yes. How many days? How many days would you put to the Articles of Confederation and that clusterfuck, and then the writing of our Constitution? I'd put more empathsis on the latter, actually, but that's just me.

No, you quite clearly said that the framers decided to use a 'free-er' version of England's poltical system because that's what they're used to. That is an affront to their intelligence.

You did not learn your own history very well.

You are making it sound like the Americans were very passive, and they were anything but, considering they were what we would consider terrorists today. You are also making it sound like Americans behaved as one cohesive unit, and that no stress internal to American politics was relevant or noteworthy to the war. You can pay lip service all you want about how you 'know' that isn't the case, but you keep going on about England, as if I ever said they weren't important.

And yet for all that you still couldn't name any specific acts the English passed over the colonies that riled them so, as you have been asked to earlier. Just saying, but you're talking out of your ass and it shows.

You are not and never have been the boy to judge this.

Time has nothing to do with importance. Where did you get this idea? Dropping the atomic bombs only Japan took a VERY short while from the launch order to the drop, and yet you could hardly call that an unimportant aspect of American History. Massive turning point in WWII as far as USA vs Japan goes, massive social & economic impacts for both Japan & the United States.

EDIT-> I read this wrong. The specific time spent on the Revolutionary war isn't something for me to decide. However, I think it goes without saying that it should be one of the primary parts of American History class - since that is the beginning of America as a country.

I said our government used parts of the English political system. That isn't an affront to anyone's intelligence. It's the damn truth. They took parts of the english political system that worked, and added, changed, & worked with what was needed.

I'm confused. Maybe the Revolutionary war actually wasn't primarily a fight between the English, who still thought they owned the colonies, and the colonists themselves.

No, in fact, I said exactly the opposite. Read my entire post before you respond next time. There was a lot of opposition to the Declaration. The American colonists incited a lot of strife.

And again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Stop jumping to conclusions. Because I mention the importance of English politics at the time of the Revolutionary war doesn't mean I said American politics weren't relevant. In fact I stated exactly the opposite.

The simple fact of the matter is we are talking about things that are relevant to American History outside of the direct unit of "America." What external factors are relevant to the development of America. It goes without saying the American political system plays a major part of ALL American history.

I'm not going to repeat what every 8th grader ought to know.

There isn't anything TO judge. Saying France played a minor role in the revolutionary war as compared to England and the USA isn't judging anything. It's fact. You seem to think all of this is subjective, when most of it isn't.

It has been surmised that, in the revolutionary war itself, the French were a key component to the colonials' victory over the English. Perhaps the French were not a key player in the motivators of the war itself, but they did play a bigger role than that, or so I have been taught.

For god's sake, does a mod want to correct the spelling in the title? I thought it would have been done by now.

EDIT: Thank you.

Which is what I meant, although I didn't explain it that far in depth. They weren't key players in the motivations of the war, thus it makes more sense for a history class to spend more time about the reasons America & England went to war. We shouldn't just drop the importance of French aid during the war, and just not teach it because of that, but....well yeah I'm repeating myself again.

EDIT-> I don't mean to say the French were just almost unimportant to the war. As compared to England and the USA, they are a minor player. That doesn't mean we should drop the reasons France decided to help us gain independance, it just means that as far as the beginnings of America, England and the USA, being the primary players, are more important in a history class. The focus should be on the tensions between America and England, and American and English battles. I'm not trying to say the French victory in Chesapeake, one of the major battles leading to the English surrender in Yorktown isn't unimportant.

France had a smaller OVERALL role, and the reasons for their involvement in the war aren't as important as Englands to bear an in-depth study about the tensions between them and England.

---------------

Regardless, that was just an example to say that there isn't anything to be judged about this. The history of West Africa, while interesting and probably enlightening as well, just isn't important or very relevant to an American history course. That isn't judgement, that's just common sense. The cultural aspects that were carried from West Africa are important, but for American History, it isn't relevant to learn how exactly those cultural aspects developed. Learning how they developed and influenced American society? Yes.

Does the Seven Year's War have an influence on the development of America? Sure. But it's a very minor part. There isn't anything judging in saying that, it's just FACT. American history students don't need to study in depth about the seven year's war, the different battles in the war, etc. That isn't to say they don't need to know it period - but that's best saved for a different class. Knowing that England needed to tax the American colonies in order to recover from that war is all that needs to be taught in such a class - because it has relevance to American history.

My feelings basically are that in current American History curriculum we spend too much time learning about mostly external affairs - like the Seven Year's War - when we should be spending more of that time learning specifically about America.

Wow. This thread went from a discussion on reverse racism to American history, lol. What a twist!!!

To try and link it back in - I think we are spending too much time learning things like the entire social and political structure of the Native Americans, because we feel an overwhelming feeling of guilt for what was essentially a massacre of their entire race. I'm not saying it isn't important to learn about the social & political structure of Native Americans before the colonists arrived - I'm saying that the current curriculum spends far too much time on this. And I feel it's basically because of a guilt feeling. Same with someone suggesting we learn about West Africa - why? There isn't any need to learn much about this in an American History course. I think it's just a feeling of guilt that we once enslaved African-Americans.

But someone also said in their class they just skimmed over the top of Black history in America, which is WRONG. I personally never had this happen, in fact, I had the opposite happen. It's just a different perspective due to different schoolings. There's just disproportionate amount of learning, and a lot of external learnings being brought in, time I feel would be better spent learning about AMERICA. For instance, we spent a good deal of time learning about the countries from which the African-Americans came - and virtually skipped over the entire Industrial revolution.

Because the founding of the nation is so much more hardcore, right?

When a country is greatly responsible for victory in a war, I think they play a bigger part than you think. It's not like the colonists had some massive superarmy, you know. Plus, I don't think anyone was ever saying, "we need to teach the entire history of France in American history classes."
Sure, England and the colonies were "major players," but France is more than deserving to be included as well.

The Seven Years' War then, deserves to be studied even a bit due to the influence it had, transitively, on the French helping the colonials in the revolutionary war. (Sure, France didn't like England, but that conflict was one of France's main motivators to help the colonials at all.)

Also, please be careful with what you call "FACT"; history is not so one-sided--much depends on who you ask, of course.

It is a FACT that Cleopatra was hittable. No, I already confirmed it.

Double Post:
And previous political systems never factored into their consideration; they took what they were used to, right?

And in your opinion, England is king; the rest of Europe is a distant second, and neither Africa or previous indigious people in America matter much at all. That is a horribly ignorant statement, sir! I have already told you this.

Why didn't you learn it then?

You're judging whether or not educators should ignore the rest of the world while talking about America's origins, based on one high school class that you felt had an excessive amount of attention devoted to non-white men but wouldn't change it. I mean, I don't know here. Do you have a valid complaint or don't you?

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/...7_91518415.jpg

You can't tell very well, but the people in this photo are eating burritos.

Well, it is hard to deny that the history courses being taught in American schools are wholly inadequate. It is true that too much time is spent teaching politically correct history as opposed to real history. The entire month of February, for example< is spent teaching so called black history, since its black history month, as if black history is something seperate from the rest of history. kids are taught about obscure histroical figures, instead of real history changing people, in the name of being diverse. Same thing happens around Cinco d' Mayo and the like. I mean lets be honest here..does George Washington Carver deserve equal billing as a scientist with Albert Einstein, yet thats how its presented in schools because the belief is that black kids need black heroes to shore up their self esteem. Did Martin Luther King do more for the United States that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or FDR for that matter, yet the teaching on them is relegated to secondary status, and they don't even get a holiday thats recognized in any way as much as MLK.

This crappy, politically correct history teaching is why people have no idea what a huge role the french played in the American revolution, or that the hessians fought with the british, or that black troops fought for both sides. And thats just one tiny aspect of history that is neglected in order to appease the special interest groups that all demand history be taught their way.

PC history is the reason we ignore the French? wait what

Your emphasis on Black History Month out of fucking nowhere is a bit telling.

This is a thread about racism, not the French, I was using the example of the French to refer back to previous posts which you apparently chose not to read.

Black History month is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to percieved racism. Some "enlightened" thinkers figured, Gee..not enough prominent blacks in American history, lets devote a month to teach all about black history, as if black history is somehow not integral with American history.

As to you're "a bit telling" comment...I guess you're insinuating that I'm racist. well, honestly I am..a bit. Most people are to some degree. I am very prejudiced against the thug culture of many inner city blacks, but I', equally appalled by the meth monkey trailer trash culture of many whites..so is that racism..or is it just a natural aversion to certain people.

Yes, and you're being an idiot at it. The current topic of conversation is the French and how much they smell, and you're going off on some bullshit rant about Black History Month that you assume people to care about. To make it look connected to the topic at hand, you throw in the line that "PC HIST IS THE REASON WE INGORE THE FRENCHIES." Never mind that it makes no sense. Take it to your fucking journal if you're that bitter.

Shut up.

French is not a race. Shocking I know.

I think Christopher Kincade said it best, "I'm not racist. I just don't like punks. PUNKS." I don't like the thug/gangsta culture that some African Americans embrace, but that doesn't mean I'm racist. Heck, some of the sweetest people I've met on campus were very dark-skinned people from Sudan and the Carribbean Islands. I also dispise the trailer trash culture of a bunch of hillbillies who make meth in their kitchens while slapping their underage pregnant wives for not makin' em dinner. Does this mean I'm racist toward Caucasians?

If it's ok for preppy cheerleaders to hate punk culture and vice versa without being harrassed and/or abused profusely for being "anti-spirited" or "anti-punk" then why is it not ok to dislike a culture that many people think relates to a certain race?

I haven't been able to read all of the posts in this thread, so my thoughts on racism are within the spoil so I won't have to hear about it being addressed already. I apologize if it offends anyone, but I seriously believe that there are more oppressed races than African American or Caucasian Americans and I'm sick and tired of many of the African Americans within my region and college region that think they are more oppressed than anyone else in the world.

Damn, this thread totally got out of control.

It's crazy how one subject can lead completely into another.

How much did you smoke today???...The topic is not about the French, its about racism. I don't give a shit if the french get ignored, but their role in American history...along with many other aspects of American history are overlooked in favor of politically correct teaching. Jeez..if it makes you feel any better we can substitute how the Poles are over looked for their role in the American revolution..its all the same. Or perhaps your school overlooked Lafayette and Kosciousko too???

Christ, you're dense.

People are currently talking about the French. The current conversation is about the French. You understand, yes? It does not matter what the topic has started as. People have been talking about the French and their place in history textbooks since post 155. Therefore, it is dumb for you to barge in at Post 210 and whine about Black History Month. It has nothing to do with the current conversation, you idiot. Your weaksauce attempt at connecting ignored French with PC history does not suffice.

Wesker, why do you hate black people?

It's because they're hung, isn't it?

The tals was not about the french..it was about the role of the french in American history, and the overall teaching of accurate American history. It had nothing to do with, as you so adroitly put it "how bad the french stink".
So, Mr. French expert, maybe you wouldn't mind telling us how our allies the French fought against the U.S. in WWII, since it relates to French/American history. You, it seems are quite the victim of PC history teaching sinvce you seems to have little knowledge of actual histroy. So please..educate us with your great knowledge.

And I don't hate black people...Sepia people, yeah, they're nasty, and those burnt umber people suck, but black people are just fine.

yea, the tragedy that is wesker

Asking me to prove my knowledge about Vichy France is a pretty keen distraction from the fact that you have no tact.

So you hate indians and mulattos.

Neither is "White". "White" is a social-economic class. How else can it be explained that the Irish and Italians immigrants were originally not considered "White" in the US? Everyone here no matter their ethnic origins would classify Irish and Italian as being "White". So they eventually gained admission into the country club.

People in this thread are essentially debating the disparity of class/gender issues.

Why is this not caled a "hate crime?"

http://www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/

Go to the "Vicious beating" video...

A black beats the crap out of a white for no reason..its no big deal. If it was the other way around..and lets be honest here..the so called community activists would be screaming hate crime at the top of their lungs.

Incidents like this are what prompt more racism.

OK, why are you calling this a hate crime? A guy on one team hits a guy on the other team. That's not motivated by race. And no one would say it was a hate crime if the white kid hit the black kid, either.

Incidents like this only prompt racism because people like you tie racism into them.