It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History that your teachers never taught you.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dookie Master
"That's not in my American History Book" Thomas Ayres

Is another great example of a "revisionist" history compilation. I have been a history teacher in my professional life and one thing students love is to find out something new about history, like the Wright Brothers were not the first to make an scientifically observed, powered, heavier-than-air flight. (Gustave Whitehead)

That one hits home too because I taught in the "First in Flight" State.

Another poster suggested that source material is best, I cannot agree more. When living in DC, I lived on 5th and D NE and the park at the end of the road towards the Capitol Building had a statue of Nathaniel Greene. Being a teacher and interested in the history of my home state, I bought his biography, it was amazing how the letters between he and his wife recorded the struggle for independence so differently, she was in their home state of Rhode Island (I believe) and he was in the Southern Colonies fighting the British. Same time, husband and wife, two completely different accounts of the Revolutionary War.

It can happen that two completely different accounts of the same event can be true.

Very, very true, my friend. I think rather than to adhere to "traditional", "revisionist", "agenda driven", etc, it would benefit our children and our culture to make the point that you do well in your post.
Tolerance can't be mandated but it can be fostered, and teaching that opposing points of view can be valid would be a step in the right direction.




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
What took care of the Indians was a few well paid men who sat around all day shooting the millions of Buffalo that used to roam the midwest.

Literally paid to sit there and shoot day after day after day....so the Indians would be starved to death.

Who paid those few guys to sit there and shoot day after day....shooting millions of rounds and just letting the Buffalo rot. Didn't even use anything on it to try and make money.


It was the railroad barons.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I was always under the impression that the Europeans killed the Bison for sport and food. Granted they ate the Bison, they didn't utilize every single part like the Amerindians did.

So, I don't think that the Europeans killed the Bison to kill off the Amerindians. That's what we were told in our textbooks. Just like they intentionally gave the Amerindians small pox and other disease tainted blankets
History is all about demonizing Europeans... a little something called white guilt perhaps?
Maybe people need to look at that from a different perspective, such as the Europeans had immunities to such diseases so therefore didn't know that they were tainted because they didn't get sick from the blankets themselves and were merely giving said blankets as a good will gesture?
Just my thoughts.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 



The goal was to wipe them out and take the land. The goal was to rebuilt to 'new atlantis'. See Sir Francis Bacon.
edit on 28-5-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Definitely was a plan to wipe the native american populations out. Reservations were set up usually with two different warring tribes residing together.

Another good read is 1491. It tries to go into what the Americas were like before the "European" settlement. I believe somewhere in there was mention of diseases and how the indigenous populations had a different immune system set up. Something of the nature that the natives were more resistant to germ strains, and were very susceptible of viral strains. Granted I'm no phlebotomist or have any real knowledge of how the immune system works, but the explanation given in the book made a bunch of sense as far as the reasoning of the plagues that decimated the native populations.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


One of the best things that I found about teaching in North Carolina is the fact that middle grades history is not tested at the end of the year in a standardized way. The department of public instruction has a standard course of study that teachers are required to follow and get the "greatest hits" (i.e. The Constitution, Europe and South America, Asia and Africa, etc.). My first years teaching I had about 2 1/2 weeks of free time at the end of the year because the students grasp history well when educated appropriately and there was extra time once they had finished their particular standard course of study. I showed videos pertaining to history.

But, I realized that these "extra" days are actually added up from each unit throughout the year. In my third year I began teaching extending lessons, which expanded the students understanding of the topic through different forms (a mercantile game which students chose which colonizing nations they wished to represent, lessons from original source material, research topics). They loved it! I truly enjoyed the educator's profession when they were excited to learn.

They loved hearing of the circumstances of George Washington's capture in the French and Indian War (Fort Necessity)

The "history" I learned in primary school had to be re-learned through many late nights of reading and a well used library card. Now most students go to the library to play flash video games, but there are the few I see reading and learning. It makes me smile.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Wow what an awesome thread.

I'm actually thinking of studying stuff along these lines next year so this caught my eye.

I wonder what would have happened if the natives didn't get sick and that 90% didn't get wiped out. Although as someone said before there were many different tribes they weren't just one united people so who know's maybe the Europeans would have just gone around picking off the tribes one by one? But then on the other hand seeing that could have woken the other tribes up to what was going on and they could have put up more of a fight.

I love threads like this it's awesome to hear heaps of different opinions and theories S&F



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Sahabi
Was this plague a natural phenomena occurring in the Americas, or was it some sort of transfer of European germs (non-deadly to Europeans) onto the Native Americans (no previous immunity) through contact?


And, why did the natives of a any land catch Euro-diseases and not the other way around? Were the Americas disease-free before we got here?


I heard that the reason Natives caught these diseases and suffered more than the European settlers was because The Europeans domesticated animals where the Native Americans didn't. So the Europeans had already been introduced to a whole lot of other things through the animals and built up really strong Immune systems which is why they didn't really catch much sickness from the Native people.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


What I find amazing is that the Native Americans kicked the *blank* out of the Vikings. The vikings! If the plague wouldn't have occurred I believe Europeans would have found it much harder to take their land....


No, that isn't entirely right is it? Several settlers at L'Anse Aux Meadowes had their arses kicked by local indians - after infighting had broken out between the settlers from Iceland and those from Greenland. Eventually, they decided it wasn't worth staying and left.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Also, sorry to have to tell you, but modern values were distilled into law in England with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. However, the Magna Carta itself was based on the Anglo-Saxon version of law in the land, with everyone being held accountable, regardless of rank.

This, in itself, was a throwback to more traditional British values that were subsequently adopted by the invading Anglo-Saxons.

The Vikings themselves had exceptionally fair law courts and community meetings to resolve issues and to set out democratic values. And this is simply 2 examples.

Basically, what i am saying is that regardless of native American achievements, etc, it is simply wrong to say they had any influence on Europe at all, until much much later on (Buffalo Bill Shows).

That is not to downplay Native Americans, more to be realistic about their significance to Europe at the time.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


There are different tribes to this day. And to this day, these tribes are very different from one another. Some like to push the white-guilt "you must be racist because you're white" aspect... others don't buy into it so much. And even within these groups, you find people who are on the opposite side of the debate. Just like any other people, individuals will be individuals... but generally speaking (in my own experience living within walking distance of a reservation) there IS a lot of anti-white racism.
In fact, once I was at a pizza restaurant here in town, and there was a native american woman who complained to the manager that her service was terrible... "maybe its because I dont have blue eyes or blonde hair or whatever, but I feel I was discriminated against." Sounds awful, right? But wait - her WAITRESS was NATIVE AMERICAN! when it was pointed out, the response was that she was living off the reservation too long and bought into the racism.
Incredible.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


As well as Cicero, etc. All of which were around long before Columbus. Good on you for pointing this out.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by therealdemoboy
 


There are a few Indians that have an attitude, I got asked to leave an Indian bar onetime in the seventies. The bartender was Native American and it wasn't a problem with him but he asked me to leave because two Indians there were making an issue of it. I guess the two Indians weren't welcome in another bar in the area lately so they were kinda cranky. The bartender actually thanked me for leaving. I guess I couldn't blame the Indians, I would have sat and shot the $hit them if they would have been friendly.

My family and I were traveling through Alabama one time about twenty four years ago and I wanted to try Chucky's Chicken so we stopped and went inside and ordered a bucket of chicken and sat down. There were a lot of black people in there and we were the only whites. Nobody was saying anything and there were some people staring at us. I looked around and said loudly to the audience "I heard the chicken was good and had to stop and try it." Immediately everyone resumed their conversations and everything was OK. It was really good chicken too. Sometimes it just takes breaking the ice to make everyone feel at home.

I have nothing against any people of a different color or nationality. I always treat others with respect if they treat me likewise. I am no better or worse than anyone here on earth. I try to get along with everyone but sometimes avoid people who look cranky.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join