of themes that are boring and unmemorable.
Canadian history in Ontario, when I was growing up, was a particular victim of this process, having been hijacked by earnest educators with an agenda formed by 1960s socialism. What passed for history was an earnest parade of hard-done-by natives, minorities, workers and women. Which is not to say that natives, minorities, workers and women were not hard done by, but rather that the historical context in which they were hard done by got short shift: the curriculum was a "corrective" to a narrative structure that we were not in fact provided with.
This lead to the widespread notion among Ontario schoolkids that the history of Ontario was the most boring in the universe - hell, many were surprised to find out that Toronto had once been burned down in a war, and that the Niagra penninsula was once the site of battlefields - our history teaching made little mention of stuff like that.
War excites you, Malthus? Gives you a stiffie?
Btw I'm shocked that Mart-gays are defined by the attention they get from others.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 03:59:50 PM
War excites you, Malthus? Gives you a stiffie?
Naw, only painting little lead toy soldiers. Which is why I don't do that.
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2011, 03:54:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 03:31:37 PM
Sorry I may have misunderstood your point. I'm not sure what it was now. :P
I should not have gone off on this tangent to begin with since it is mostly my frustration with the recent changes in the Texas curriculum and the ever expanding twisted political nature of the history curriculum that is really hamstrung by trying to pound political ideology into the kids...meanwhile their knowledge of the basics of American history are among the worst in the country. One of the characteristics is they just keep adding more and more themes.
To my mind, this is sorta the problem.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching gay history, or Black history, or the history of women, or whatever. All are legitimate parts of history, which after all included gays, Blacks, and women.
The problem is that the relative importance to be attached to these sub-groups is seperated from history as a whole and made subject, not to the requirement to explain history in sensible (and hopefully memorable and entertaining) manner, but to present-day political concerns - which are often as not intended to "correct" perceived imbalances in the narrative used in the past to teach the kiddies.
The problem of that approach is of course that the kiddies being taught today have no idea what was taught in the past, and so this approach makes no sense to them and appears instead as a context-less mish-mash of themes that are boring and unmemorable.
Canadian history in Ontario, when I was growing up, was a particular victim of this process, having been hijacked by earnest educators with an agenda formed by 1960s socialism. What passed for history was an earnest parade of hard-done-by natives, minorities, workers and women. Which is not to say that natives, minorities, workers and women were not hard done by, but rather that the historical context in which they were hard done by got short shift: the curriculum was a "corrective" to a narrative structure that we were not in fact provided with.
This lead to the widespread notion among Ontario schoolkids that the history of Ontario was the most boring in the universe - hell, many were surprised to find out that Toronto had once been burned down in a war, and that the Niagra penninsula was once the site of battlefields - our history teaching made little mention of stuff like that.
I get your point and sympathise with it on an emotional level, but speaking more from a devil's advocate position, consider this.
History is a bit of an odd animal compared to other common topics taught at school, as it does not provide a pupil with any specific skill or ability - from a certain perspective it is simply an exercise in erudition, providing information and some background context but not teaching any practical thing (unlike, say, maths or physics etc.) From that perspective, and considering the fact that you cant teach kids *everything* about the past in a history class, one could make an argument that providing the kids with this sort of social backbone/background towards teaching tolerance and diversity is more important than providing kids with trivia about what town burned down when or when some major battles were fought, no?
And while I agree that educators should strive to make lessons as interesting as possible, surely the boredom vs. interest aspect should apply more to the way lessons are taught, and less to the actual choice of topics, no?
If I home school, I will teach them about Sulla. There, I compromised for you goddamn faggots.
Home schooling isn't worth it. You need metal detectors, have to deal with retarded parents etc etc.
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 04:26:09 PM
Home schooling isn't worth it. You need metal detectors, have to deal with retarded parents etc etc.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on July 07, 2011, 04:26:09 PM
Home schooling isn't worth it. You need metal detectors, have to deal with retarded parents etc etc.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 04:19:21 PM
I get your point and sympathise with it on an emotional level, but speaking more from a devil's advocate position, consider this.
History is a bit of an odd animal compared to other common topics taught at school, as it does not provide a pupil with any specific skill or ability - from a certain perspective it is simply an exercise in erudition, providing information and some background context but not teaching any practical thing (unlike, say, maths or physics etc.) From that perspective, and considering the fact that you cant teach kids *everything* about the past in a history class, one could make an argument that providing the kids with this sort of social backbone/background towards teaching tolerance and diversity is more important than providing kids with trivia about what town burned down when or when some major battles were fought, no?
And while I agree that educators should strive to make lessons as interesting as possible, surely the boredom vs. interest aspect should apply more to the way lessons are taught, and less to the actual choice of topics, no?
I disagree. From what I've observed, attempting to force-feed a solid diet of tolerance and diversity is deadly boring and does not accomplish its aims - what it does, is turn kids off the subject generally.
It is true that you can't teach everything, but what I think kids should have is (1) a basic understanding of the structure of history, even in simple narrative form, on which they can later hang the details; and (2) a reason to find it interesting - basically through stories that are likely to fire their interest.
As distorting as the old eurocentric and patriachal patriotic narrative-type history was, at least it contained interesting-to-children stories - even if they weren't accurate - and provided an essential framework.
Speaking as someone who has shepharded a five-and-a-half year old around museums and galleries - you gotta at some level engage their interest and imagination. Explaining the history of the struggles of gays to find acceptance in society is simply not going to engage a kid's interest in the same way as stories about explorers, princesses or soldiers.
That is not to say you can't slip an interesting narrative about a particular gay into the mix to illustrate the struggle. But making a solid diet of it and you will lose the audience, in my experience.
The story of Alan Turing isn't liable to excite much interest amongst the young, even though he was Martinus' example of a prominent gay.
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2011, 04:38:48 PM
As distorting as the old eurocentric and patriachal patriotic narrative-type history was, at least it contained interesting-to-children stories - even if they weren't accurate - and provided an essential framework.
But isn't this more of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing? These stories are "interesting" because we have built entire culture around such stories being "interesting".
Also, consider to what extent your "children" means "boys".
Girls will be interested in Turing?
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2011, 05:25:56 PM
Girls will be interested in Turing?
Most bots are female. QED. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:04:52 PM
But isn't this more of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing? These stories are "interesting" because we have built entire culture around such stories being "interesting".
That may be true and it may not, but one thing is for sure: you will not overturn 'our entire culture' by boring kids in history class. :lol:
QuoteAlso, consider to what extent your "children" means "boys".
Here's an experiment:
Take a young girl*, and see if she is more interested in learning about (a) famous princesses; or (b) famous gays.
*Not literally, of course. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on July 07, 2011, 05:04:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 07, 2011, 04:38:48 PM
As distorting as the old eurocentric and patriachal patriotic narrative-type history was, at least it contained interesting-to-children stories - even if they weren't accurate - and provided an essential framework.
But isn't this more of a chicken-and-egg kind of thing? These stories are "interesting" because we have built entire culture around such stories being "interesting".
No. Those stories were the ones that stayed prominent, because they were interesting. History isn't built consciously - it is what is left when people have forgotten the bits that bore them; as Napoleon noted, it is "a set of lies agreed-upon." You aren't going to change that, either. The essence of
1984 is how far you would have to go to even try.
QuoteAlso, consider to what extent your "children" means "boys".
Both girls and boys enjoy stories of people trying to change their societies, or struggling against the repression of their societies. Turing works not because he is gay, but because his work (and eventually life) is interrupted by people trying to "cure" him. If he had been persecuted for religion or gender it would work equally well; what is important isn't that he was gay, but that he was persecuted. That holds for boys and girls both.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 06:40:26 PM
Turing works not because he is gay, but because his work (and eventually life) is interrupted by people trying to "cure" him. If he had been persecuted for religion or gender it would work equally well; what is important isn't that he was gay, but that he was persecuted. That holds for boys and girls both.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons that trying to teach "gay history" or even "black history" in primary and secondary education (where history classes are primarily just survey courses in the first place) is problematic. You're trying to teach history to a bunch of kids who are often already predisposed to look at it as boring and irrelevant, and by, in your example, focusing on Turing's sexuality, you're focusing on the uninteresting and unimportant part of the story.
I always found "Black history" terribly dull. It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage. As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me. I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments. I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids." I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2011, 10:51:25 AM
I am more than my job, who I fuck, the hobbies I have and the games I like to play. I think fixating on one thing to define you isn't healthy.
I dunno, "my job, who I fuck, the hobbies I have and the games I like to play" pretty much sums me up.
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 06:40:26 PMHistory isn't built consciously - it is what is left when people have forgotten the bits that bore them
Sure, it is. Which is why we have it as a genre in the first place. And reducing the numerous selection processes that happen to "boredom" seems disingenuous, for it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time...
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2011, 09:59:20 PM
I always found "Black history" terribly dull. It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage. As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me. I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments. I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids." I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.
And this show the other reasons why this approach to teaching history is problematic. It is aimed at making members of certain groups feel good about themselves, rather than actually teaching anything; and while it's a method that claims to be inclusive (it can be summed up as "hey, let's not leave out the contributions of women and minorities"), it's actually exclusionary.
There are two interesting things in history, how people killed each other, and how people fucked. So, on that level, gay history has got a lot going for it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 07, 2011, 10:25:46 PM
Sure, it is. Which is why we have it as a genre in the first place. And reducing the numerous selection processes that happen to "boredom" seems disingenuous, for it posits precisely that what constitute "boredom" is constant through time...
Reducing history to any single process for the purposes of discussion may be simplistic but isn't always disingenuous.
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.
Isn't gay history the list of people you call after you get the results of your blood test?
(sorry, couldn't resist) :ph34r:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 03:53:04 AM
There are two interesting things in history, how people killed each other, and how people fucked. So, on that level, gay history has got a lot going for it.
I find other things in history interesting besides these two. In fact, I'm not particularly interested historical sexual antics.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 09:07:02 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 10:09:49 AM
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. :lol:
Quote from: dps on July 08, 2011, 03:07:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2011, 09:59:20 PM
I always found "Black history" terribly dull. It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage. As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me. I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments. I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids." I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.
And this show the other reasons why this approach to teaching history is problematic. It is aimed at making members of certain groups feel good about themselves, rather than actually teaching anything; and while it's a method that claims to be inclusive (it can be summed up as "hey, let's not leave out the contributions of women and minorities"), it's actually exclusionary.
Aww, white people. :wub:
It's funny, but the one thing that was not touched on in Black History month was the African role in the slave trade. The fact that African kings were willing participants in a trade they found quite profitable was somehow left out.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 09:07:02 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2011, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 10:09:49 AM
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. :lol:
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 :P
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 10:09:49 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 09:07:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
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.
They were both capable.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
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. :)
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2011, 12:02:09 PM
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical
damn you
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 09:07:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:59:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
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. :mellow: Decade ebfore we had 1812, decade after we had the Rebellion, but the 20s? Nada.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:59:23 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:59:23 AM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 12:44:52 PM
I couldn't tell you a single remarkable thing that happened in 1820s Canada actually. :mellow: 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.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 12:50:29 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:59:23 AM
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. :hmm:
That is also a good point which explains the difference.
Quote from: Maximus on July 08, 2011, 12:58:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 12:44:52 PM
I couldn't tell you a single remarkable thing that happened in 1820s Canada actually. :mellow: 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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
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.
:huh: Both were actually pretty memorable for certain things. One for the foreign policy decision that defined US, and one as an example of subversion of the will of the people. And I knew that in high school without googling it.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:18:50 PM
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
Bowie is married. To a model. And he has kids.
ya, but how much do you know about William Mackenzie King :contract: :P
Quote from: HVC on July 08, 2011, 01:28:29 PM
ya, but how much do you know about William Mackenzie King :contract: :P
Now that is one memorable guy!
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 01:31:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 08, 2011, 01:28:29 PM
ya, but how much do you know about William Mackenzie King :contract: :P
Now that is one memorable guy!
and he's from the 20's*. it's a perfect fit!
*different century though
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 01:31:20 PM
Now that is one memorable guy!
Wasn't he famous for being really boring?
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 01:31:20 PM
Now that is one memorable guy!
Wasn't he famous for being really boring?
He's famous for talking to his dead mother...
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 01:31:20 PM
Now that is one memorable guy!
Wasn't he famous for being really boring?
and a slighlty insane momma's boy. what made it insane was that his momma was dead. Still, longerest running PM in common wealth history, helped make the foundation of canada what it is today (semi-socialist, peacekeepers). Plus he somehow managed to win even though everyone hated him.
Quote from: HVC on July 08, 2011, 01:41:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2011, 01:31:20 PM
Now that is one memorable guy!
Wasn't he famous for being really boring?
and a slighlty insane momma's boy. what made it insane was that his momma was dead. Still, longerest running PM in common wealth history, helped make the foundation of canada what it is today (semi-socialist, peacekeepers). Plus he somehow managed to win even though everyone hated him.
Plus the King-Bing affair, starting us down the road to our current ineffective drug laws but making opiates illegal - mainly to reduce the ability of Chinese immigrants to pay the head tax and generally being an icon of Liberal Party policy.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
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.
It differs from place to place, but I think the general rule is for Americans to have 3-4 years of American history from middle school on. If after that much focus on American history you were putting the presidencies of Jefferson and Jackson in the same decade, there would be a major problem.
A few of the pivotal moments of American political history were the Missouri Compromise, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Tariff of Abominations. Arguably you could be knowledgable about the Missouri Compromise without knowing who was president, but the Monroe Doctrine and the tariff you could not. The basic background of the Monroe Doctrine was the post napoleonic fragmentation of the spanish empire, so any student should know both the president and the approximate dates. That Quincy Adams (and the tariff) followed Monroe and that Jackson followed Quincy Adams is really fundamental to the period.
Quote from: dps on July 08, 2011, 03:07:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 07, 2011, 09:59:20 PM
I always found "Black history" terribly dull. It seemed to be aimed at making African Americans feel better about their heritage. As a consequence I always felt it was not meant for me. I remember we watched some kind of video about African American history, with a bunch of notable accomplishments. I got in trouble when I scoffed at the line "We (presumably meaning African-Americans), built the pyramids." I pointed out that I could have said, "We built the Kremlin or the Great Wall of China", and would have been about as correct.
And this show the other reasons why this approach to teaching history is problematic. It is aimed at making members of certain groups feel good about themselves, rather than actually teaching anything; and while it's a method that claims to be inclusive (it can be summed up as "hey, let's not leave out the contributions of women and minorities"), it's actually exclusionary.
I think it's kinda funny since all history is what you describe. In fact, if I remember correctly, the original reason to include history on curriculum - in the 19th century or the 20th - was to instill patriotism - i.e. be both exclusionary and make people feel good about themselves. Only now the focus changes to other people, so don't be a spoil sport only because it is no longer about white heterosexual male. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 08, 2011, 12:39:45 PM
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
Yes, you've already said that much. Though how we are supposed to evaluate failure - or dismal failure - remains a mystery. I think you had a better point when you diagnosed the problem as the providing of a corrective narrative without the original one having been presented.
QuoteIt 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.
I bow before your superior knowledge of human psychology, but I still have high doubts about the mind-riveting power of political skullduggery amongst the general crowd of early teens - when one excepts young boys - boys, mind you - who come from already highly politicized families. In any case, it would be much better to know *what* history we are talking about, and for whom. History for Carl running around in a museum? For 7 y.o. kids? For teenagers?
Grumbler already made the better point, I think, and it accords with my experience as a museum educator: kids (and people in general) crave
stories. The stories of war have been an easy answer to such a craving, because it contains high level drama, usually had clear-cut good guys and bad guys, or, more politically correct, winners and losers, and a more easily identified beginning, middle, or end.
But when one wants to move away from great men theories of history, or individual actions, it is not that stories become impossible to tell. It is just that such stories either become much more anonymous, and that their subsequent strength lies in numbers ; or they become much more abstract.
Still, it is highly possible to find such stories to tell. People are fascinated by the daily lives of their ancestors - and this has very little to do with great men and what not. They find good stories there. Kids also like to think about the various ways people lived, what they ate, how they made clothes - so it is not like this is hugely boring. It might be to a crowd which craves blood and war, but that is not the only kind of student there is.
Underscoring the importance of political or military history on Languish is playing to the crowd, and emphasizing social history attracts mockery, so let's consider instead economic history. Is it not important? Should it be left out of curriculum? It is not like economic history lends itself well to any sort of highly personalized story with heroes, villains, clear beginings, high-level drama... It has to be constructed that way, tied with all sorts of other concepts which we consider have relevance to our daily lives, whether we want to emphasize the rise of liberalism or denounce its side-effects. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with social history - nothing, that is, short of our own biases.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 02:35:14 PM
Underscoring the importance of political or military history on Languish is playing to the crowd, and emphasizing social history attracts mockery, so let's consider instead economic history. Is it not important?
The key parts of any history curriculum, IMO, are the big three: social, political, and economic history. They should be taught chronilogically with clear cause and effect links to the best extent we can. At least those are the characteristics of the strongest history curriculums currently, and I believe historically, taught in the United States. Once you nail that down then extra themes and particular overarching forces can be added.
Do people on here hold social history as being worthy of mockery?
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
The key parts of any history curriculum, IMO, are the big three: social, political, and economic history. They should be taught chronilogically with clear cause and effect links to the best extent we can. At least those are the characteristics of the strongest history curriculums currently, and I believe historically, taught in the United States. Once you nail that down then extra themes and particular overarching forces can be added.
Do people on here hold social history as being worthy of mockery?
No, but I'd rather replace it with sports history. Kids these days don't know any sports history :angry:
Quote from: Queequeg on July 08, 2011, 01:27:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:18:50 PM
Every Greek, most Romans, a lot of Arabs, and David Bowie.
Bowie is married. To a model. And he has kids.
Duh.
Not gay by a long shot, but a famed bisexual. I guess it's technically an incorrect answer. I am prepared to change my response to "Greeks, Romans, and Jimmy McShane.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 02:13:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:18:43 AM
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.
It differs from place to place, but I think the general rule is for Americans to have 3-4 years of American history from middle school on. If after that much focus on American history you were putting the presidencies of Jefferson and Jackson in the same decade, there would be a major problem.
A few of the pivotal moments of American political history were the Missouri Compromise, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Tariff of Abominations. Arguably you could be knowledgable about the Missouri Compromise without knowing who was president, but the Monroe Doctrine and the tariff you could not. The basic background of the Monroe Doctrine was the post napoleonic fragmentation of the spanish empire, so any student should know both the president and the approximate dates. That Quincy Adams (and the tariff) followed Monroe and that Jackson followed Quincy Adams is really fundamental to the period.
I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans. And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2011, 02:52:24 PM
No, but I'd rather replace it with sports history. Kids these days don't know any sports history :angry:
I talked to a kid the other day and he had NEVER heard of Pepper Martin :angry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ie3pMD1M3ao%2FRs5egE8MyJI%2FAAAAAAAAATg%2FLJwlGh6hp50%2Fs720%2FGas%2520House%2520Gang.jpg&hash=b845140c1db4535b133558b6b76c6a3ef524f880)
I mean what has America come to?
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans. And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.
I'm guessing you didn't spend multiple years studying US history in school, either. The tariff was a very big deal at the time--and was a major factor in the election of Jackson and the major issue behind the eventual secession crisis of the early 1830s. I would be disappointed if college bound students were unaware of the tariff. It was not only a pivotal economic event but also a critical moment in the increasing sectionalism of American politics.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 02:35:14 PM
Yes, you've already said that much. Though how we are supposed to evaluate failure - or dismal failure - remains a mystery.
It isn't really all that mysterious - when an entire generation grows up convinced that there is no subject on earth more boring than the history of your country, and simultaneously knows next to nothing about it, I think a diagnosis of "dismal failure" can be applied.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/canadaday/
QuoteI think you had a better point when you diagnosed the problem as the providing of a corrective narrative without the original one having been presented.
I bow before your superior knowledge of human psychology, but I still have high doubts about the mind-riveting power of political skullduggery amongst the general crowd of early teens - when one excepts young boys - boys, mind you - who come from already highly politicized families. In any case, it would be much better to know *what* history we are talking about, and for whom. History for Carl running around in a museum? For 7 y.o. kids? For teenagers?
Grumbler already made the better point, I think, and it accords with my experience as a museum educator: kids (and people in general) crave stories.
It's the same point. History should be taught as an engaging narrative.
It is of course possible to create engaging narratives concerning the lives of minorities, workers and women. But not if the "plot" is always the same - where they are portrayed in the way noble savages were portrayed by the more florid of Rousseau's followers.
It isn't the inclusion of minorities, women etc. that is the problem - it is the
ideological inclusion, the intent of which being self-conciously to support the includers' ideological purposes. That is just deadly in terms of narrative - the villians and heros are all one-dimentional, the plots totally predicatable.
QuoteThe stories of war have been an easy answer to such a craving, because it contains high level drama, usually had clear-cut good guys and bad guys, or, more politically correct, winners and losers, and a more easily identified beginning, middle, or end.
But when one wants to move away from great men theories of history, or individual actions, it is not that stories become impossible to tell. It is just that such stories either become much more anonymous, and that their subsequent strength lies in numbers ; or they become much more abstract.
Still, it is highly possible to find such stories to tell. People are fascinated by the daily lives of their ancestors - and this has very little to do with great men and what not. They find good stories there. Kids also like to think about the various ways people lived, what they ate, how they made clothes - so it is not like this is hugely boring. It might be to a crowd which craves blood and war, but that is not the only kind of student there is.
Underscoring the importance of political or military history on Languish is playing to the crowd, and emphasizing social history attracts mockery, so let's consider instead economic history. Is it not important? Should it be left out of curriculum? It is not like economic history lends itself well to any sort of highly personalized story with heroes, villains, clear beginings, high-level drama... It has to be constructed that way, tied with all sorts of other concepts which we consider have relevance to our daily lives, whether we want to emphasize the rise of liberalism or denounce its side-effects. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with social history - nothing, that is, short of our own biases.
I'm not claiming that guts or glory is necessary. Nor am I aware that social history is subject to "mockery"(?). I'm saying that the ideologically motivated "corrective" to the "great person"/patriotic narrative of history, in the form taught in Ontario, has been in the past boring and a failure in terms of education, because:
1. It "corrects" something which kids are not aware of in the first place;
2. It does not make for good story-telling, being totally predictable and stereotyped (White Males are invariably the villians);
3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and
4. It leaves kids entirely ignorant of events that establish the benchmarks for all that good social and economic progress in the first place.
The problem is akin to putting the cart before the horse. First have the kids interested in history, then educate 'em with some basic narrative structure while they are interested; once hooked, you can start to get them interested in processes-over-time, the history of comparative economics, the anthropological influences of changing kinship systems, how the role of women has varied over time, changing attitudes towards gays and minorities, etc. etc.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 08, 2011, 02:52:24 PM
No, but I'd rather replace it with sports history. Kids these days don't know any sports history :angry:
I talked to a kid the other day and he had NEVER heard of Pepper Martin :angry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_ie3pMD1M3ao%2FRs5egE8MyJI%2FAAAAAAAAATg%2FLJwlGh6hp50%2Fs720%2FGas%2520House%2520Gang.jpg&hash=b845140c1db4535b133558b6b76c6a3ef524f880)
I mean what has America come to?
Was he named after Dr. pepper? :unsure:
Quote from: Malthus on July 08, 2011, 03:06:18 PM
It isn't really all that mysterious - when an entire generation grows up convinced that there is no subject on earth more boring than the history of your country, and simultaneously knows next to nothing about it, I think a diagnosis of "dismal failure" can be applied.
and
QuoteThe problem is akin to putting the cart before the horse. First have the kids interested in history, then educate 'em with some basic narrative structure while they are interested; once hooked, you can start to get them interested in processes-over-time, the history of comparative economics, the anthropological influences of changing kinship systems, how the role of women has varied over time, changing attitudes towards gays and minorities, etc. etc.
I have no problem as using *that* as a measure of success or failure. But then we must recognize that we are back to some form of patriotism - using mandatory programmes of national history to foster a sense of community (because, why should we care if Canadian history is more boring than, say, American history?). And then it becomes difficult to reject out of hand the notion that we need - as a moral and political choice - to engage with that idea.
But it is, for obvious reasons, a difficult path - and regardless of the quality of either "black" or "worker" or "women" history that was produced. National histories are always battlegrounds. Historians - who produce many of those textbooks - will have a hard time fostering the idea of "progress" (but strangely enough, will be less ambivalent when it is "social progress"), while conservatives resent the "liberal agenda" but will celebrate economic progress.
QuoteIt is of course possible to create engaging narratives concerning the lives of minorities, workers and women. But not if the "plot" is always the same - where they are portrayed in the way noble savages were portrayed by the more florid of Rousseau's followers.
In all fairness, it is not the case, because I just haven't seen the kind of idealized moral portrayal, the fortitude, etc. applied to whole groups. The basic story is usually "they were mistreated, they were proud, they fought back". I would certainly agree that part of the plot is always the same - namely, the inclusion of said category in the group and the story of the rejection, struggle, and triumph. But these are timeless plots. I simply think historians as a whole have declined as writers.
QuoteThat is just deadly in terms of narrative - the villians and heros are all one-dimentional, the plots totally predicatable. (...) 3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and
I disagree strongly. One simply needs to have a look at mainstream cultural products to see that *everyone* gulps down one-dimensional heroes and villains, and that children's books are all based on this very simple canvas. If there are problems, I do not think it is because history is too manichean. I actually think part of the problem is because of the way we want to create nuanced narratives. In the end, it is so nuanced that the original colour is lost, and there is no thread to follow.
Quote from: Malthus on July 08, 2011, 03:06:18 PM
1. It "corrects" something which kids are not aware of in the first place;
2. It does not make for good story-telling, being totally predictable and stereotyped (White Males are invariably the villians);
3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and
4. It leaves kids entirely ignorant of events that establish the benchmarks for all that good social and economic progress in the first place.
I dunno, lots of kids liked Captain Planet.
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
Would psychology be another science that isn't mature?
Quote from: citizen k on July 08, 2011, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
Would psychology be another science that isn't mature?
I don't know much about psychology.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
Perhaps once our scattered photons circumnavigate the collapsing universe and we can see our own past light cone? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 08, 2011, 03:06:18 PM
1. It "corrects" something which kids are not aware of in the first place;
2. It does not make for good story-telling, being totally predictable and stereotyped (White Males are invariably the villians);
3. Even very young children hate having a moral rammed down their throats, and are able to recognize it (and tune it out or ridicule it); and
4. It leaves kids entirely ignorant of events that establish the benchmarks for all that good social and economic progress in the first place.
I dunno, lots of kids liked Captain Planet.
it was because of the russian chick
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 04:58:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
Perhaps once our scattered photons circumnavigate the collapsing universe and we can see our own past light cone? :hmm:
Get a Master's and we'll talk.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 04:58:52 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
Perhaps once our scattered photons circumnavigate the collapsing universe and we can see our own past light cone? :hmm:
Get a Master's and we'll talk.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
I dunno, lots of kids liked Captain Planet.
Only kids wouldn't question the logic of a villain spending all kinds of money to create a factory with the sole purpose of producing sludge to dump in the ocean. :P
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
What's a mature science?
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 05:22:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
What's a mature science?
Brainiac is last person to ask about mature.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 05:22:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
What's a mature science?
Well for one thing it's a science that is building a body of understanding that is based on a scientific method, a body which therefore tends to grow and only experience minor rewriting. Physics is an example of a mature science.
History today is roughly where physics was in the Middle Ages. You have a bunch of people who have opinions, but you have no working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not.
Quote from: katmai on July 08, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 05:22:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
What's a mature science?
Brainiac is last person to ask about mature.
Pick on someone your own size.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:42 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 08, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 05:22:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
What's a mature science?
Brainiac is last person to ask about mature.
Pick on someone your own size.
I am,
you fatty.
Quote from: katmai on July 08, 2011, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:42 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 08, 2011, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 05:22:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
A major problem with history as a school subject is that history isn't a mature science. It's not even close.
What's a mature science?
Brainiac is last person to ask about mature.
Pick on someone your own size.
I am,
you fatty.
WTF I'm gorgeous.
Big and Beautiful!
When did you see my cock?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2011, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 04:48:23 PM
I dunno, lots of kids liked Captain Planet.
Only kids wouldn't question the logic of a villain spending all kinds of money to create a factory with the sole purpose of producing sludge to dump in the ocean. :P
I want to see the Captain Planet episode where he warms up by straight-up murdering some Japanese whalers, before reducing Riyadh to a big smoking pile of debris.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:40:11 PM
When did you see my cock?
I told you stop drunk skyping, but noooooooo!
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans. And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.
I would be disappointed if college bound students were unaware of the tariff. It was not only a pivotal economic event but also a critical moment in the increasing sectionalism of American politics.
Spend any time talking to incoming freshmen, and I think you'll be badly disappointed.
It is probably safe to assume that every American college freshman knows the following:*
1. At some point in the distant past the United States fought a war of independence against a major European or Asian power. An extraordinary Tea Party was a factor.
2. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, and Richard Nixon served as presidents of the United States. Washington was the first president and Lincoln also lived a long time ago, while the latter two were in the twentieth century. Ronald Reagan and George Bush were more recent occupants of the Oval Office.
3. The United States still suffers from the horrors of its slaveholding past, whenever that was. The Civil War, which took place some time between 1750 and 1930, was mixed up in this.
4. Adolf Hitler (a foreigner of some kind) was a very bad man.
5. There was at least one World War, but absolutely not more than three.
*I didn't make this up--it's from a book about errors that college history students have made on exams and assignments, compiled by a history professor. The above was his summation of what he's learned to expect to be the limits of the historical knowledge of his freshment students.
Like all such public displays of errors, it's no doubt edited to make people sound dumber than they are, like those goofy interview-the-public sketches people do for cheap laughs. Vanishly few Americans could be really be unaware that we're English.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 06:31:45 PM
Like all such public displays of errors, it's no doubt edited to make people sound dumber than they are, like those goofy interview-the-public sketches people do for cheap laughs. Vanishly few Americans could be really be unaware that we're English.
Don't call me English, you poophead.
That is an insult. You might as well call me a geordie bastard.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 08, 2011, 06:31:45 PM
Like all such public displays of errors, it's no doubt edited to make people sound dumber than they are, like those goofy interview-the-public sketches people do for cheap laughs. Vanishly few Americans could be really be unaware that we're English.
:yes: No one would buy a book that showed that freshmen were not silly and stupid.
I am sure someone has written another book showing how silly and stupid history professors are.
My experience taking Canadian history in Ontario schools in the nineties, and briefly, the aughties, was more or less exactly the way Malthus described it. The themes and types of stories were all mostly the same, with the same messages wedged into each unit, regardless of its overall importance in that particular narrative. To take just one particularly ridiculous example, in our grade 9 Canadian history unit on WW2 (which was basically an into to WW2), we devoted roughly 50% of the time to studying Japanese internment camps. To the extent there was any unifying narrative at all to Canadian history, I would say it was that there once existed a dark ages of racism which gradually became to be slowly redeemed beginning in the early 60s with the baby boomers' counter-cultural movement and an increasing embrace of multiculturalism.
All this of course made for a snooze fest, so in high school I stopped taking Canadian history courses as early as I could, and took all the available other history courses, which fortunately my school had a good selection of.* These other history courses had some of these same biases as well, but they were much less ham-fisted and ubiquitous. For years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
*Ancient civlilizations, American history, modern western history since 1500, 20th century world history, and another course focusing specifically on Greece & Rome.
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
Well for one thing it's a science that is building a body of understanding that is based on a scientific method, a body which therefore tends to grow and only experience minor rewriting. Physics is an example of a mature science.
History today is roughly where physics was in the Middle Ages. You have a bunch of people who have opinions, but you have no working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not.
You think it is at all a possibility for history to even function this way?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans. And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.
I'm guessing you didn't spend multiple years studying US history in school, either. The tariff was a very big deal at the time--and was a major factor in the election of Jackson and the major issue behind the eventual secession crisis of the early 1830s. I would be disappointed if college bound students were unaware of the tariff. It was not only a pivotal economic event but also a critical moment in the increasing sectionalism of American politics.
Just looked it up and that rings no bells. :mellow:
Although I do remember the Nullification Crisis, so I must have heard about it at some point. :hmm:
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
Well for one thing it's a science that is building a body of understanding that is based on a scientific method, a body which therefore tends to grow and only experience minor rewriting. Physics is an example of a mature science.
History today is roughly where physics was in the Middle Ages. You have a bunch of people who have opinions, but you have no working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not.
You think it is at all a possibility for history to even function this way?
Yes I do, absolutely. But I think it's unlikely that it will happen this century.
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 01:42:53 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
Well for one thing it's a science that is building a body of understanding that is based on a scientific method, a body which therefore tends to grow and only experience minor rewriting. Physics is an example of a mature science.
History today is roughly where physics was in the Middle Ages. You have a bunch of people who have opinions, but you have no working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not.
You think it is at all a possibility for history to even function this way?
Yes I do, absolutely. But I think it's unlikely that it will happen this century.
I'm puzzled...are you deliberately trolling us or not? :hmm:
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 05:42:46 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 01:42:53 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
Well for one thing it's a science that is building a body of understanding that is based on a scientific method, a body which therefore tends to grow and only experience minor rewriting. Physics is an example of a mature science.
History today is roughly where physics was in the Middle Ages. You have a bunch of people who have opinions, but you have no working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not.
You think it is at all a possibility for history to even function this way?
Yes I do, absolutely. But I think it's unlikely that it will happen this century.
I'm puzzled...are you deliberately trolling us or not? :hmm:
FWIW I am not trolling.
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 06:09:25 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 05:42:46 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 01:42:53 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 08, 2011, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 08, 2011, 05:34:09 PM
Well for one thing it's a science that is building a body of understanding that is based on a scientific method, a body which therefore tends to grow and only experience minor rewriting. Physics is an example of a mature science.
History today is roughly where physics was in the Middle Ages. You have a bunch of people who have opinions, but you have no working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not.
You think it is at all a possibility for history to even function this way?
Yes I do, absolutely. But I think it's unlikely that it will happen this century.
I'm puzzled...are you deliberately trolling us or not? :hmm:
FWIW I am not trolling.
I was unaware that historians had developed, or had the possibility to develop, time travel or other such reset buttons; sciences, after all, do tend to be defined by the capacity to perform repeatable experiments in controlled conditions.
How do you envision a "working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not" working?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 06:24:11 AM
I was unaware that historians had developed, or had the possibility to develop, time travel or other such reset buttons; sciences, after all, do tend to be defined by the capacity to perform repeatable experiments in controlled conditions.
They haven't, AFAIK. I am using "science" here in a broad sense that also includes stuff like paleontology and astrophysics.
QuoteHow do you envision a "working scientific procedure in place for establishing which opinions belong in the body of understanding and which do not" working?
Step 1 will have to be the emergence of a collective will among historians to advance our historical understanding in a scientific way. This didn't happen in physics until fairly recently, and I don't think it was inevitable. For a number of reasons I think it is less likely to happen in history.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 08, 2011, 08:10:18 PM
My experience taking Canadian history in Ontario schools in the nineties, and briefly, the aughties, was more or less exactly the way Malthus described it. The themes and types of stories were all mostly the same, with the same messages wedged into each unit, regardless of its overall importance in that particular narrative. To take just one particularly ridiculous example, in our grade 9 Canadian history unit on WW2 (which was basically an into to WW2), we devoted roughly 50% of the time to studying Japanese internment camps. To the extent there was any unifying narrative at all to Canadian history, I would say it was that there once existed a dark ages of racism which gradually became to be slowly redeemed beginning in the early 60s with the baby boomers' counter-cultural movement and an increasing embrace of multiculturalism.
All this of course made for a snooze fest, so in high school I stopped taking Canadian history courses as early as I could, and took all the available other history courses, which fortunately my school had a good selection of.* These other history courses had some of these same biases as well, but they were much less ham-fisted and ubiquitous. For years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
*Ancient civlilizations, American history, modern western history since 1500, 20th century world history, and another course focusing specifically on Greece & Rome.
Perhaps if we were not limited by our biases, we would have found it all kinds of interesting. ;)
It took me a long time to overcome the dislike of Canadian history implanted by our ham-fisted educational system and to realize that, in point of fact, Canadian history has all sorts of interest. None of which was developed in school, of course.
Some of the local stuff overlooked has a distinctly ironic tinge to it - for example, near my own family's cottage is one of the communities that marked the end of the Underground Railway. You would think that such a thing (highlighting the heroic efforts of Blacks to free themselves from slavery) would have been perfect grist for the school history mill, but no - never mentioned. I can only assume it is because it feeds into a narrative (Ontario as haven) which ran counter to the ideology of those presenting the curriculum - our past as a nightmare of racism and repression, from which the '60s ideologues are in the process of saving us.
Indeed, the fate of the runaway slave communities would have been an excellent way of exploring many themes - the fact that they were both accepted and discriminated against; their struggles with an uncaring government; some, the original united empire loyalists, volunteering to fight in the war of 1812. None of this was done.
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AM
Perhaps if we were not limited by our biases, we would have found it all kinds of interesting. ;)
This is not what I wrote at all. But you probably know that.
Quote from: garbon on July 08, 2011, 11:35:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 08, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 02:55:11 PM
I think you vastly over-estimate the historical knowledge of most americans. And I consider myself a history buff and I've never heard of the Tariff of Abominations.
I'm guessing you didn't spend multiple years studying US history in school, either. The tariff was a very big deal at the time--and was a major factor in the election of Jackson and the major issue behind the eventual secession crisis of the early 1830s. I would be disappointed if college bound students were unaware of the tariff. It was not only a pivotal economic event but also a critical moment in the increasing sectionalism of American politics.
Just looked it up and that rings no bells. :mellow:
Although I do remember the Nullification Crisis, so I must have heard about it at some point. :hmm:
Forgetting is one thing, not being taught is another. Perhaps grumbler could shed light on the curriculum regarding the tariff.
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 06:40:09 AM
They haven't, AFAIK. I am using "science" here in a broad sense that also includes stuff like paleontology and astrophysics.
Astrophysics doesn't rely on repeatable and checkable observations?
Paleontologists don't have continual access to the actual physical specimens they are basing their theories on?
Explain where history can match this? Even period writings are often biased, incomplete and innaccurate (consider battle casualty reports if you doubt the last one.)
You are either trolling or insane.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 02:11:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 06:40:09 AM
They haven't, AFAIK. I am using "science" here in a broad sense that also includes stuff like paleontology and astrophysics.
Astrophysics doesn't rely on repeatable and checkable observations?
Paleontologists don't have continual access to the actual physical specimens they are basing their theories on?
Explain where history can match this? Even period writings are often biased, incomplete and innaccurate (consider battle casualty reports if you doubt the last one.)
You are either trolling or insane.
I don't follow. Are you saying that you can't get meaningful understanding from history?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 09, 2011, 11:19:05 AMForgetting is one thing, not being taught is another. Perhaps grumbler could shed light on the curriculum regarding the tariff.
Maybe you went to one of those New School places that would never criticize any tax in any form? :P
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 02:24:52 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 02:11:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 06:40:09 AM
They haven't, AFAIK. I am using "science" here in a broad sense that also includes stuff like paleontology and astrophysics.
Astrophysics doesn't rely on repeatable and checkable observations?
Paleontologists don't have continual access to the actual physical specimens they are basing their theories on?
Explain where history can match this? Even period writings are often biased, incomplete and innaccurate (consider battle casualty reports if you doubt the last one.)
You are either trolling or insane.
I don't follow. Are you saying that you can't get meaningful understanding from history?
I am saying that history can never be reduced to the simple "if A, then B" that an absolutely rigorous science demands because one is reliant on what evidence is available; one cannot recheck data in the way ordinary sciences can by simply performing an experiment or measurement again. Take paleontology, for example; new fossils are always being found. It is vanishingly rare in history for a new period document to be found for anything past the last couple of centuries, yet we have six thousand years of recorded history.
Let's have an example; the Bayeux tapestry has a line saying that "King Harold is killed". yet historians cannot agree whether the figure with an arrow in his eye or the figure being cut down by an axe is Harold. They can't even agree if the tapestry was altered or not when it was restored. Where is the new evidence going to come from to resolve this issue "scientifically"?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 03:16:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 02:24:52 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 02:11:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 06:40:09 AM
They haven't, AFAIK. I am using "science" here in a broad sense that also includes stuff like paleontology and astrophysics.
Astrophysics doesn't rely on repeatable and checkable observations?
Paleontologists don't have continual access to the actual physical specimens they are basing their theories on?
Explain where history can match this? Even period writings are often biased, incomplete and innaccurate (consider battle casualty reports if you doubt the last one.)
You are either trolling or insane.
I don't follow. Are you saying that you can't get meaningful understanding from history?
I am saying that history can never be reduced to the simple "if A, then B" that an absolutely rigorous science demands because one is reliant on what evidence is available; one cannot recheck data in the way ordinary sciences can by simply performing an experiment or measurement again. Take paleontology, for example; new fossils are always being found. It is vanishingly rare in history for a new period document to be found for anything past the last couple of centuries, yet we have six thousand years of recorded history.
Let's have an example; the Bayeux tapestry has a line saying that "King Harold is killed". yet historians cannot agree whether the figure with an arrow in his eye or the figure being cut down by an axe is Harold. They can't even agree if the tapestry was altered or not when it was restored. Where is the new evidence going to come from to resolve this issue "scientifically"?
There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AM
Perhaps if we were not limited by our biases, we would have found it all kinds of interesting. ;)
It took me a long time to overcome the dislike of Canadian history implanted by our ham-fisted educational system and to realize that, in point of fact, Canadian history has all sorts of interest. None of which was developed in school, of course.
To be fair I had the same reaction to US history in public education and our system didn't seem to suffer from the issues you and PP have highlighted. I found it dull because almost every class focused on the same subjects - Revolutionary War to 1820. Lots of glossing till the Civil War period (a little antebellum to a tinge of reconstruction). Then WWI, Great Depression and WWII. We'd basically be taught the same events over and over, except that each year we were instructed to be a little more jaded by introducing more moral shades of gray about America's actions. I think I fell into disliking America by the end of high school. :Embarrass:
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?
Because there is no conceivable way absent time travel that all uncertainties about history can be resolved; that is not true of any subject that is a genuine science. Even paleontology has this as a theoretical possibility, as vanishingly unlikely as that may be, given how the evidence for paleontology is gathered.
The study of History is never classed as a science for good reason.
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?
It has no real specific object of study other than to tell a story.
What would be the object of a "scientifically mature" history?
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 09, 2011, 04:36:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?
It has no real specific object of study other than to tell a story.
What would be the object of a "scientifically mature" history?
There were people who considered history a science before.
An interesting link related to this issue.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/129.html
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 04:33:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 03:23:28 PM
There are uncertainties (often huge) in basically all science. What makes history special?
Because there is no conceivable way absent time travel that all uncertainties about history can be resolved; that is not true of any subject that is a genuine science. Even paleontology has this as a theoretical possibility, as vanishingly unlikely as that may be, given how the evidence for paleontology is gathered.
The study of History is never classed as a science for good reason.
Even if there was a theoretical way to reduce all uncertainties to zero in "genuine science" (which would surprise me) it seems curious to me to think that this difference would be important, since it only comes into play at some point in the very distant future when we have perfected any such genuine science. Until then the situation is the same: uncertainties abound.
I certainly agree that history today is severely lacking in the science department.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
(for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't).
Newton wasn't gay, and neither are you.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 09, 2011, 04:36:54 PM
It has no real specific object of study other than to tell a story.
Any story? Or a story that attempts to explain what happened in the past?
QuoteWhat would be the object of a "scientifically mature" history?
The same as other scientifically mature fields, typically advancing basic understanding or solving specific problems.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2011, 05:34:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
(for example Turing's sexuality was important, Newton's probably wasn't).
Newton wasn't gay, and neither are you.
I've never seen any evidence that Newton was gay. Why is it every historical man who's sexual history is not well know is labeled gay?
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 05:39:12 PM
The same as other scientifically mature fields, typically advancing basic understanding or solving specific problems.
Sorry, let me rephrase that: what would be the specific "thing" which history studies?
Contrary to some other fields of human knowledge, and similarly to others, history's objects - whatever they might be - are not indifferent. There is no indifferent way to read a text, to interpret or discern meaning, and to assert the truth-value of a statement of intent, emotion, or aesthetic judgement. This is not to say we can not achieve this: simply, that there are few ways by which those can be to a large degree independant of both the social, and intimate experience.
Paleontology and astrophysics are indeed good debate points. Yet, both paleontology and astrophysics have built themselves by refering to either highly indifferent science or language, such as physics or math, or mildly indifferent, such as biology and chemistry.
There are precious few such resources in history, and whatever they yield as insight is poor and near-useless: datations, internal coherence, etc. The help historians can conscript in their interpretation of the past is that of very basic psychology, philosophy, litterature, economics. These can lead to debate, often to invalidation and the establishment of "research programmes" designed to test interpretative hypothesis - but such debate and invalidation can not take place within the model of the indifferent sciences.
In other words, I know of no standardized way to interpret a text, extract meaning of it, and establish paradigmatic certainties in the humanities. The knowledge history - or art, litterature, philosophy - yields is of a different nature.
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AMFor years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?
The invention of flannel.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2011, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AMFor years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?
I'm not Malthus, but I thought Dieppe was pretty interesting, in the sense that Canadians were used like the objects on any given episode of Will It Blend. (Which brought new information, if long guessed at, as Australians and New Zealanders had been known to blend since 1915.)
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2011, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AMFor years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?
Heh, that was PP, not me ... but there is *tons* of interesting Canadian history.
To give but two examples, in your neck of the woods, Canada is home to one of the very few areas in the world in which a relatively high civilization (chiefdomships rather than bands or tribes) was built on a hunting/gathering lifestyle - the Pacific West coast natives.
In my neck of the woods - Toronto (then York) was burnt down in the War of 1812; in revenge for that, Washington was burned.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2011, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AMFor years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?
Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history. I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff. Louis Riel. Sam Steele. Billy Bishop. Vimy Ridge. Dieppe. HMCS Bonaventure. FLQ.
I haven't wanted to generalize with Malthus that my own experience was universal to all of Canada. But like Malthus, in school I found Canadian history to (mostly) be a bunch of boring PC platitudes. It wasn't until adulthood I found there were some very cool stories that happened in my own backyard.
One exception - I was in grade school in Saskatoon in 1985 - the 100 year anniversary of the 1885 rebellion. I remember going on a long field trip to Batoche, seeing bullet holes in the buildings and thinking this was all very cool.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 09, 2011, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2011, 05:39:12 PM
The same as other scientifically mature fields, typically advancing basic understanding or solving specific problems.
Sorry, let me rephrase that: what would be the specific "thing" which history studies?
Contrary to some other fields of human knowledge, and similarly to others, history's objects - whatever they might be - are not indifferent. There is no indifferent way to read a text, to interpret or discern meaning, and to assert the truth-value of a statement of intent, emotion, or aesthetic judgement. This is not to say we can not achieve this: simply, that there are few ways by which those can be to a large degree independant of both the social, and intimate experience.
Paleontology and astrophysics are indeed good debate points. Yet, both paleontology and astrophysics have built themselves by refering to either highly indifferent science or language, such as physics or math, or mildly indifferent, such as biology and chemistry.
There are precious few such resources in history, and whatever they yield as insight is poor and near-useless: datations, internal coherence, etc. The help historians can conscript in their interpretation of the past is that of very basic psychology, philosophy, litterature, economics. These can lead to debate, often to invalidation and the establishment of "research programmes" designed to test interpretative hypothesis - but such debate and invalidation can not take place within the model of the indifferent sciences.
In other words, I know of no standardized way to interpret a text, extract meaning of it, and establish paradigmatic certainties in the humanities. The knowledge history - or art, litterature, philosophy - yields is of a different nature.
I don't see it. It seems obvious to me that you can get meaningful understanding from the historical sources (by meaningful I mean better than random). The harder sciences took off when people started to answer the question "OK what
do we know?" and stopped building castles in the sky. It seems very possible to me for history to go down that route too.
As for which specific thing a scientifically mature history would study, probably pretty much the same thing history studies today. I'm not sure what you're after here though.
I think history may become a science passing the same standard of method as other "hard" sciences, once the bulk of its interest become the times where historical records actually became reliable (unless we invent some sort of "time travel").
I don't think a historian in 500 years will have a better scientific toolset to determine what really happened in middle ages than a historian today does - only that a historian in 500 years will have much better records about "what happened 500 years ago" than a historian today has about "what happened 500 years ago".
Quote from: The Brain on July 10, 2011, 02:41:05 AM
I don't see it. It seems obvious to me that you can get meaningful understanding from the historical sources (by meaningful I mean better than random). The harder sciences took off when people started to answer the question "OK what do we know?" and stopped building castles in the sky. It seems very possible to me for history to go down that route too.
Then I don't see what you are aiming at. Your comments are so general that I can safely say that historians are already working that way. But the "what do we know" question is laden with the epistemological problems I have hinted at, about the way knowledge is constructed in both the indifferent sciences and humanities.
I am sure there are "castles in the sky" somewhere - though I am not sure what you are referring to. If it is bad history, well, yes. There is bad history, like bad science, like bad litterature. If then you simply meant that some sciences - like physics - have developped a way to cull out bad science from publications, then again, I can even agree to that. But it goes back to my point about the nature of history and the telling of story. It belongs to everyone. The set skills to write crap popular history is minimal - bar a bit of talent to write. Compare that to the often ghastly scientific journalism. The technical tools of the trade are minimal, the sources spotty and selective. At its heart, history is a work of controlled imagination, but the forms of control are not math, nor physics. Finally, if your "castles in the sky" refer to theoretical musings, some of which you disagree with, it is usually within the grounds of the philosophical enquiries. It can be bad philosophy or social theory, but it can also be quite good.
Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2011, 02:56:43 AMI don't think a historian in 500 years will have a better scientific toolset to determine what really happened in middle ages than a historian today does - only that a historian in 500 years will have much better records about "what happened 500 years ago" than a historian today has about "what happened 500 years ago".
This "what really happened" is an illusion, whether we are talking about 500 y. ago or last year. And I am not talking about determining if this or that battle "really happened" of it is was a complete invention. The point is simply that such establishment of places, dates and peoples is of little interest. What is the best way to tell "what really happened" during the battle of the Somme? Establishing a chronology (itself a process of selection of the central from the peripheric) is useful, but of limited interest. People fought there. So what? What was the point? Why? Who were those people? The questions we might ask of the middle ages are limited by the kind of sources the middle ages produced, which in itself informs us about the middle ages.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 10, 2011, 02:41:05 AM
I don't see it. It seems obvious to me that you can get meaningful understanding from the historical sources (by meaningful I mean better than random). The harder sciences took off when people started to answer the question "OK what do we know?" and stopped building castles in the sky. It seems very possible to me for history to go down that route too.
Then I don't see what you are aiming at.
I know, and I don't think there is a way for me to successfully explain it to you.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 09:39:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2011, 02:56:43 AMI don't think a historian in 500 years will have a better scientific toolset to determine what really happened in middle ages than a historian today does - only that a historian in 500 years will have much better records about "what happened 500 years ago" than a historian today has about "what happened 500 years ago".
This "what really happened" is an illusion, whether we are talking about 500 y. ago or last year. And I am not talking about determining if this or that battle "really happened" of it is was a complete invention. The point is simply that such establishment of places, dates and peoples is of little interest. What is the best way to tell "what really happened" during the battle of the Somme? Establishing a chronology (itself a process of selection of the central from the peripheric) is useful, but of limited interest. People fought there. So what? What was the point? Why? Who were those people? The questions we might ask of the middle ages are limited by the kind of sources the middle ages produced, which in itself informs us about the middle ages.
You personally may not be interested in what actually happened, but many people are. And there are many possible reasons for people to be interested. From curiosity to economic reasons.
Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.
Quote from: The Brain on July 10, 2011, 10:01:07 AM
I know, and I don't think there is a way for me to successfully explain it to you.
Same here.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 10:15:56 AM
Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.
Are you seriously going with the whole we-can't-know-anything-about-the-past stuff? There are many cases of information gained through historical sources being confirmed by other means.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 09, 2011, 11:19:05 AM
Forgetting is one thing, not being taught is another. Perhaps grumbler could shed light on the curriculum regarding the tariff.
Haven't taught US history in some years, so I can't say what is currently taught, but I certainly never taught the Tariff of 1828 as the "Tariff of Abominations" any more than I taught the ACW as "The War of Northern Aggression." I always taught the tariff as part of the Nullification Crisis.
Quote from: The Brain on July 10, 2011, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 10:15:56 AM
Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.
Are you seriously going with the whole we-can't-know-anything-about-the-past stuff? There are many cases of information gained through historical sources being confirmed by other means.
No I am not, and yes there are. Still, provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 10:59:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 10, 2011, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 10:15:56 AM
Provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.
Are you seriously going with the whole we-can't-know-anything-about-the-past stuff? There are many cases of information gained through historical sources being confirmed by other means.
No I am not, and yes there are. Still, provide me with a meaningful definition of something which really happened.
You're barking up the wrong tree. In science you can only reach degrees of uncertainty.
I observe that if we couldn't know anything about what has happened in the past then hard science and engineering wouldn't work since they are based on knowledge about past events.
I know that.
Do you think law is a science?
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 12:09:47 PM
I know that.
Do you think law is a science?
Theory of law is a science (or can be). Law cannot be a science any more gravity could be "science".
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 10, 2011, 12:09:47 PM
I know that.
Do you think law is a science?
Why do you ask?
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2011, 11:42:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2011, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2011, 08:44:32 AMFor years after, even though I majored in history at university, and constantly read history in my spare time, the thought of ever studying Canadian history again seemed exceptionally dull.
Other than the runaway slave bit, what are the bits of Canadian history which you find interesting?
Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history. I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff. Louis Riel. Sam Steele. Billy Bishop. Vimy Ridge. Dieppe. HMCS Bonaventure. FLQ.
I haven't wanted to generalize with Malthus that my own experience was universal to all of Canada. But like Malthus, in school I found Canadian history to (mostly) be a bunch of boring PC platitudes. It wasn't until adulthood I found there were some very cool stories that happened in my own backyard.
One exception - I was in grade school in Saskatoon in 1985 - the 100 year anniversary of the 1885 rebellion. I remember going on a long field trip to Batoche, seeing bullet holes in the buildings and thinking this was all very cool.
I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.
Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2011, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.
Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...
Very funny. :P
Point here is not to puff the exploits of individual Canadians, but to point out that the history of half the continent is, unlike the teaching of it, quite interesting on many levels - as many have discovered as individual hobbiests, and as often recognized by people *outside* of Canada.
An example of this was visiting old Quebec, and seeing all sorts of European tourists drawn by the history of the place - including that of such figures as Wolfe and Montcalm (I dunno, would a Texan have heard of either? ;) ).
As for Canadians actually born as such, that sort of depends on your interests. Certainly some who achieved the most "inspirational exploits" were a pair in my father's old department at U of T - Fredrick Banting who, along with his buddy Best, who discovered the use of Insulin. Considering the average Texan's weight, he ought to be a particular hero in your state ...
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 09:10:35 AM
Considering the average Texan's weight, he ought to be a particular hero in your state ...
No one really remembers who made their drugs.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 09:10:35 AM
Certainly some who achieved the most "inspirational exploits" were a pair in my father's old department at U of T - Fredrick Banting who, along with his buddy Best, who discovered the use of Insulin.
The realization that these two are the most "inspirational" Canadians must leave you sad. :(
Nothing wrong with Banting, mind - clearly a first-class brain (though why he wasted lifespan on an LLD will go down as one of history's mysteries, I suppose :P ). Still, not much inspirational there.
There is part of every history that is quite interesting.
I find colonization of Quebec in the 1800s very interesting.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 10:32:30 AM
The realization that these two are the most "inspirational" Canadians must leave you sad. :(
Huh? Why, exactly?
To me, saving through scienticic discovery millions of people otherwise condemned to death is the opposite of "sad".
These are particular heros of mine, for family-connection reasons. Others may of course make different choices.
QuoteNothing wrong with Banting, mind - clearly a first-class brain (though why he wasted lifespan on an LLD will go down as one of history's mysteries, I suppose :P ). Still, not much inspirational there.
Perhaps not to you. Then, we don't know what inspires you.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
To me, saving through scienticic discovery millions of people otherwise condemned to death is the opposite of "sad".
Same here. Not that this tautology has anything to do with any points I have made.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
To me, saving through scienticic discovery millions of people otherwise condemned to death is the opposite of "sad".
Same here. Not that this tautology has anything to do with any points I have made.
What "points"? The notion that because I named Banting I ought to be sad for some reason? That his & Best's discovery isn't inspirational?
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:00:13 AM
What "points"? The notion that because I named Banting I ought to be sad for some reason? That his & Best's discovery isn't inspirational?
read my post again. The points are right there, clearly stated.
Unfortunately Canada didnt try to rip itself apart in a bloody civil war, didnt have a rebellion against the
Crown and has had the misfortune of not having a miltaristic society and so we do not have "heroes" as some others might define that word.
Another Canadian Hero I would mention is Lester B. Pearson. Again unfortunately he was a person who was instrumental in making and keeping peace. Not enough blood on his hands to rate for others
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 11:05:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:00:13 AM
What "points"? The notion that because I named Banting I ought to be sad for some reason? That his & Best's discovery isn't inspirational?
read my post again. The points are right there, clearly stated.
Glad somebody found your point to be clearly stated.
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 11, 2011, 11:08:34 AM
Unfortunately Canada didnt try to rip itself apart in a bloody civil war, didnt have a rebellion against the
Crown and has had the misfortune of not having a miltaristic society and so we do not have "heroes" as some others might define that word.
for not having a militaristic society (we vent through hockey :P ) Canada did very well in both world wars and the korean war. Even in the afghan war we've done admirably, if not in small numbers.
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 11:05:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:00:13 AM
What "points"? The notion that because I named Banting I ought to be sad for some reason? That his & Best's discovery isn't inspirational?
read my post again. The points are right there, clearly stated.
Are you, or are you not, claiming of Banting's life and work that there is "not much inspirational there"?
Because if so I disagree. I find his life is full of inspiration.
To particularize:
- was wounded under fire in battle in WW1; in spite of his wound, he went on treating others for 16 hours, for which he was awarded the Military Cross for heroism.
- In the 1920s, discovered Insulin's effect of diabetes, for which he was awarded the Nobel prize.
- Shares the money and credit with his assistant Best (though he did not have to).
- In the 30s, becomes interested in aviation medicine. Works secrety in the run-up to WW2. Dies in 1941 while en route to testing a new aviation suit.
Seems to be a life filled with heroism, significant scientific discovery that has helped millions of people survive what was otherwise a fatal condition, and admirably free of selfishness (his treatment of Best was truly noble).
To me, that's inspiring. Maybe not to you. Which I think says something rather more about you.
Edit: it will be interesting to see if you can find an American who matches his achievements - that is who (1) is awarded for heroism under fire; (2) makes a discovery that saves millions of lives and wins a Nobel prize for it; (3) is generous in sharing the credit for this; and (4) dies in the line of duty.
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
We were killing Russians when Canadians were still naked savages.
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
We were killing Russians when Canadians were still naked savages.
You were so busy messing around with the russians that while not paying attention you were absorbed by the danes. danes for gods sake.
:D
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
We were killing Russians when Canadians were still naked savages.
You were so busy messing around with the russians that while not paying attention you were absorbed by the danes. danes for gods sake.
:D
Faggot.
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
We were killing Russians when Canadians were still naked savages.
You were so busy messing around with the russians that while not paying attention you were absorbed by the danes. danes for gods sake.
:D
Or, in his case, Great Danes. :P
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:31:25 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
We were killing Russians when Canadians were still naked savages.
You were so busy messing around with the russians that while not paying attention you were absorbed by the danes. danes for gods sake.
:D
Faggot.
and you have french kings. not even france has french kings anymore. i mean fail much?
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:31:25 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
I would be ashamed to be Canadian. YMMV.
says the swede <_< :P
We were killing Russians when Canadians were still naked savages.
You were so busy messing around with the russians that while not paying attention you were absorbed by the danes. danes for gods sake.
:D
Faggot.
and you have french kings. not even france has french kings anymore. i mean fail much?
At least I don't suck dicks for a living.
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:37:02 AM
At least I don't suck dicks for a living.
now you're not even trying anymore :lol:
Quote from: HVC on July 11, 2011, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 11:37:02 AM
At least I don't suck dicks for a living.
now you're not even trying anymore :lol:
Let's leave this keen encounter of our wits.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:23:46 AM
Edit: it will be interesting to see if you can find an American who matches his achievements - that is who (1) is awarded for heroism under fire; (2) makes a discovery that saves millions of lives and wins a Nobel prize for it; (3) is generous in sharing the credit for this; and (4) dies in the line of duty.
JFK. Did he make a discovery that saved millions of lives? Maybe not, but he was pivotal in the cuban missile crisis, the civil rights movement, and the discovery of the moon (you may say the moon landings didn't really discover the moon, but with the Brain's demands for evidence in science and history, you could say that until we set foot on the moon, the moon was just one theory competing with the concept that it was a giant block of cheese).
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 11:46:26 AM
but with the Brain's demands for evidence in science and history, you could say that until we set foot on the moon, the moon was just one theory competing with the concept that it was a giant block of cheese).
Wut?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:23:46 AM
Edit: it will be interesting to see if you can find an American who matches his achievements - that is who (1) is awarded for heroism under fire; (2) makes a discovery that saves millions of lives and wins a Nobel prize for it; (3) is generous in sharing the credit for this; and (4) dies in the line of duty.
JFK. Did he make a discovery that saved millions of lives? Maybe not, but he was pivotal in the cuban missile crisis, the civil rights movement, and the discovery of the moon (you may say the moon landings didn't really discover the moon, but with the Brain's demands for evidence in science and history, you could say that until we set foot on the moon, the moon was just one theory competing with the concept that it was a giant block of cheese).
Plus he humped Marilyn Monroe. That's got to count for something. :D
But seriously - apples to oranges comparison.
I'd say his actual achievements as President tend to be over-rated because of his assassination. In addition to the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Bay of Pigs, and getting involved in Vietnam. His successor did more for civil rights.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:52:27 AM
Plus he humped Marilyn Monroe. That's got to count for something. :D
But seriously - apples to oranges comparison.
I'd say his actual achievements as President tend to be over-rated because of his assassination. In addition to the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Bay of Pigs, and getting involved in Vietnam. His successor did more for civil rights.
Bah. Even if you give all the blame to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam (and Vietnam would be quite unfair), the Cuban Missile Crisis towers over them in importance. Also, civil rights was his platform.
Worst of all, Marilyn Monroe might have been been forced to sleep with Nixon if she wanted to have an affair with the president. :yucky:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:52:27 AM
Plus he humped Marilyn Monroe. That's got to count for something. :D
But seriously - apples to oranges comparison.
I'd say his actual achievements as President tend to be over-rated because of his assassination. In addition to the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Bay of Pigs, and getting involved in Vietnam. His successor did more for civil rights.
Bah. Even if you give all the blame to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam (and Vietnam would be quite unfair), the Cuban Missile Crisis towers over them in importance. Also, civil rights was his platform.
Worst of all, Marilyn Monroe might have been been forced to sleep with Nixon if she wanted to have an affair with the president. :yucky:
Eh. The missile crisis performance was less than stellar. And civil rights would have advanced faster if Nixon had won that election, I think. I would say he was better at small things that were symbolic but had little impact in that regard. Nixon might have actually taken some chances. If you're going to give him credit for stuff, getting the economy back on track, the moon challenge and making the Irish love us are better examples. :P
The jelly donut fiasco has to count against him as well.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:23:46 AM
Are you, or are you not, claiming of Banting's life and work that there is "not much inspirational there"?
Because if so I disagree. I find his life is full of inspiration.
His life is about as full of inspiration as it is possible to be for a Canadian. Which is to say, not much.
QuoteTo particularize:
- was wounded under fire in battle in WW1; in spite of his wound, he went on treating others for 16 hours, for which he was awarded the Military Cross for heroism.
many, many people continued in action in every war despite being wounded. Some slight inspiration there.
Quote- In the 1920s, discovered Insulin's effect of diabetes, for which he was awarded the Nobel prize.
Great brain work, but nothing inspirational.
Quote- Shares the money and credit with his assistant Best (though he did not have to).
Not extraordinary at all. Many scientists credit fellow scientists and assistants. Admirable, but not inspirational.
Quote- In the 30s, becomes interested in aviation medicine. Works secrety in the run-up to WW2. Dies in 1941 while en route to testing a new aviation suit.
He died in the crash of a plane he wasn't even piloting. Nothing inspirational there.
QuoteSeems to be a life filled with heroism, significant scientific discovery that has helped millions of people survive what was otherwise a fatal condition, and admirably free of selfishness (his treatment of Best was truly noble).
To me, that's inspiring. Maybe not to you. Which I think says something rather more about you.
It doesn't seem to me to be a life full of "heroism" at all. He certainly seems to have been a fine man, but he didn't take risks and he didn't do anything that hundreds or thousands of scientists haven't done before on other research projects.
I'd say your finding hims to be "heroic" says something more about you than my not finding him heroic says about me. You have already conceded that you have family ties to the man. I, OTOH, have no horse in this race.
QuoteEdit: it will be interesting to see if you can find an American who matches his achievements - that is who (1) is awarded for heroism under fire; (2) makes a discovery that saves millions of lives and wins a Nobel prize for it; (3) is generous in sharing the credit for this; and (4) dies in the line of duty.
It will be
more interesting to have you explain why those four, and only those four, items combine to make a "hero" in your eyes. I am not going to try to catch your red herring. It has no significance for me whatever.
lol
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 11:46:26 AM
JFK. Did he make a discovery that saved millions of lives? Maybe not, but he was pivotal in the cuban missile crisis, the civil rights movement, and the discovery of the moon (you may say the moon landings didn't really discover the moon, but with the Brain's demands for evidence in science and history, you could say that until we set foot on the moon, the moon was just one theory competing with the concept that it was a giant block of cheese).
MLK would be a better choice, if you want to try to land his red herring.
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
Yeah, I was just going to ask the same question....
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2011, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:52:27 AM
Plus he humped Marilyn Monroe. That's got to count for something. :D
But seriously - apples to oranges comparison.
I'd say his actual achievements as President tend to be over-rated because of his assassination. In addition to the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Bay of Pigs, and getting involved in Vietnam. His successor did more for civil rights.
Bah. Even if you give all the blame to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam (and Vietnam would be quite unfair), the Cuban Missile Crisis towers over them in importance. Also, civil rights was his platform.
Worst of all, Marilyn Monroe might have been been forced to sleep with Nixon if she wanted to have an affair with the president. :yucky:
Eh. The missile crisis performance was less than stellar. And civil rights would have advanced faster if Nixon had won that election, I think. I would say he was better at small things that were symbolic but had little impact in that regard. Nixon might have actually taken some chances. If you're going to give him credit for stuff, getting the economy back on track, the moon challenge and making the Irish love us are better examples. :P
Okay, but even if I concede all of that, what about Marilyn?
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 11:46:26 AM
JFK. Did he make a discovery that saved millions of lives? Maybe not, but he was pivotal in the cuban missile crisis, the civil rights movement, and the discovery of the moon (you may say the moon landings didn't really discover the moon, but with the Brain's demands for evidence in science and history, you could say that until we set foot on the moon, the moon was just one theory competing with the concept that it was a giant block of cheese).
MLK would be a better choice, if you want to try to land his red herring.
I like Kissinger. Though he's not dead yet.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 12:53:40 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2011, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 11:52:27 AM
Plus he humped Marilyn Monroe. That's got to count for something. :D
But seriously - apples to oranges comparison.
I'd say his actual achievements as President tend to be over-rated because of his assassination. In addition to the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Bay of Pigs, and getting involved in Vietnam. His successor did more for civil rights.
Bah. Even if you give all the blame to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam (and Vietnam would be quite unfair), the Cuban Missile Crisis towers over them in importance. Also, civil rights was his platform.
Worst of all, Marilyn Monroe might have been been forced to sleep with Nixon if she wanted to have an affair with the president. :yucky:
Eh. The missile crisis performance was less than stellar. And civil rights would have advanced faster if Nixon had won that election, I think. I would say he was better at small things that were symbolic but had little impact in that regard. Nixon might have actually taken some chances. If you're going to give him credit for stuff, getting the economy back on track, the moon challenge and making the Irish love us are better examples. :P
Okay, but even if I concede all of that, what about Marilyn?
I gotta concede that saving Marilyn from having to sleep with Nixon is pretty heroic. :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 12:50:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 11:46:26 AM
JFK. Did he make a discovery that saved millions of lives? Maybe not, but he was pivotal in the cuban missile crisis, the civil rights movement, and the discovery of the moon (you may say the moon landings didn't really discover the moon, but with the Brain's demands for evidence in science and history, you could say that until we set foot on the moon, the moon was just one theory competing with the concept that it was a giant block of cheese).
MLK would be a better choice, if you want to try to land his red herring.
I was putting a lot of stock in JFK discovering the moon (posthumously).
I saw a NASA exhibition today. It was a bit disappointing actually, but at least they had Russian space vodka on display.
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 12:58:27 PM
I saw a NASA exhibition today. It was a but disappointing actually, but at least they had Russian space vodka on display.
Not enough animals and Butts?
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 12:56:38 PM
I gotta concede that saving Marilyn from having to sleep with Nixon is pretty heroic. :D
True heroism will be if you respond to grumbler's post point by point, and then dedicate to outlast him in this thread. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 11, 2011, 12:59:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2011, 12:58:27 PM
I saw a NASA exhibition today. It was a but disappointing actually, but at least they had Russian space vodka on display.
Not enough animals and Butts?
They had several space toilets but you weren't allowed to try them. I found out.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 12:49:02 PM
His life is about as full of inspiration as it is possible to be for a Canadian. Which is to say, not much.
If winning a metal for bravery by saving people under fire while wounded *and* winning a Nobel prize for saving millions by discovering insulin "isn't much" then what IS? :lol:
QuoteI'd say your finding hims to be "heroic" says something more about you than my not finding him heroic says about me. You have already conceded that you have family ties to the man. I, OTOH, have no horse in this race.
It will be more interesting to have you explain why those four, and only those four, items combine to make a "hero" in your eyes. I am not going to try to catch your red herring. It has no significance for me whatever.
Seems to me you are making a fool of youself over this, just because your feeble attempt at Canada-bating has turned sour on you. A military hero *and* nobel prize-winning scientist not enough "inspiration" for you? What, as others have asked, is?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 11, 2011, 01:00:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 12:56:38 PM
I gotta concede that saving Marilyn from having to sleep with Nixon is pretty heroic. :D
True heroism will be if you respond to grumbler's post point by point, and then dedicate to outlast him in this thread. :lol:
Alas, I am no Sir Fredrick Banting. I can neither do an inspirational feat such as the discovery of insulin, nor outlast Grumbler's attempt to recover from making a fool of himself. :(
Being immaculately conceived, unjustly executed, and still getting the last word.
EDIT: Spell checker seemed to have change a word to something I didn't really want to write. I hope nobody caught it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
I think that the most heroic people are those who could have hated and maybe even should have hated, but didn't, and resisted the temptation over some period of time. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and their ilk.
Probably next on my list would be those who deliberately sacrificed their lives so that others might live. People like Liviu Librescu and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (a Canadian, btw). This happens frequently in wartime, by policemen, and by firemen, but in a way it is even more heroic when done by people who haven't had to consider the possibility until the moment came.
And, of course, people who risk life and/or health to aid others are heroic, though not perhaps so heroic as those who act knowing the price they will pay. Arland Williams five times passed on the rescue line to his fellow survivors in the Air Florida Flight 90 disaster. By the time they had all been rescued, he had succumbed.
I consider people like that heroic.
Who do you consider heroic?
I think people who worked in WTC buildings were heroic. Not all of them, just the ones that didn't manage to make it down in time.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 01:10:32 PM
...nor outlast Grumbler's attempt to recover from making a fool of himself. :(
Conceding so early? Pity, but there you have it.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
I think that the most heroic people are those who could have hated and maybe even should have hated, but didn't, and resisted the temptation over some period of time. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and their ilk.
Probably next on my list would be those who deliberately sacrificed their lives so that others might live. People like Liviu Librescu and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (a Canadian, btw). This happens frequently in wartime, by policemen, and by firemen, but in a way it is even more heroic when done by people who haven't had to consider the possibility until the moment came.
And, of course, people who risk life and/or health to aid others are heroic, though not perhaps so heroic as those who act knowing the price they will pay. Arland Williams five times passed on the rescue line to his fellow survivors in the Air Florida Flight 90 disaster. By the time they had all been rescued, he had succumbed.
I consider people like that heroic.
Who do you consider heroic?
I see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.
That's fair enough, if oddly unbalanced. I'd say Darwin was a "hero" of mine, even though he'd never risked his life (any more than exploratory sea travel, anyway) or for that matter passed on hating people.
Thing is, Banting was *both*. He'd been decorated for heroism under fire *and* was a scientific hero. How on earth could any thinking person rate him as "not very inspirational"?
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 01:50:30 PM
I think people who worked in WTC buildings were heroic. Not all of them, just the ones that didn't manage to make it down in time.
How many worked in the WTC? Half of them?
Quote from: DGuller on July 11, 2011, 01:50:30 PM
I think people who worked in WTC buildings were heroic. Not all of them, just the ones that didn't manage to make it down in time.
So...the ones who failed. The successful ones who lived--they aren't heroes. Where's the virtue in being a victim?
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 01:59:14 PM
I see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.
That's fair enough, if oddly unbalanced. I'd say Darwin was a "hero" of mine, even though he'd never risked his life (any more than exploratory sea travel, anyway) or for that matter passed on hating people.
Thing is, Banting was *both*. He'd been decorated for heroism under fire *and* was a scientific hero. How on earth could any thinking person rate him as "not very inspirational"?
I see. So, (to play the Malthus game of pretending that a list is
ipso facto exclusive), to be heroic one has to be either Banting, or Darwin?
And (to play the Malthus game, again, now turning this into a contest of not ideas, but personalities), what kind of person cannot simply defend his own ideas, accept that other people have other opinions, and and eschew making this issue about "any thinking person?"
Banting, like hundreds of thousands of people in wars throughout time, was wounded and carried on. Like hundreds of thousands of scientists, he discovered things. His scientific skills allowed him to solve a problem that had flummoxed others, and he is rightly remembered as one of the bright lights of Canadian science. But, in the end, he just did his job (and did it well). I don't find that very inspirational.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
I think that the most heroic people are those who could have hated and maybe even should have hated, but didn't, and resisted the temptation over some period of time. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and their ilk.
Probably next on my list would be those who deliberately sacrificed their lives so that others might live. People like Liviu Librescu and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (a Canadian, btw). This happens frequently in wartime, by policemen, and by firemen, but in a way it is even more heroic when done by people who haven't had to consider the possibility until the moment came.
And, of course, people who risk life and/or health to aid others are heroic, though not perhaps so heroic as those who act knowing the price they will pay. Arland Williams five times passed on the rescue line to his fellow survivors in the Air Florida Flight 90 disaster. By the time they had all been rescued, he had succumbed.
I consider people like that heroic.
Who do you consider heroic?
The Branches of Ares.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 02:15:51 PM
I see. So, (to play the Malthus game of pretending that a list is ipso facto exclusive), to be heroic one has to be either Banting, or Darwin?
Wait, isn't that the Grumbler game - played in your very first post, where you mocked my choice as if it was the best Canadian anyone could mention? I rather think so.
I said:
QuoteAs for Canadians actually born as such, that sort of depends on your interests. Certainly some who achieved the most "inspirational exploits" were a pair in my father's old department at U of T - Fredrick Banting who, along with his buddy Best, who discovered the use of Insulin.
You said:
QuoteThe realization that these two are the most "inspirational" Canadians must leave you sad.
Emphasis added.
Who is "pretending that a list is
ipso facto exclusive" here? Why, you.
QuoteAnd (to play the Malthus game, again, now turning this into a contest of not ideas, but personalities), what kind of person cannot simply defend his own ideas, accept that other people have other opinions, and and eschew making this issue about "any thinking person?"
In light of the above, this is fucking hilarious, even for you. Who the hell started this off by attacking
my personal opinion?
QuoteBanting, like hundreds of thousands of people in wars throughout time, was wounded and carried on. Like hundreds of thousands of scientists, he discovered things. His scientific skills allowed him to solve a problem that had flummoxed others, and he is rightly remembered as one of the bright lights of Canadian science. But, in the end, he just did his job (and did it well). I don't find that very inspirational.
That's your opinion; I do not share it, and neither did those who awarded him his award for heroism and his Nobel prize - last I checked, they did not hand out "hundreds of thousands" of Nobel prizes.
I'm afraid my opinion has rather more to back it up than yours.
Damn, sorry Malthus I was just making a cheap joke. I had no idea what powers I was unleashing.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2011, 02:42:42 PM
Damn, sorry Malthus I was just making a cheap joke. I had no idea what powers I was unleashing.
The path to the dark side can be started with one mis-step.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
I think that the most heroic people are those who could have hated and maybe even should have hated, but didn't, and resisted the temptation over some period of time. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and their ilk.
Probably next on my list would be those who deliberately sacrificed their lives so that others might live. People like Liviu Librescu and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (a Canadian, btw). This happens frequently in wartime, by policemen, and by firemen, but in a way it is even more heroic when done by people who haven't had to consider the possibility until the moment came.
And, of course, people who risk life and/or health to aid others are heroic, though not perhaps so heroic as those who act knowing the price they will pay. Arland Williams five times passed on the rescue line to his fellow survivors in the Air Florida Flight 90 disaster. By the time they had all been rescued, he had succumbed.
I consider people like that heroic.
Who do you consider heroic?
Wow, Jesus Christ must be at the top of your list then ;)
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2011, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.
Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...
Billy Bishop? Or is he an embarassment now?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 11, 2011, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2011, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.
Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...
Billy Bishop? Or is he an embarassment now?
I'm pretty sure I mentioned him. :Canuck
And why on earth would he ever be thought of as an embarassment?
Though if you want an inspirational Canadian hero (though not meeting the grumbler criteria for the most part) look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Steele
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2011, 02:59:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?
I think that the most heroic people are those who could have hated and maybe even should have hated, but didn't, and resisted the temptation over some period of time. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and their ilk.
Probably next on my list would be those who deliberately sacrificed their lives so that others might live. People like Liviu Librescu and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (a Canadian, btw). This happens frequently in wartime, by policemen, and by firemen, but in a way it is even more heroic when done by people who haven't had to consider the possibility until the moment came.
And, of course, people who risk life and/or health to aid others are heroic, though not perhaps so heroic as those who act knowing the price they will pay. Arland Williams five times passed on the rescue line to his fellow survivors in the Air Florida Flight 90 disaster. By the time they had all been rescued, he had succumbed.
I consider people like that heroic.
Who do you consider heroic?
Wow, Jesus Christ must be at the top of your list then ;)
It kinda detracts from heroism when you know you will come back to life after 3 days, you know.
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2011, 11:42:08 PM
Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history. I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff. Louis Riel. Sam Steele. Billy Bishop. Vimy Ridge. Dieppe. HMCS Bonaventure. FLQ.
The Klondike Gold Rush, Riel, and FLQ, and Steele and Bishop to a lessor extent I'll grant you, but IMO the search for the Northwest passage (and related Arctic explorations), Vimy Ridge, and Dieppe are more World History than Canadian History. And what's the historical significance of the Bonaventure? It doesn't seem more historically important than many other light carriers laid down in WWII.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 09:10:35 AM
An example of this was visiting old Quebec, and seeing all sorts of European tourists drawn by the history of the place - including that of such figures as Wolfe and Montcalm (I dunno, would a Texan have heard of either? ;) ).
You'll be lucky to find a Texan who knows any history besides the Alamo.
Quote from: MalthusI see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.
To be fair, he did include those who risk life and/or health to aid others, not just those who die in action.
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2011, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 11, 2011, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2011, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.
Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...
Billy Bishop? Or is he an embarassment now?
I'm pretty sure I mentioned him. :Canuck
And why on earth would he ever be thought of as an embarassment?
What's the phrase?
Something like "line shooter" isn't it?
His exploits could be genuine or they could be so much hot air. I know Mannock's total was artificially inflated to try and lift him above Bishop, but even when you strip the egregious additions out Mannock, McCudden and several others have more kills that can be crosschecked and confirmed with German records than Bishop has - quite a lot more IIRC.
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2011, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2011, 11:42:08 PM
Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history. I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff. Louis Riel. Sam Steele. Billy Bishop. Vimy Ridge. Dieppe. HMCS Bonaventure. FLQ.
The Klondike Gold Rush, Riel, and FLQ, and Steele and Bishop to a lessor extent I'll grant you, but IMO the search for the Northwest passage (and related Arctic explorations), Vimy Ridge, and Dieppe are more World History than Canadian History. And what's the historical significance of the Bonaventure? It doesn't seem more historically important than many other light carriers laid down in WWII.
What does it matter that items like that are world history - they're also an important part of Canadian history too.
And HMCS Bonaventure? I just was so surprised when I found out (as an adult) we actually used to have an aircraft carrier. It was certainly never taught in school.
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2011, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: MalthusI see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.
To be fair, he did include those who risk life and/or health to aid others, not just those who die in action.
Or maybe "heroes" is just not a very meaningful conceptual category for assessing people's lives. I can see "heroic actions" being useful, but a person's life assessed as "heroic"...?
I'd be more interested in assessing a list of Canadian "world-historical individuals"... ;)
The guy who came up with Timbits.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 11, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2011, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: MalthusI see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.
To be fair, he did include those who risk life and/or health to aid others, not just those who die in action.
Or maybe "heroes" is just not a very meaningful conceptual category for assessing people's lives. I can see "heroic actions" being useful, but a person's life assessed as "heroic"...?
I'd be more interested in assessing a list of Canadian "world-historical individuals"... ;)
Sure - define "world-historical individuals".
Quote from: Barrister on July 11, 2011, 05:41:28 PM
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2011, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2011, 11:42:08 PM
Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history. I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff. Louis Riel. Sam Steele. Billy Bishop. Vimy Ridge. Dieppe. HMCS Bonaventure. FLQ.
The Klondike Gold Rush, Riel, and FLQ, and Steele and Bishop to a lessor extent I'll grant you, but IMO the search for the Northwest passage (and related Arctic explorations), Vimy Ridge, and Dieppe are more World History than Canadian History. And what's the historical significance of the Bonaventure? It doesn't seem more historically important than many other light carriers laid down in WWII.
What does it matter that items like that are world history - they're also an important part of Canadian history too.
It doesn't "matter" I don't suppose--it's just that those are things that someone not specifically studying Canadian history should still be familiar with if they have a good general knowledge of world history.
Quote
And HMCS Bonaventure? I just was so surprised when I found out (as an adult) we actually used to have an aircraft carrier. It was certainly never taught in school.
Ok, but that puts you in a group with the Netherlands, Australia, and Argentina--none of which are exactly prominent in the history of nanal aviation.
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 06:08:42 PM
Sure - define "world-historical individuals".
I know shamefully little about Canadian history, but I am surely not trying to get in on the Canada-bashing by any means. I think one way to tell a good narrative to the youth is to look at the history of a nation-state, e.g. Canada, and look at the figures who radically transformed that society (or were positioned to act at the moment of a radical transformation of that society), and examine the way their decisions/historical moment came to be and the effects they had. A moral or ethical analysis is definitely part of this, but needn't be guiding. With Oex, I think there is definitely a problem with teaching a corrective narrative when the "incorrect" one is unfamiliar to the student.
I was being ironic with Hegel's "world-historical" phrase, just to give another way of recognizing Important Individuals without getting into the whole "hero"-or-not debate (which I remember being kind of acute after 9/11). Someone like Andrew Jackson is clearly pivotal in US history, but completely ambivalent at best in terms of the current morality. Heroism seems to me to be something that can really only be identified in certain moments or actions (and even then tends to be complicated: for instance, is self-sacrifice the value to be privileged above all else in determining a hero?), rather than a person's life or historical legacy.
EDIT: I don't know, I've just never been that attached to the idea of the "hero." I am inspired by historical personages, sometimes quite movingly, but I don't necessarily feel that heroism is the best lens to understand them. MLK, for instance, was both an amazingly important and valuable historical figure, and a complicated and not uniformly "heroic" human being. Hero-izing him may elevate a certain kind of significance while also erasing valuable human elements of his life as a man. And, for me, MLK only exists in the context in which he existed; there really can be no "MLK" without Malcolm X, without SNCC, etc. I think the "hero" tendency may reduce a person's appreciation for both the historical moment and the extraordinary actions of the individual. To continue with MLK, his nonviolence for example can only really be appreciated when you see that there were strong and legitimate actors at the same moment rejecting a nonviolent approach.
Didn't we start out at "inspirational" or thereabouts? I think it's a more useful term if we are still at least partly talking about history's boringness or lack thereof.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 11, 2011, 06:38:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 11, 2011, 06:08:42 PM
Sure - define "world-historical individuals".
I know shamefully little about Canadian history, but I am surely not trying to get in on the Canada-bashing by any means. I think one way to tell a good narrative to the youth is to look at the history of a nation-state, e.g. Canada, and look at the figures who radically transformed that society (or were positioned to act at the moment of a radical transformation of that society), and examine the way their decisions/historical moment came to be and the effects they had. A moral or ethical analysis is definitely part of this, but needn't be guiding. With Oex, I think there is definitely a problem with teaching a corrective narrative when the "incorrect" one is unfamiliar to the student.
Actually, that was me, not Oex.
QuoteI was being ironic with Hegel's "world-historical" phrase, just to give another way of recognizing Important Individuals without getting into the whole "hero"-or-not debate (which I remember being kind of acute after 9/11). Someone like Andrew Jackson is clearly pivotal in US history, but completely ambivalent at best in terms of the current morality. Heroism seems to me to be something that can really only be identified in certain moments or actions (and even then tends to be complicated: for instance, is self-sacrifice the value to be privileged above all else in determining a hero?), rather than a person's life or historical legacy.
EDIT: I don't know, I've just never been that attached to the idea of the "hero." I am inspired by historical personages, sometimes quite movingly, but I don't necessarily feel that heroism is the best lens to understand them. MLK, for instance, was both an amazingly important and valuable historical figure, and a complicated and not uniformly "heroic" human being. Hero-izing him may elevate a certain kind of significance while also erasing valuable human elements of his life as a man. And, for me, MLK only exists in the context in which he existed; there really can be no "MLK" without Malcolm X, without SNCC, etc. I think the "hero" tendency may reduce a person's appreciation for both the historical moment and the extraordinary actions of the individual. To continue with MLK, his nonviolence for example can only really be appreciated when you see that there were strong and legitimate actors at the same moment rejecting a nonviolent approach.
There is no lack of Canadians who have radically transformed their society. To name a recent one, think of Trudeau. His legacy (for good or ill) lives on today, and still gets Canadians worked up.
I assumed that what you were looking for by "world-historical" was Canadians who had serious significance to world history outside of Canada itself. Note that such a term would exclude people like MLK who, for all his significance within the US, really has none outside it.
Naturally, Canada has had less of an impact in "world-historical" terms than the US, but certainly there have been events in Canada that have had "world-historical" significance - even if the actors were not always Canadian. One example would be the seizure of Quebec from the French by Wolfe.
More recently, another "world-historical" figure would be Lester Pearson - he was the guy mostly responsible for that ambiguous organ of world politics, the UN peacekeeping mission. He won a Nobel for his efforts.
Quote from: dps on July 11, 2011, 05:36:40 PM
You'll be lucky to find a Texan who knows any history besides the Alamo.
And really is there anything else worth knowing?
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Dont know about that. Most people probably didnt know about Milk until the movie. Most people probably dont know about Parks unless they have a special interest in that area. MLK gets a lot of exposure so everyone knows about him but that is in the same way that everyone knows about Ghandi or Mandela - not because of the dominance of American culture but because the story is so compelling.
Nobody cares about Harvey Milk here either.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Harvey Milk had a national impact? I wager that most people in the US had never heard of him until the movie came out. Sort of like you, I suppose.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Harvey Milk had a national impact? I wager that most people in the US had never heard of him until the movie came out. Sort of like you, I suppose.
I'd agree that the Twinkie defense had more impact than Harvey Milk.
CC, you are right about noone knowing about Milk before the movie - but that's my point. They know now. An openly gay politician was elected to the Warsaw city council during the elections last year - and of course everybody called him the "Polish Milk". All I'm saying is that American history has an over-exposure due to American culture (mainly, movies) being dominant.
So you're not really talking about Milk's impact, but Sean Penn's impact.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Harvey Milk had a national impact? I wager that most people in the US had never heard of him until the movie came out. Sort of like you, I suppose.
No disagreement there. That's the beauty of the collective consciousness. Once you put something in it, it seems as if it has always been there. And history can only be appreciate as a cohesive narrative in retrospect. Milk is now a part of the same narrative as Stonewall, the AIDS crisis, prop eight and New York gay marriage. And it is inspiring people around the world.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 02:31:05 PM
So you're not really talking about Milk's impact, but Sean Penn's impact.
Does it matter anymore?
But Milk wasn't heroic which makes it a moot point.
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2011, 02:34:59 PM
But Milk wasn't heroic which makes it a moot point.
But was he inspirational? He did give his life in the course of his duties.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2011, 02:34:59 PM
But Milk wasn't heroic which makes it a moot point.
But was he inspirational? He did give his life in the course of his duties.
I don't know. I never got Milk.
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2011, 02:43:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 12, 2011, 02:34:59 PM
But Milk wasn't heroic which makes it a moot point.
But was he inspirational? He did give his life in the course of his duties.
I don't know. I never got Milk.
I drink milk almost every day. :)
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 02:32:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Harvey Milk had a national impact? I wager that most people in the US had never heard of him until the movie came out. Sort of like you, I suppose.
No disagreement there. That's the beauty of the collective consciousness. Once you put something in it, it seems as if it has always been there. And history can only be appreciate as a cohesive narrative in retrospect. Milk is now a part of the same narrative as Stonewall, the AIDS crisis, prop eight and New York gay marriage. And it is inspiring people around the world.
But it's not really there, is my point. If you're not a heterophobe, you're not really paying attention to the narrative, and things like Milk and Stonewall remain minor events that gay people talk about, but you don't really pay attention to.
As for AIDS, well that was bigger than gays, and really still is.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.
Harvey Milk had a national impact? I wager that most people in the US had never heard of him until the movie came out. Sort of like you, I suppose.
I never heard of him until NYC opened that school for 'gay children' and named it after him.
The only thing I know about Milk is that he's an annoying holier-than-thou douche.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 03:20:03 PM
But it's not really there, is my point. If you're not a heterophobe, you're not really paying attention to the narrative, and things like Milk and Stonewall remain minor events that gay people talk about, but you don't really pay attention to.
I'm not a heterophobe but I think Stonewall was a landmark event for gays and somewhat for straights as that marks when you had to start dealing with gays all unfettered and out & about. ;)
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 03:20:03 PM
As for AIDS, well that was bigger than gays, and really still is.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.admin.uio.no%2Ffa%2Ffelles%2Fcountries%2Fafrica%2Fimages%2FAfrica%2520Satellite%2520small.jpg&hash=d60da198ab8f29ddc4e2ae8a898d376b234f3102)
Don't forget Asia. And Russia. And Vancouver.
And I don't think that straights really have to deal with gays much, unless you're unfortunate enough to be in an area that is heavily gay.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 05:13:58 PM
Don't forget Asia. And Russia. And Vancouver.
I wasn't trying to be exhaustive, just providing a counterpoint.
Harvey Milk? Assuming it's not a cultural joke that's going over my head, who is (or was) he? :huh:
Quote from: Agelastus on July 12, 2011, 05:15:56 PM
Harvey Milk? Assuming it's not a cultural joke that's going over my head, who is (or was) he? :huh:
I don't think they've made an anime about it yet.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 12, 2011, 05:15:56 PM
Harvey Milk? Assuming it's not a cultural joke that's going over my head, who is (or was) he? :huh:
I don't think they've made an anime about it yet.
You'll note that my rep is also that of a student of history; I've still never heard of this guy though.
I first heard about Harvey Milk in my advanced economics class, in relation to the twinkie defense, which itself was in relation to the discussion of the legal system.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 12, 2011, 05:22:08 PM
You'll note that my rep is also that of a student of history; I've still never heard of this guy though.
I'm happy for you?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 12, 2011, 05:15:56 PM
Harvey Milk? Assuming it's not a cultural joke that's going over my head, who is (or was) he? :huh:
America's answer to Ernst Rohm.
So, three people being cleverdicks instead of answering my question forced me to revert to Google, no doubt their intent.
I now know who Harvey Milk was; a man that another man was so determined to see dead that the other man splattered Milk's brains across the floor by using hollow point bullets at a ridiculously close range. I'm sure the knowledge may be of some use to me. :unsure:
Dan White is a hero to the republic.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 12, 2011, 07:38:43 PM
Dan White is a hero to the republic.
Not really. He made a gay martyr. Milk would be hardly adored if he hadn't been so graphically killed.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 12, 2011, 07:38:43 PM
Dan White is a hero to the republic.
Not really. He made a gay martyr. Milk would be hardly adored if he hadn't been so graphically killed.
Well, he is adored by idiots. White probably didn't kill Milk because he was gay. The mayor wasn't gay, and the two other board members he intended to kill weren't gay (at least I don't think so). It seems to have been a spree killing by a man with a grudge and a few screws loose.
Rohm would make a better martyr for the gay cause. His homosexuality was at least the nominal reason for his assassination.
I like the cut of your jib.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:06:31 PM
Well, he is adored by idiots. White probably didn't kill Milk because he was gay. The mayor wasn't gay, and the two other board members he intended to kill weren't gay (at least I don't think so). It seems to have been a spree killing by a man with a grudge and a few screws loose.
It doesn't really matter why he was killed but rather that he was killed. Rather dramatic end for the first publicly elected gay official in California. Anyway, I tend to agree that they are. I don't really see why he's consider that important. Portrayals make him seem like an asshole.
After all Raz, Versace wasn't likely killed for his sexuality either but that didn't really make it less of a to-do.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 08:11:46 PM
Portrayals make him seem like an asshole.
Well, he
was from San Francisco.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:14:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 08:11:46 PM
Portrayals make him seem like an asshole.
Well, he was from San Francisco.
He wasn't from SF, I think he moved there in his late 30s or early 40s.
Good enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:18:08 PM
Good enough.
I think the descriptor that you are looking for is "New Yorker". :contract:
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 08:20:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2011, 08:18:08 PM
Good enough.
I think the descriptor that you are looking for is "New Yorker". :contract:
He lived in SF for long enough that he adopted their asshole mannerisms.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 08:21:43 PM
He lived in SF for long enough that he adopted their asshole mannerisms.
Really? Because by my reckoning he was only in the city slightly more than a decade. And not even during his formative years.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2011, 08:24:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 08:21:43 PM
He lived in SF for long enough that he adopted their asshole mannerisms.
Really? Because by my reckoning he was only in the city slightly more than a decade. And not even during his formative years.
So? People assimilate.
He was from the Five Towns, Nassau County, Long Island, USA. :showoff:
And he was an actuary. :)
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 11:09:12 PM
And he was an actuary. :)
and he liked penis'. you two are like kindred spirits :w00t: :P
Quote from: HVC on July 12, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 11:09:12 PM
And he was an actuary. :)
and he liked penis'. you two are like kindred spirits :w00t: :P
Asshole. :ultra:
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 12, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2011, 11:09:12 PM
And he was an actuary. :)
and he liked penis'. you two are like kindred spirits :w00t: :P
Asshole. :ultra:
comeon. it's funny :P you can call me an eggplant if it makes you feel better :D