Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

WTF?  Your children learn their own nation's history in a high school world history course?

That explains a lot.

Think about what you posted then think real hard why we would learn about our history in a world history course. We have a U.S. History course and a World History course but not seeing how the U.S. is intertwined with the world throughout recent history is poor comprehension at best.

 

How America fits into the world is an aspect of American history and should of been discussed during an American history class.

It's discussed and covered in both. It's just a matter of how much which depends on if you are learning World History or U.S. History how deeply discussed it will be.

 

Sounds like redundancy to me.  When I took a world history course in school I learned about the history of other regions of the world.  When I learned about national history I learned about my nation's history which included our history within the global community.

If Jefferson is discussed in US history is there really any need for him to be covered again in a world history course?

Well this is basically what I said. Did you not learn about Canada's involvement in WW I and WW II when learning world history or was that considered national history? It's not redundant to touch on the U.S. involvement in major happenings in World History. Then to do a fine focus on it during national history. Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening.

Also to answer your bottom question I would say no, he only needs to be discussed under national history.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

WTF?  Your children learn their own nation's history in a high school world history course?

That explains a lot.

Think about what you posted then think real hard why we would learn about our history in a world history course. We have a U.S. History course and a World History course but not seeing how the U.S. is intertwined with the world throughout recent history is poor comprehension at best.

 

How America fits into the world is an aspect of American history and should of been discussed during an American history class.

It's discussed and covered in both. It's just a matter of how much which depends on if you are learning World History or U.S. History how deeply discussed it will be.

 

Sounds like redundancy to me.  When I took a world history course in school I learned about the history of other regions of the world.  When I learned about national history I learned about my nation's history which included our history within the global community.

If Jefferson is discussed in US history is there really any need for him to be covered again in a world history course?

Well this is basically what I said. Did you not learn about Canada's involvement in WW I and WW II when learning world history or was that considered national history? It's not redundant to touch on the U.S. involvement in major happenings in World History. Then to do a fine focus on it during national history. Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening.

Also to answer your bottom question I would say no, he only needs to be discussed under national history.

Canada's role in WW2 is national history.  The other nations involved is world history.  We learned about national history first.

"Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening."

Do you realize, that by the above sentence, you're suggesting that Jefferson and the Age of Enlightenment wasn't discussed during US history?

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

WTF?  Your children learn their own nation's history in a high school world history course?

That explains a lot.

Think about what you posted then think real hard why we would learn about our history in a world history course. We have a U.S. History course and a World History course but not seeing how the U.S. is intertwined with the world throughout recent history is poor comprehension at best.

 

How America fits into the world is an aspect of American history and should of been discussed during an American history class.

It's discussed and covered in both. It's just a matter of how much which depends on if you are learning World History or U.S. History how deeply discussed it will be.

 

Sounds like redundancy to me.  When I took a world history course in school I learned about the history of other regions of the world.  When I learned about national history I learned about my nation's history which included our history within the global community.

If Jefferson is discussed in US history is there really any need for him to be covered again in a world history course?

Well this is basically what I said. Did you not learn about Canada's involvement in WW I and WW II when learning world history or was that considered national history? It's not redundant to touch on the U.S. involvement in major happenings in World History. Then to do a fine focus on it during national history. Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening.

Also to answer your bottom question I would say no, he only needs to be discussed under national history.

 

Canada's role in WW2 is national history.  The other nations involved is world history.  We learned about national history first.

"Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening."

Do you realize, that by the above sentence, you're suggesting that Jefferson and the Age of Enlightenment wasn't discussed during US history?

Well, you make it sound like when discussing D-Day and the invasion of Normandy your World History teachers says "The U.S. troops were to attack Utah and Omaha Beaches. While the British troops take Gold and Sword beach. All the while an unknown force attacks Juno. This unknown force will be discussed in National History."

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by gnomexxx

WTF?!?!?! 

Texas BOE Removes Jefferson From History Standard

Who are these people that are coming up with these decisions?  I thought neo-cons always complained that other were rewriting history.

Is it clear now that neither of these groups are for freedom and liberty?

CRY ME A RIVER! 

Texas is the BEST run STATE in the UNION! Do not believe it? Look it up yourself! Only State that year to year has a SURPLUS. Has no deficit. Has a state ran health care that makes Obamas plan look like it was made by someone with a 1 digit IQ. Ohh wait! IT WAS!

Can only LAUGH at Liberals and Socialists who are mad at such! Most are RETARDED IDIOTS to begin with.

So you solely base success on economics?  Okay, then I guess a con man is okay in your book?  I mean, yeah, he was stealing from people and lying to them, but hey he made some money, so what?

Knowing our history and how this country developed is one of the primary things that will keep us respectful of the freedom and liberty we were given.  If we cannot learn not only who the founding fathers were, but also what their core beliefs and motivations were then we haven't been given enough of the story to understand what this country is all about.

Oh, and btw.  Next time you go throwing around the accusations of someone being a liberal or socialist, why don't you find out who they are first?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think removing Jeffersom from the History Books is always a mistake.  He was the most anti-government pro-freedom founding father.  Also it was a very pivitol time in history.  The Confederation of the Rhine, the French Revolution, and the evolution of modern day democracy.

 

But dont' forget that George Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams who all came before Jefferson supported a strong national government, and the Federalist Party.

Jefferson supported the REPUBLICAN party, and he didn't gain control until 3 Presidential terms after the founding of America.

So it's disingenuous to say the country was founded on Jeffersonian principles of "anti-government".

That was POLITICS that came AFTER the founding of the country.

it's also worth noting that Jefferson, because of his anti government stance gutted the Navy, slashing the Budget by 2/3's.

This bit him in the ass during the war of 1812 with Britain, and he was wishing he had a stronger Navy.

Also worthy of note that Jefferson spouted a bunch of things like the current republicans, saying this is unconstitutional, that is unconstitutional.

However, Jefferson often bypassed the Constitution when it suited him. He tried to get rid of Federalist Judges using politics, and was overruled by the Supreme Court.

He also made the  Louisiana purchase, even though he thought it was unconstitutional. He did it because he wanted the land, since he thought America's future lay in agrarian pursuits, and because it was popular.

So, Jefferson was happy to follow the Constitution, when it suited his purposes, and happy not to when he had other policies he wanted to implement.

 

Even the Federalist of the time of this nations conception would be disappointed at how large our federal government has grown.

And if you want to judge a person and their life, then I would recommend looking at their entire life and not just single facets of it.  Yeah, Jefferson did some rather far stretching things that even he admitted went against his principles.  But 99% of the time he fell on the side of smaller government and greater state powers.  Far more than any other President or influential figure in our history.

I gave up on Texas when Bush signed the bill creating "Jesus Day". Nothing they do, however bat-shit insane, surprises me anymore.

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think removing Jeffersom from the History Books is always a mistake.  He was the most anti-government pro-freedom founding father.  Also it was a very pivitol time in history.  The Confederation of the Rhine, the French Revolution, and the evolution of modern day democracy.

 

But dont' forget that George Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams who all came before Jefferson supported a strong national government, and the Federalist Party.

Jefferson supported the REPUBLICAN party, and he didn't gain control until 3 Presidential terms after the founding of America.

So it's disingenuous to say the country was founded on Jeffersonian principles of "anti-government".

That was POLITICS that came AFTER the founding of the country.

it's also worth noting that Jefferson, because of his anti government stance gutted the Navy, slashing the Budget by 2/3's.

This bit him in the ass during the war of 1812 with Britain, and he was wishing he had a stronger Navy.

Also worthy of note that Jefferson spouted a bunch of things like the current republicans, saying this is unconstitutional, that is unconstitutional.

However, Jefferson often bypassed the Constitution when it suited him. He tried to get rid of Federalist Judges using politics, and was overruled by the Supreme Court.

He also made the  Louisiana purchase, even though he thought it was unconstitutional. He did it because he wanted the land, since he thought America's future lay in agrarian pursuits, and because it was popular.

So, Jefferson was happy to follow the Constitution, when it suited his purposes, and happy not to when he had other policies he wanted to implement.

 

Even the Federalist of the time of this nations conception would be disappointed at how large our federal government has grown.

And if you want to judge a person and their life, then I would recommend looking at their entire life and not just single facets of it.  Yeah, Jefferson did some rather far stretching things that even he admitted went against his principles.  But 99% of the time he fell on the side of smaller government and greater state powers.  Far more than any other President or influential figure in our history.

That's all well and good, but it's just politics. It's not the only way the US is supposed to be governed, it's not how the Constitution was designed.

Jefferson had his own political ideas.

Great. But Jefferson's ideas aren't sacrosanct, they aren't the law that the US has gotten away from, we arent' interpreting the constitution wrong, or any of the bullshit some people spout.

It's just POLITICS, nothing more.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

WTF?  Your children learn their own nation's history in a high school world history course?

That explains a lot.

Think about what you posted then think real hard why we would learn about our history in a world history course. We have a U.S. History course and a World History course but not seeing how the U.S. is intertwined with the world throughout recent history is poor comprehension at best.

 

How America fits into the world is an aspect of American history and should of been discussed during an American history class.

It's discussed and covered in both. It's just a matter of how much which depends on if you are learning World History or U.S. History how deeply discussed it will be.

 

Sounds like redundancy to me.  When I took a world history course in school I learned about the history of other regions of the world.  When I learned about national history I learned about my nation's history which included our history within the global community.

If Jefferson is discussed in US history is there really any need for him to be covered again in a world history course?

Well this is basically what I said. Did you not learn about Canada's involvement in WW I and WW II when learning world history or was that considered national history? It's not redundant to touch on the U.S. involvement in major happenings in World History. Then to do a fine focus on it during national history. Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening.

Also to answer your bottom question I would say no, he only needs to be discussed under national history.

 

Canada's role in WW2 is national history.  The other nations involved is world history.  We learned about national history first.

"Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening."

Do you realize, that by the above sentence, you're suggesting that Jefferson and the Age of Enlightenment wasn't discussed during US history?

Well, you make it sound like when discussing D-Day and the invasion of Normandy your World History teachers says "The U.S. troops were to attack Utah and Omaha Beaches. While the British troops take Gold and Sword beach. All the while an unknown force attacks Juno. This unknown force will be discussed in National History."

Consider this, then reword what the world history teacher says so that it makes sense.

Since you're so fond of D-Day I'll use it to illustrate my point.

According to you:

US History:

"The Objectives given to the 1st. Infantry Division (The Big Red One) and the 29th. Infantry Division for D-Day were to secure an area 6 miles deep and 18 miles long."

World History:

"The Objectives given to the 1st. Infantry Division (The Big Red One) and the 29th. Infantry Division for D-Day were to secure an area 6 miles deep and 18 miles long, and to link up with the British forces."

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Wickersham

WTF?  Your children learn their own nation's history in a high school world history course?

That explains a lot.

Think about what you posted then think real hard why we would learn about our history in a world history course. We have a U.S. History course and a World History course but not seeing how the U.S. is intertwined with the world throughout recent history is poor comprehension at best.

 

How America fits into the world is an aspect of American history and should of been discussed during an American history class.

It's discussed and covered in both. It's just a matter of how much which depends on if you are learning World History or U.S. History how deeply discussed it will be.

 

Sounds like redundancy to me.  When I took a world history course in school I learned about the history of other regions of the world.  When I learned about national history I learned about my nation's history which included our history within the global community.

If Jefferson is discussed in US history is there really any need for him to be covered again in a world history course?

Well this is basically what I said. Did you not learn about Canada's involvement in WW I and WW II when learning world history or was that considered national history? It's not redundant to touch on the U.S. involvement in major happenings in World History. Then to do a fine focus on it during national history. Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening.

Also to answer your bottom question I would say no, he only needs to be discussed under national history.

 

Canada's role in WW2 is national history.  The other nations involved is world history.  We learned about national history first.

"Your trying to make it sound like we are being taught the exact same thing in both classes which is not what is happening."

Do you realize, that by the above sentence, you're suggesting that Jefferson and the Age of Enlightenment wasn't discussed during US history?

Well, you make it sound like when discussing D-Day and the invasion of Normandy your World History teachers says "The U.S. troops were to attack Utah and Omaha Beaches. While the British troops take Gold and Sword beach. All the while an unknown force attacks Juno. This unknown force will be discussed in National History."

 

Consider this, then reword what the world history teacher says so that it makes sense.

Since you're so fond of D-Day I'll use it to illustrate my point.

According to you:

US History:

"The Objectives given to the 1st. Infantry Division (The Big Red One) and the 29th. Infantry Division for D-Day were to secure an area 6 miles deep and 18 miles long."

World History:

"The Objectives given to the 1st. Infantry Division (The Big Red One) and the 29th. Infantry Division for D-Day were to secure an area 6 miles deep and 18 miles long, and to link up with the British forces."

I'm sorry we get to choose when we take our courses. I guess you guys don't get that option. If you think that your scenario is right then I cannot help you.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think removing Jeffersom from the History Books is always a mistake.  He was the most anti-government pro-freedom founding father.  Also it was a very pivitol time in history.  The Confederation of the Rhine, the French Revolution, and the evolution of modern day democracy.

 

But dont' forget that George Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams who all came before Jefferson supported a strong national government, and the Federalist Party.

Jefferson supported the REPUBLICAN party, and he didn't gain control until 3 Presidential terms after the founding of America.

So it's disingenuous to say the country was founded on Jeffersonian principles of "anti-government".

That was POLITICS that came AFTER the founding of the country.

it's also worth noting that Jefferson, because of his anti government stance gutted the Navy, slashing the Budget by 2/3's.

This bit him in the ass during the war of 1812 with Britain, and he was wishing he had a stronger Navy.

Also worthy of note that Jefferson spouted a bunch of things like the current republicans, saying this is unconstitutional, that is unconstitutional.

However, Jefferson often bypassed the Constitution when it suited him. He tried to get rid of Federalist Judges using politics, and was overruled by the Supreme Court.

He also made the  Louisiana purchase, even though he thought it was unconstitutional. He did it because he wanted the land, since he thought America's future lay in agrarian pursuits, and because it was popular.

So, Jefferson was happy to follow the Constitution, when it suited his purposes, and happy not to when he had other policies he wanted to implement.

 

Even the Federalist of the time of this nations conception would be disappointed at how large our federal government has grown.

And if you want to judge a person and their life, then I would recommend looking at their entire life and not just single facets of it.  Yeah, Jefferson did some rather far stretching things that even he admitted went against his principles.  But 99% of the time he fell on the side of smaller government and greater state powers.  Far more than any other President or influential figure in our history.

 

That's all well and good, but it's just politics. It's not the only way the US is supposed to be governed, it's not how the Constitution was designed.

Jefferson had his own political ideas.

Great. But Jefferson's ideas aren't sacrosanct, they aren't the law that the US has gotten away from, we arent' interpreting the constitution wrong, or any of the bullshit some people spout.

It's just POLITICS, nothing more.

 

It's not "politics" when force is used by a government on its own people who are simply living by the values of self governance.  It's a lot more once that happens.