History

[Randy]

Is learning/knowing history important? Why or why not?

Is some history non-important facts that will not help us in any way.. or is all history important?

 

[DrLeftover]

I'm amazed that the question is even asked.



Especially in the era of re-writing history to suit the current political climate.



Education is dangerous - every educated person is a future enemy.

-Hermann Goering

 

[Temerit]

Haha, I thought that would be a quote from a conservative, but I guess he was a fascist.



Understanding history is so very important, it seems that we continue to make the same mistakes. (supply-side economics in the 1920s and in the 80s and 00s) (Vietnam and then Iraq)

 

[Evil Eye]

Knowledge is power, so yes, it's important.

 

[DrLeftover]

Temerit... those that can think are a danger to those who are extreme on any side.

(but I am elated that you recognized the name and the ideology)



How about this?



http://themediadesk.com/files8/killers.htm



Can a book.... kill?



Or maybe the ideas in them.



Four from History are looked at.... you may be surprised at which four.

 

[Temerit]

Temerit... those that can think are a danger to those who are extreme on any side.

Well... extremes are relative.. For example a moderate in Sweeden would be considered an extreme leftist here.

Contrary to your fifth grade Civics class, the War Between the States was not about Slavery

That's bullshit. Conservatives will try to paint it like it was about states rights, but the issue would not have come to a civil war had it not been about human rights.



Where is the Bible? The Qur'an?

 

[DrLeftover]

Originally Posted by Temerit View Post

Quote:

Temerit... those that can think are a danger to those who are extreme on any side.



Well... extremes are relative.. For example a moderate in Sweeden would be considered an extreme leftist here.



Quote:

Contrary to your fifth grade Civics class, the War Between the States was not about Slavery



That's bullshit. Conservatives will try to paint it like it was about states rights, but the issue would not have come to a civil war had it not been about human rights.



Where is the Bible? The Qur'an?

Did you read the article? Or did you just latch on one statement to blast?



Nevermind. I know you didn't read it. Skim it, maybe. Read, no.



The Holy Books were mentioned in the second full paragraph.



Also... Slavery was discussed as the reason for the war as well, and the underlying cause of the war that had been there since Independence. (go find the paragraph that begins But now having said that, we'll say this and read it!) But remember, SC and the others didn't succeed just so they could keep their slaves, they succeeded over Home Rule so that they had the right to do as they pleased, which included holding slaves.



Yes slavery is mentioned in the succession document, but so is the interference by the National Government into what they saw as the State's business.



But you've probably never read that either.

Quote:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.



And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

... ...



Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

 

[DrLeftover]

[quote name='Temerit']

Temerit... those that can think are a danger to those who are extreme on any side.

Well... extremes are relative.. For example a moderate in Sweeden would be considered an extreme leftist here.

Contrary to your fifth grade Civics class, the War Between the States was not about Slavery

That's bullshit. Conservatives will try to paint it like it was about states rights, but the issue would not have come to a civil war had it not been about human rights.



Where is the Bible? The Qur'an?

Did you read the article? Or did you just latch on one statement to blast?



Nevermind. I know you didn't read it. Skim it, maybe. Read, no.



The Holy Books were mentioned in the second full paragraph.



Also... Slavery was discussed as the reason for the war as well, and the underlying cause of the war that had been there since Independence. (go find the paragraph that begins But now having said that, we'll say this and read it!) But remember, SC and the others didn't succeed just so they could keep their slaves, they succeeded over Home Rule so that they had the right to do as they pleased, which included holding slaves.



Yes slavery is mentioned in the succession document, but so is the interference by the National Government into what they saw as the State's business.



But you've probably never read that either.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.



And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

... ...



Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp[/quote]

 

[DrLeftover]

The silence in this thread has become deafening.



Perchance a nerve was struck?

 

[Temerit]

I read the rest of the part about Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I still take up issue that the civil war was about states rights.

 

[DrLeftover]

And you may do so, but you do it in full light of the opening statement of the Succession Document from South Carolina.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;

Link above.



But yes... the major problem they had with the National Government was the issue of Slavery, which they saw as their Home Rule right.

 

[Temerit]

They wouldn't have said, we are succeeding from the union because we like having black people as pets.



They kinda would have liked to have some European support. (slavery was outlawed in Britain)

 

[Temerit]

But, let me ask you this question, who is the bad and the worst? The one that sells slaves or the one that buys slaves? Don't get it confused, Africans sold their own people...

I don't see why this matters when both are so horribly disgusting.

 

[DrLeftover]

The myth is perpetuated.



Look at the slave trade feelings worksheet.



http://www.historyonthenet.com/Lessons/worksheets/black_peoples.htm

 

[Temerit]

Because in history, who gets the worst of the blame?



If both are so horribly disgusting, why doesn't Africans that sold their own kind even mentioned to be monsters?

Considering African living conditions, I'd say they have gotten their share of the punishment.

In history, children only learn about how the early Americans had Africans/Blacks as slaves, but yet doesn't teach the children who sold the slaves to the white people...



I think BOTH parties should be equally has guilty and children should know the true history, not a half true history like pretty much everything else that happened in the past...

Check out DrLeftover's link.

 

[DrLeftover]

I intentionally linked to the entire curriculum so you could get the individual page in context.



There's a certain flavor to the entire thing.

 

[air jordan]

Is learning/knowing history important? Why or why not?

Is some history non-important facts that will not help us in any way.. or is all history important?

yes it is very important in spite of it is boring.

 

[Temerit]

That your point is null and void.

 

[DrLeftover]

This makes a good point.

 

[DrLeftover]

But I can hear the objections now.



Especially since part of it was narrated by Ronald Reagan, those given to such thinking will call it Propaganda.



Well, yes, it is.



But it is also true.