The Teaching of History

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
I was aware that Japan has a democracy of sorts, but, like the United Kingdom, is it is a constitutional monarchy, therefore I think you oughn't to hold it up as a prime example of democracy.

Oh - well then okay - I guess Britain shouldn't be held up as a prime example of democracy then. Thanks for letting me know. I'll stop thinking of Britain as a fine example of democracy in action. I wonder how many other Briton's would agree with your assessment.

Of course that isn't what you said about Japan - you said they were a monarchy and made a snide remark because i said they were a democracy that we created. Which is the truth. If you looked at their government on the site I had posted - it is very similar to ours - even down to the checks and balances.

[Lady Magpie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yeah - but without a written Constitution - there is nothing to prevent your freedoms from being haphazardly infringed upon. A lot of what Britain does - would not even be allowed under our Constitution. Also - our Constitution is very hard to change - so can not just be changed in the heat of a moment. It protects our freedoms - the Bill of Rights is one of the most important parts of our Constitution there is. The states would not even agree to signing the Constitution without a guarantee that those Amendments would be the first in there.

The Constitution protects our freedoms, disctates how the government works. It takes a super majority to even propose an amendment to the US Consitution.

Some of the states would not sign.

Yes, our consititution is hard to change, and it is meant to protect our freedoms, however, it is very possible to work around what is in the constitution to go ahead and restrict freedoms, especially if the Supreme Court is all or mostly of a certain mindset. (Which it currently isn't but there's the potential that it could be.)
Amending the constitution is not the only way to create changes, and loopholes can be found.

Having a brain in order to vote is a different question -

It certainly helps

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
But JD nor do most have an interest. It is like school sport, generally people's experiences of compulsory exercise at school sour them on it for a lifetime. No teenager wants to sit in a class and listen to the countless 'Amendments' and 'Bills' and the other twaddle you cite so religiously.

Just because someone doesn't want to learn it - doesn't mean it's not important or they shouldn't. By your assessment then I guess we shouldn't teach Shakespeare or math or physics. hell - let's not teach anything - because it's bound to bore someone. But the fact is - that if someone looks at the Constitutional Convention and the people and how it was built by comprises and so forth - it can be interesting.

I wasn't interested that much in the Constitution or American history until I went to England. I used to love England - then I met people - found a lot of people in Britain have a superior attitude toward Americans and America - and that is how my love for the US came to be. Oh - I still find Engish history interesting - I just care more about the US now. It's actually sort of the same experience that happened to Benjamin Franklin and turned him from someone who felt he was a proud British citizen to a key instrument in the Revolution. All with a single visit to King George III's court.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lady Magpie
Some of the states would not sign.

Actually - it was a requirement by the MAJORITY of the states. They only needed 9 signatories to form the US. But the majority of states had declared they would not sign without the amendments.

Yes, our consititution is hard to change, and it is meant to protect our freedoms, however, it is very possible to work around what is in the constitution to go ahead and restrict freedoms, especially if the Supreme Court is all or mostly of a certain mindset. (Which it currently isn't but there's the potential that it could be.)
Amending the constitution is not the only way to create changes, and loopholes can be found.

Yes - the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. Some of the things - such as the income tax may actually go against the Constitution. There are many people who feel the income tax is illegal.

By the way - the Supreme Court Justices do have to be approved by Congress. So it is not just the President appointing anyone. That is another protection in our checks and balances system.

[Lady Magpie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually - it was a requirement by the MAJORITY of the states. They only needed 9 signatories to form the US. But the majority of states had declared they would not sign without the amendments.

I know.

Yes - the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. Some of the things - such as the income tax may actually go against the Constitution. There are many people who feel the income tax is illegal.

That's the problem, then. It comes down to how people interpret it, and that is not always done in a way that is true to the constitution, because no matter what the ideal for how it should work is, people have their interests and no justice is perfect. They're all human. Oh. . .wait. . .we're all human. That's the problem then. But anyway, the point being that it really comes down to the Supreme Court rather than the constitution itself; it comes down to the people interpreting the document, not the document itself.

By the way - the Supreme Court Justices do have to be approved by Congress. So it is not just the President appointing anyone. That is another protection in our checks and balances system.

Yes, I know. I know, I know, I know.

Checks and balances are not entirely infalliable. Just look at some current Supreme Court Justices. Like Scalia.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lady Magpie
That's the problem, then. It comes down to how people interpret it, and that is not always done in a way that is true to the constitution, because no matter what the ideal for how it should work is, people have their interests and no justice is perfect. They're all human. Oh. . .wait. . .we're all human. That's the problem then. But anyway, the point being that it really comes down to the Supreme Court rather than the constitution itself; it comes down to the people interpreting the document, not the document itself.

Well the thing is - that is what laws are - interpreted. Since Madison and Adams and all the others aren't here to tell us exactly what they had planned - we have to interpret their ideas. There is enough documentation in the Federalist Papers and other writings that show what their ideas were. Times also change - so the ideas behind the Constitution change. I personally feel that there should be no income tax, the their should be no federal government sponsored services - that more power should be in the hands of the states - like it was meant to be.

Yes, I know. I know, I know, I know.

Well you would be surprised at how many people don't know.

Checks and balances are not entirely infalliable. Just look at some current Supreme Court Justices. Like Scalia. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Lady Magpie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well the thing is - that is what laws are - interpreted. Since Madison and Adams and all the others aren't here to tell us exactly what they had planned - we have to interpret their ideas. There is enough documentation in the Federalist Papers and other writings that show what their ideas were. Times also change - so the ideas behind the Constitution change. I personally feel that there should be no income tax, the their should be no federal government sponsored services - that more power should be in the hands of the states - like it was meant to be.

Well, yes, that's sort of what I was saying. It has to be interpreted.

I'm not being so happy with the entirety of the human species at the moment. . .

Well you would be surprised at how many people don't know.

Not that surprised. Oh well.

[GrayMouser]

Yes, the sucess of democracy in the United States was certainly an inspiration to liberal reformers and revolutionaries throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, but it is not true that democracy in the rest of the world is simply a following of America's example.

While the French 'Declaration of the Rights of Man" was inspired by the U.S., after the disasters of the Revolution and Napoleon, France, like most of western Europe, based it's government on what was widely viewed as the most successful model - Britain.

Constitutional monarchy, a ministerial government and a limited but gradually expanding franchise- that was the ideal form of government of most of Europe throughout the 19th century.

Even today European governments (with the notable exception of France) follow the parliamentary system originating in Westminster, though it's true that the idea of a written constitution as fundamental law is becoming more popular, even in Britain- with the corresponding increase in the power of the judiciary.

I think the major contribution of the United Sates was as a counter-example to conservative forces who argued that democracy led inevitably to the excesses of the Jacobins- liberal reformers could point to the fastest-growing and most progressive country in the world as a refutation.

The American presidential system was adopted in most of Latin America, and in many African countries, usually degenerating into a caudillism, but most former British colonies, as well as others such as Thailand, and, yes, Japan, adopted the parliamentary model.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Yes, the sucess of democracy in the United States was certainly an inspiration to liberal reformers and revolutionaries throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, but it is not true that democracy in the rest of the world is simply a following of America's example.

While the French 'Declaration of the Rights of Man" was inspired by the U.S., after the disasters of the Revolution and Napoleon, France, like most of western Europe, based it's government on what was widely viewed as the most successful model - Britain.

Constitutional monarchy, a ministerial government and a limited but gradually expanding franchise- that was the ideal form of government of most of Europe throughout the 19th century.

Even today European governments (with the notable exception of France) follow the parliamentary system originating in Westminster, though it's true that the idea of a written constitution as fundamental law is becoming more popular, even in Britain- with the corresponding increase in the power of the judiciary.

I think the major contribution of the United Sates was as a counter-example to conservative forces who argued that democracy led inevitably to the excesses of the Jacobins- liberal reformers could point to the fastest-growing and most progressive country in the world as a refutation.

The American presidential system was adopted in most of Latin America, and in many African countries, usually degenerating into a caudillism, but most former British colonies, as well as others such as Thailand, and, yes, Japan, adopted the parliamentary model.

Britain didn't have a Constitutional monarchy UNTIL after America. Britain changed after America - there was NO Prime Minister during the American Revolution or anything.

So directly or indirectly as I have said repeatedly - Europe followed and learned from America. They took our example of government. it doesn't matter that some of the European countries then followed Britain - the fact remains that the Britain and Europe changed to a representative government with far less power in the monarchy because of what occurred during OUR Revolution and 1787 in Philadelphia. As you said - the idea caught in Europe in the 19th century after WE LED the way for them.

To say that we didn't have a GREAT influence on their countries and their governments is really quite ridiculouse just because their governments are exact models of ours. We have always understood - even when going into countries to develop their governments - that their governments have to a reflection of the people. Japan - we DIRECTLY set up their government - so to say that we didn't have an influence is absurd. We just set up the government in Afganistan and it is very different than the US government - but there are many things that we said are very important for them to have in order to have representative government by the people. That is what is important. In England, France and Europe before the Revolution - we were the sole democracy and from us the idea spread because we had taken the initiative to create a WORKING democracy.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by sun-star
What subjects/events in world history do you think every student should be taught, regardless of where they're from?

Well, if we are to discuss Universal History, as opposed to National History, I would suppose we should focus in the development of Civilization as such; their beginnings and major currents that market the development of our world.
For instance, the Egyptian, Sumerian and early Chinese civilizations are a good example for the study of the beginning, then Greek and Roman civilizations are essential to understand bases of the modern Western civilization, as the Renascence and the Discoveries are to understand how it become a global reality, etc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Well, if we are to discuss Universal History, as opposed to National History

I'm going to point out that everything is a NATIONAL history to someone in the world - whether it is Egyptian, Chinese or Roman - there is a LOCAL level to it. The US has, as well as the Western World at large, made huge contributions to the world and as such should be taught in schools and are of global importance. There is NO reason to just push them aside because it happens to be OUR history.

[Elvellon]

JD, I was NOT answering your posts to begin with, I was answering Sun Flower original post, something you can notice, if you see the quote I made.
Her question is a relevant one, what should be considered important to teach as World History? What factors should be used to define what is relevant?
As I see it, certainly not necessarily the same we use to identify what is relevant for our national History, hence why I made the distinction.
I’m not answering why YOUR country history is, or not, important, neither am I answering why MINE is. I’m answering what kind of events should be relevant, in my mind; those that affected the development of Civilization.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
JD, I was NOT answering your posts to begin with, I was answering Sun Flower original post, something you can notice, if you see the quote I made.
Her question is a relevant one, what should be considered important to teach as World History? What factors should be used to define what is relevant?
As I see it, certainly not necessarily the same we use to identify what is relevant for our national History, hence why I made the distinction.
I’m not answering why YOUR country history is, or not, important, neither am I answering why MINE is. I’m answering what kind of events should be relevant, in my mind; those that affected the development of Civilization.

I realize that - that is why I said I wanted to point out to everyone - not to you in particular - I shoudl have put in "to everyone" like I had planned to make sure it was more clear. I was just saying that there is no real difference between Universal or National history. Universal history is ALWAYS someone else's local history.

At the same time history that affects the world is important - as is local history though too. Local history gives people a sense of self.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Britain didn't have a Constitutional monarchy UNTIL after America. Britain changed after America - there was NO Prime Minister during the American Revolution or anything.
.

Um, yes there was JD, William Pitt the Younger.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Um, yes there was JD, William Pitt the Younger.

He didn't have the same power that the prime minister position has today. So it's not the same.

[Radagast]

I assure you that Pitt was the Prime Minister. As a skilled Parliamentarian, he had significant power. You've changed your statement from 'Pitt was not Prime Minister' to 'It's different 'coz its centuries ago.'

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
I assure you that Pitt was the Prime Minister. As a skilled Parliamentarian, he had significant power.

The King had FAR MORE influence on politics then.

In 1782 he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. The following years were marked by the battle between George III and the radical Charles Fox, who was detested by George. Matters deteriorated when Fox forged an alliance with the previously loyal Lord North. The two men defeated the government and George was forced to ask them to take control.

In December 1783, George III dismissed their coalition and asked Pitt to form a government. He was immediately defeated in Parliament but refused to resign; George III was prepared to abdicate rather than let Fox in again. In 1784 Parliament was dissolved for a general election.

Pitt's success in the election was assured: no government ever lost. Although public opinion helped he was the King's nominee, retaining office only as long as he held George's confidence. His first priority was to restore public finances, ravaged by the cost of the American Revolution. Pitt imposed new taxes and reduced both smuggling and frauds. He also simplified customs and excise duties.

You've changed your statement from 'Pitt was not Prime Minister' to 'It's different 'coz its centuries ago.'

I didn't change it - I just had edited out the part saying he "wasn't Prime Minister" because you are right - he was Prime Minister - I however left everything else in - because it is true - he did NOT have the same power that the Prime Minister has today. The Queen has far less power today than George III had over British affairs during that time.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I was just saying that there is no real difference between Universal or National history.

I disagree. There is a difference, I believe. Facts may remain the same, but not necessarilly their importance nor the reasons for their importance. The perspective changes when we change from national to universal.
What may have an extraordinary local importance may have very limited importance at a global level. It is even possible that the opposite is true; a local fact may be of more importance globally than locally, although I find it an unlikely possibility.
The difference of perspective results in a different emphasis.

[i]
At the same time history that affects the world is important - as is local history though too. Local history gives people a sense of self. [/B]

Of course, History is essential for the Identity of a people.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I disagree. There is a difference, I believe. Facts may remain the same, but not necessarilly their importance nor the reasons for their importance. The perspective changes when we change from national to universal.
What may have an extraordinary local importance may have very limited importance at a global level. It is even possible that the opposite is true; a local fact may be of more importance globally than locally, although I find it an unlikely possibility.
The difference of perspective results in a different emphasis.

You just don't get it - I'm not talking about the importance. I'm saying that for Universal history - it has be local history to SOMEONE out there.

Of course the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention have a VERY different meaning and importance in the US - but none the less it is VERY important to the world at large therefore it SHOULD be taught in a global class room as a key event in World history.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You just don't get it - I'm not talking about the importance. I'm saying that for Universal history - it has be local history to SOMEONE out there.

I do get it, I’m just not speaking of specific events but of concepts. When you say that “Universal history - that has to be local history to SOMEONE out there.” There is no disagreement. Also, you also agree with me that the relevance may change. But there is more; the reasons why a fact is relevant to a nation and why is relevant to the world at large may not be the same, since there is a different perspective, a different focus. This makes them National and Universal History different.