3 ms·

That's not the opposite of what I wrote above. That's merely another kind of overcorrection!

monocasa 6y ago
I'm seeing a much more nuanced and complete understanding of history out of children these days than what was taught to me is my point, in contrast to what you're saying. Can you give some specific examples?
- parineum 6y ago
  Not the parent but I can see where you're both coming from. I think there's a lot more in depth look at US history, specifically the warts, than when I was a kid but I also think there's a lot less pre-US American history where the focus would be on _why_ the founding fathers were (partially) great men. That seems like an over correction to me and I think that it shows in the push to tear down monuments of great people in American history who were largely products of their time. For example, it's hard to overstate how important it was that George Washington gave up the presidency. He set the stage for the peaceful transition of power in the US and even the world. But he also was a rich guy who owned slaves. It's not nuance that's missing, it's the concept of duality.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    What makes you think they're not being taught that still?
    - stcredzero 6y ago
      I hope they are, but yet some large number of people who want to post stuff online are promulgating a ridiculous one-sided view. That the United States is essentially a slave state, and that all of the wealth was created on the backs of slavery, and thus all of that wealth should be given over. The fact that this sort of dreck isn't widely debunked and ridiculed whenever it appears is kind of mind boggling. Yes, some very bad things happened. But by the same token, the founding fathers weren't B-movie villains doing bad things for the evulz!
      - monocasa 6y ago
        > That the United States is essentially a slave state, and that all of the wealth was created on the backs of slavery I mean, all of that is true. Nobody thinks that the founding fathers were B movie villains, only that they were overwhelmingly a set of people looking to maintain and increase their power leveraging their ability to own people like cattle, and steal land from the people who were already here as an economic concentrate and multiplier. Treating them as infallible gods who were uncompromisingly dedicated to the public good holds our country back from what it could be. I'd recommend An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard as a introduction into how the constitution was designed to reinforce the power structures holding up the people who wrote it.
        stcredzero 6y ago
        I mean, all of that is true. For the US as a whole? No way! If it were true, the economic might of the South would have overwhelmed the North. The opposite was true. Slavery held the South back, economically. You've been fed some propaganda lies, there! You can't even get slaves to reliably do high value-add work which requires attention to detail, even on pain of death. It turns out that to do this sustainably, you pay them bomuses. This was especially the case in the US South. Certainly the Germans found this out as well, in the 1940's. (Through failure, in that case.) (Skeptical? Read yourself some books by distinguished African American economist Thomas Sowell, then get back to me. He used to be a Marxist, then became disillusioned and started debunking their lies and deceptions. Think about it, if slavery were some miraculous universal engine of productivity, wouldn't startups be doing it?) Treating them as infallible gods who were uncompromisingly dedicated to the public good holds our country back from what it could be. Sure. However, throwing out certain principles which make our society great will hold us back and throw us further backwards as well. Instead of being told the truth about how civics really works in the US, students are being propagandized against this.
        skissane 6y ago
        Speaking as an Australian, I've always thought that the British were not actually that bad–at least in their treatment of those people whom the American founding fathers cared about. Australians never had to fight for their freedom from the British, we were given it. In fact, the British Empire offered the self-governing dominions – of which Australia was one – effective independence in 1931 (by the Statute of Westminster), and it took Australia 11 years to actually accept that offer, which just goes to show how eager Australia was to be independent. You read the US Declaration of Independence, and you'd think that life in Canada and Australia and New Zealand must be absolutely horrible, and yet the actual experience of that life is that it compares favourably overall to life in the US. You can point to some things those countries maybe do worse than the US does, but you can equally point to other things those countries arguably do better. (And a lot of that comparison comes down to personal value judgements about how much priority you put on various pros and cons.) Some of the complaints in the US Declaration of Independence are really quite pathetic. They complained about cultural rights for French Canadians ("For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province" is complaining about the British allowing French Canadians to keep the French legal system, which they viewed as important in preserving their culture). They complained about the British government imposing limits on European settlement in Native American lands. Some of their examples of "tyranny" were arguably good things. Of course, the British were bad, in a lot of ways – colonisation, slavery, genocide, theft of land from indigenous peoples – but can you really argue that in those ways the Americans turned out better? If you want to look at slavery in particular, the British Empire officially abolished slavery in 1833, it took the US another 32 years (and a terrible war) to reach the same outcome. I think it is likely that if the American Revolution had never happened (or had been a failure), the abolition of slavery would have reached the American South earlier. So was the American Revolution then really about freedom? If Americans are finally realising that much of their national mythology is unbelievable, is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say that Australia has no national mythology, but I feel like it is a lot thinner than America's, and maybe that's not a bad thing? Maybe the thinning out of American national mythology is something to be welcomed?
    - parineum 6y ago
      I generally don't hear it acknowledged in the conversatioms about these figures by people who criticize them. Anecdotally I don't hear it from some younger reltives of mine. It's just a feeling I get. I don't know that it's not being taught but the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged or that those contributions are taken for granted.
      - stcredzero 6y ago
        the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged This is the very opposite of nuanced.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        The disagreement is on one side of the argument, so it's not surprising that the other side isn't brought up in your casual conversations. Taking that to mean that kids aren't taught anymore that the founding fathers had positive qualities is a misjudgement of the situation on your end.
        parineum 6y ago
        My younger relatives are early 20s so I'm not talking about children here and we're not having casual conversations. A symptom of what I'm talking about about is the example I gave of George Washington. A great majority of the admiration I have for him is vested in his decision to relinquish power after two terms as President when many feel he could have gone on to be a life long President and how that set the precedence for the peaceful transfer of power. I've found that aspect of his character to be completely disregarded and taken for granted. It's not that they think owning slaves is a bigger negative than that positive, is that they don't even entertain that it's a point in his favor, like the peaceful transfer of power was a foregone conclusion. I really do think that's an over correction. Some correction of his myth was definitely needed so I'm not saying this is completely wrong but I think the correction is more needed in the way we think of historical figures as good guys and bad guys instead of some mix of both, as we all are. Instead, the founding fathers seem to have just been moved from good guy to bad guy. Now, I don't know what's actually being taught but I do see the result, which is all I'm speaking to.

I'm seeing a much more nuanced and complete understanding of history out of children these days than what was taught to me is my point, in contrast to what you're saying. Can you give some specific examples?

parineum 6y ago
Not the parent but I can see where you're both coming from. I think there's a lot more in depth look at US history, specifically the warts, than when I was a kid but I also think there's a lot less pre-US American history where the focus would be on _why_ the founding fathers were (partially) great men. That seems like an over correction to me and I think that it shows in the push to tear down monuments of great people in American history who were largely products of their time. For example, it's hard to overstate how important it was that George Washington gave up the presidency. He set the stage for the peaceful transition of power in the US and even the world. But he also was a rich guy who owned slaves. It's not nuance that's missing, it's the concept of duality.
- monocasa 6y ago
  What makes you think they're not being taught that still?
  - stcredzero 6y ago
    I hope they are, but yet some large number of people who want to post stuff online are promulgating a ridiculous one-sided view. That the United States is essentially a slave state, and that all of the wealth was created on the backs of slavery, and thus all of that wealth should be given over. The fact that this sort of dreck isn't widely debunked and ridiculed whenever it appears is kind of mind boggling. Yes, some very bad things happened. But by the same token, the founding fathers weren't B-movie villains doing bad things for the evulz!
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > That the United States is essentially a slave state, and that all of the wealth was created on the backs of slavery I mean, all of that is true. Nobody thinks that the founding fathers were B movie villains, only that they were overwhelmingly a set of people looking to maintain and increase their power leveraging their ability to own people like cattle, and steal land from the people who were already here as an economic concentrate and multiplier. Treating them as infallible gods who were uncompromisingly dedicated to the public good holds our country back from what it could be. I'd recommend An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard as a introduction into how the constitution was designed to reinforce the power structures holding up the people who wrote it.
      - stcredzero 6y ago
        I mean, all of that is true. For the US as a whole? No way! If it were true, the economic might of the South would have overwhelmed the North. The opposite was true. Slavery held the South back, economically. You've been fed some propaganda lies, there! You can't even get slaves to reliably do high value-add work which requires attention to detail, even on pain of death. It turns out that to do this sustainably, you pay them bomuses. This was especially the case in the US South. Certainly the Germans found this out as well, in the 1940's. (Through failure, in that case.) (Skeptical? Read yourself some books by distinguished African American economist Thomas Sowell, then get back to me. He used to be a Marxist, then became disillusioned and started debunking their lies and deceptions. Think about it, if slavery were some miraculous universal engine of productivity, wouldn't startups be doing it?) Treating them as infallible gods who were uncompromisingly dedicated to the public good holds our country back from what it could be. Sure. However, throwing out certain principles which make our society great will hold us back and throw us further backwards as well. Instead of being told the truth about how civics really works in the US, students are being propagandized against this.
        skissane 6y ago
        Speaking as an Australian, I've always thought that the British were not actually that bad–at least in their treatment of those people whom the American founding fathers cared about. Australians never had to fight for their freedom from the British, we were given it. In fact, the British Empire offered the self-governing dominions – of which Australia was one – effective independence in 1931 (by the Statute of Westminster), and it took Australia 11 years to actually accept that offer, which just goes to show how eager Australia was to be independent. You read the US Declaration of Independence, and you'd think that life in Canada and Australia and New Zealand must be absolutely horrible, and yet the actual experience of that life is that it compares favourably overall to life in the US. You can point to some things those countries maybe do worse than the US does, but you can equally point to other things those countries arguably do better. (And a lot of that comparison comes down to personal value judgements about how much priority you put on various pros and cons.) Some of the complaints in the US Declaration of Independence are really quite pathetic. They complained about cultural rights for French Canadians ("For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province" is complaining about the British allowing French Canadians to keep the French legal system, which they viewed as important in preserving their culture). They complained about the British government imposing limits on European settlement in Native American lands. Some of their examples of "tyranny" were arguably good things. Of course, the British were bad, in a lot of ways – colonisation, slavery, genocide, theft of land from indigenous peoples – but can you really argue that in those ways the Americans turned out better? If you want to look at slavery in particular, the British Empire officially abolished slavery in 1833, it took the US another 32 years (and a terrible war) to reach the same outcome. I think it is likely that if the American Revolution had never happened (or had been a failure), the abolition of slavery would have reached the American South earlier. So was the American Revolution then really about freedom? If Americans are finally realising that much of their national mythology is unbelievable, is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say that Australia has no national mythology, but I feel like it is a lot thinner than America's, and maybe that's not a bad thing? Maybe the thinning out of American national mythology is something to be welcomed?
  - parineum 6y ago
    I generally don't hear it acknowledged in the conversatioms about these figures by people who criticize them. Anecdotally I don't hear it from some younger reltives of mine. It's just a feeling I get. I don't know that it's not being taught but the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged or that those contributions are taken for granted.
    - stcredzero 6y ago
      the attitude seems to be that a person who owned slaves shouldn't have their accomplishments and contributions acknowledged This is the very opposite of nuanced.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      The disagreement is on one side of the argument, so it's not surprising that the other side isn't brought up in your casual conversations. Taking that to mean that kids aren't taught anymore that the founding fathers had positive qualities is a misjudgement of the situation on your end.
      - parineum 6y ago
        My younger relatives are early 20s so I'm not talking about children here and we're not having casual conversations. A symptom of what I'm talking about about is the example I gave of George Washington. A great majority of the admiration I have for him is vested in his decision to relinquish power after two terms as President when many feel he could have gone on to be a life long President and how that set the precedence for the peaceful transfer of power. I've found that aspect of his character to be completely disregarded and taken for granted. It's not that they think owning slaves is a bigger negative than that positive, is that they don't even entertain that it's a point in his favor, like the peaceful transfer of power was a foregone conclusion. I really do think that's an over correction. Some correction of his myth was definitely needed so I'm not saying this is completely wrong but I think the correction is more needed in the way we think of historical figures as good guys and bad guys instead of some mix of both, as we all are. Instead, the founding fathers seem to have just been moved from good guy to bad guy. Now, I don't know what's actually being taught but I do see the result, which is all I'm speaking to.