My view on history was that the reason why we had things like religious persecution and tyranny in this country was because we didn't apply ourselves enough to the ideals that the Founding Fathers espoused. And even the Founding Fathers pussied out a couple times on sticking to their own values.
In the same place I was that one time, all the time@ Filby: Did you know that the human brain gets a quick high by dismissing opposing viewpoints out of hand? [1]
@ Thorn14: Yes, people tend to get their political and social views from their family and friends, but those influences will not be reliably nationalistic.
@Inky:
The importance of throne and altar are about the only things I feel comfortable with being propaganda. Those are the basic values that a society needs to minimize homicide.
So why should young impressionable children be ordered to believe in your values rather than mine? Or even better, have schools teach them how to think rather than what to think?
@Thorn: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." Many teachers indoctrinate children that equality is the metric of goodness in society, in order to influence them toward their own position. Hence, propaganda.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardEthnic studies courses have shown to encourage members of minorities to continue studying. Now, I'm not speaking from first hand experience, being European, but I would assume most of US history courses approach the Nations history from a Euroopean-American viewpoint. Not just historical figures, but things like traditions and living conditions. But do they learn about the history of post-slavery South? The history of Mexican California? The history of Chinese railroad workers? Helll, even the history of European immigrants like the HUGE Irish-American and Italian American cultures. They are all importnat parts of US history, while the main narrative of US history is from the view of anglo-saxon protestants.
Also, I don't get why one can't critisize ones founding fathers. I mean, our history books aren't much better, you won't really hear about how pro-Nazi large parts of Finnish elite was ten-thirty years into the country's independance. But that kind of whitewashing history just happens naturally. To actually legistlate it is fucking Orwellian.
@ JQW: You could say that it is mostly European-American centric, because for most of the history of the United States, the leadership of the country was pure whitebread, and most of the population has been white for all of our history.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing the Founding Fathers (as long as it's substantive, but if we outlawed insubstantive dialogue half of no one would be left talking). Free speech is, and must remain, the most central tenet of any democracy. The issue at hand is what sort of image of the Founding Fathers to present in public schooling.
The best course is almost certainly to present the most objectively truthful account possible, but it's fun to muse about social engineering.
All of your history as a nation? Because for the most part I think that big truckload of Native's were a pretty sizeable minority really. Up until the Indian Wars of course.
Fredrick II would not have agreed there Rott. Afterall he didn't want the church getting in the way of his Tyranthood.
edited 16th Jan '11 1:55:01 PM by JosefBugman
@ Inky: Unless you are, in RL, a ridiculously powerful or influential person, your individual values mean about as much as anyone else's here, which is to say nothing at all on any meaningful scale.
EDIT:
@ Bugman: Up until Indians were a small minority, no one counted them as members of the US.
edited 16th Jan '11 1:57:02 PM by Wanderhome
Rottweiler, America doesn't have a king. If equality wasn't a major component of modern American ideology, there's a fair chance you'd be discriminated against for espousing "dangerous" or "outdated" political views.
^ Or, Inky Quills' views on that matter are held by the majority.
Edit: and before I forget, this image was summoned earlier in the thread.
![]() |
Although what cattle have to do with this topic is anybody's guess.
edited 16th Jan '11 1:59:20 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffIn a liberal society, you're able to speak your views and believe in whatever you want to believe, Christian authoritarianism included. Because you are guaranteed the right to believe in whatever you want, you have the legal right not to be persecuted. You are guaranteed the right to participate in debate and preach your views to others. So long as you do not cause physical harm to others through the practice of your beliefs, you are on the same level as everyone else in the eyes of the law.
In a society that only values authoritarianism, however, you are not so fortunate. Should the king or dictator or malicious majority decide that your beliefs are not perfectly in line with theirs, they can kill you, or torture you, or take away your property. You can be executed on the spot, if that's what the law says happens to the people who disagree with the state. And, because you are dead or forcefully converted, you are unable to freely contribute to the national dialog. In the end, the nation itself will be harmed, because the absence of legitimate criticism and free exchange of ideas will ruin any country, and it will either be overturned by rebellion, conquered by those who object to tyranny, or simply fade away.
EDIT: I'm not the only one who believes in an egalitarian and tolerant society, Josef. Most people would claim to be in favor of those things her in the US of A, and many would actually mean it. The country itself was founded on the idea that people had the right to believe whatever they wanted to, and that all men were equal. Certainly, the nation has lapsed on those beliefs throughout history, but it was for want of leaders who sincerely believed in those ideals.
edited 16th Jan '11 2:02:05 PM by InkyQuills
In the same place I was that one time, all the timeMost isn't the same as all, and their experiences would have often been dramatically different from the Anglo-Saxon Protestants *
And the purpose of Ethnic History courses isn't to replace the usuall history course. it's to supplement it. I mean, I would assume most states also have a more detailed look of their state history than the other 49.
So suppressing our culture will gain "unity"? Screw that you might as well dissolve the US if that's the cost, national and regional suppression. Seems like you want to do what the Han Chinese are doing to Tibetans and Uiyghurs......
WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!@ Balloon Fleet: I did not suggest suppression, but the removal of institutional support for the preservation of subcultures.
Active suppression would only create a siege mentality among those belonging to those subcultures, which would be the exact opposite of the desired goal. It would be much better to, as I said, simply stop supporting ethnic divisions. Active encouragement of a Melting-Pot attitude would be helpful, but only if it wasn't forceful.
Wanderhome, I disagree with your idea that a homogeneous nation would be preferable to one with multiple cultures. Even though I hate the idea of "diversity" being applied to ethnicity, sexual orientation and what's in your trousers, the cultures that are associated with ethnicity and all those other traits help provide different perspectives and encourage debate. It leads to intellectual and ideological diversity, which I am very much in favor of.
Unless the culture values crime and stupidity, I don't think that the disappearance of a culture is a good thing, or even as a necessary thing.
In the same place I was that one time, all the timeBacking up a bit to Josef's question about what Inky said on the first page:
You want to know an example of politically slanted history? How about most historical depictions of US History circa 1953-1977.
You'll rarely hear about the fact that Eisenhower a Republican federalized the National Guard to protect the Little Rock Nine. Worse, you'll never hear about the fact that Republicans largely voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 instead you hear all about Strom Thurmond's record breaking filibuster of which literally everybody in Congress said 'enough already' and clotured him. Even worse is many history texts paint Thurmond's actions as representative of white folks as a whole or that of conservatives as a whole.
Then you have the whole Vietnam War issue. There's no such thing as a public school textbook that gives a fair portrayal of Vietnam such as how the Viet Cong were wiped out in the Tet Offensive, how militarily we had the NVA on their knees and their breaking was literally within a couple months during 1973. (But then Congress de-funded the troops) No, it dwells more on things like the My Lai massacre and Walter Cronkite's infamously slanted report during Tet. Then you have the portrayal in history books that everybody was against the Vietnam War when the truth was anything but.
Then you have the ridiculous slanting of Ford's pardon of Nixon in 1975. Sure at the time it was controversial, but here 20-30+ years later when we've learned it was the better thing to do it's still expedient to slant it as crossing the Moral Event Horizon?
Here's another example, US History circa 1929-1945. You'll never hear that Roosevelt was so unpopular that had the GOP fielded a candidate in 1940 with a good foreign policy stance it would have been a landslide in their favor. You'll never hear about the massive bloodbath of Democrats in the 1938 and 1942 Congressional elections. You'll never hear about the failure of the Works Progress Administration to actually alleviate the Great Depression. Roosevelt's infamous "court packing scheme" is largely glossed over nevermind the blatant power grab it was. Instead you hear all about Huey Long and how FDR kicked his shit in, New Deal New Deal New Deal, Hoovervilles and the Hoover Dam, Works Progress Administration and "a date that shall live in infamy".
History texts are loaded with those kinds of political biases.
Encouraging a Melting Pot mentality wouldn't work in the United States as.....it never has existed in the United States to the point that people idealize it, an artifical creation won't work that way. Also the whole "oh sure you were fucked over in the past, just fugget abbout it" doesn't work (See internet forum flamewars via Misplaced Nationalism )
To suppress regional nationalisms basically.
...well you simply don't touch american history at all which is what I did.
edited 16th Jan '11 2:17:33 PM by BalloonFleet
WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!@Tom
And I could say the same about Reagen in the history books, or about Churchill.
Famous (and victorious) people are almost always treated in a positive light. Deal with it.
Also
"you have the portrayal in history books that everybody was against the Vietnam War when the truth was anything but."
Yeah because all those protesters were just one guy cloning himself over and over right? Its just like today, a hugely divided war.
edited 16th Jan '11 2:14:10 PM by Thorn14
@Bobby:
That's true. I'd be in great danger for expressing seditious views wherever the government is progressive, whereas I'm safe under a liberal one.
@Inky: Bullocks. If the United States was as progressive as Canada, the police could haul me before a Human Rights Tribunal for expressing an opinion offensive to equality.
@Bugman: Frederick the Great was not an atheist. Voltaire was on the record as recommending to him that he disestablish the national Lutheran church, because "a great king with a great army has no need for superstition to rule his subjects." This was part of why their friendship soured.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard


Poe's law, nuff said.