Page 1 of 2
ProtoCosmos
UG's Chicken Kicker
Join date: Sep 2011
722 IQ
#1
Folks, this is a question for all of you from not-America.

As you may know, American history (as taught in American high school classrooms) more or less usually consists of the arrival of the Puritans up to the Cold War, if not current events. American history itself is relatively short, spanning only a few hundred years. But it's ok, since those living in American still should learn those few hundred years.

Now my question is: When they teach history in your respective countries (I assume they teach Russian history in Russian high schools, just as they may teach Scottish history in Scottish high schools, etc), how is it taught? I ask because most (if not all) of European nations are ancient, having thousands of years of history behind them. I wonder how or even if schools can teach all of that information to students through grade school (not college, because classes are much more specified and specialized in college).

If you can't tell, I know absolutely nothing about the education systems outside of the US, so please forgive me if I'm misinformed about what history is taught in schools
GENERATION 28: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
metal4eva_22
PonyFan #376121
Join date: Jul 2006
890 IQ
#2
Canadian history is shorter than USA history. I just had to do one HS credit. Got it and never thought about that waste-of-time subject again. I mean, if I want to know the history then I'll google the event. There is no point in memorizing it. No understanding is required. I can just jump in anywhere and start reading. History is near the top of the list in the waste of time and money degrees.
-The Crimson Fucker, aka PonyFan #376121
Last edited by metal4eva_22 at Nov 22, 2012,
YoTimDog
tips fedora
Join date: Mar 2012
212 IQ
#3
Basically, in Australian schools, Australian history consists of 1788 (the first fleet) to the present day, there's not really any Aboriginal (indigenous Australian) history to think of. I mean, they'd been here for 40 000 years, and they invented nought but the boomerang. So, I mean, yeah. Not much history for Australia. Sorry
Lord_Doku
ancient bass
Join date: Apr 2007
1,984 IQ
#4
Dutch history classes consist, believe it or not, of global history, starting where civilization started, going through ancient European history, European influences in the rest of the world, the islamic world, in short, everything up to the modern era. Naturally, the focus lies on Dutch history, but our history classes are alot more worldly than American classes.
Bushinarin
UG Senior Member
Join date: Jan 2007
808 IQ
#5
Quote by ProtoCosmos
Folks, this is a question for all of you from not-America.

As you may know, American history (as taught in American high school classrooms) more or less usually consists of the arrival of the Puritans up to the Cold War, if not current events. American history itself is relatively short, spanning only a few hundred years. But it's ok, since those living in American still should learn those few hundred years.

Now my question is: When they teach history in your respective countries (I assume they teach Russian history in Russian high schools, just as they may teach Scottish history in Scottish high schools, etc), how is it taught? I ask because most (if not all) of European nations are ancient, having thousands of years of history behind them. I wonder how or even if schools can teach all of that information to students through grade school (not college, because classes are much more specified and specialized in college).

If you can't tell, I know absolutely nothing about the education systems outside of the US, so please forgive me if I'm misinformed about what history is taught in schools


You're not considering how much information we history teachers spare our students here in America. It's impossible to cover it all.

I assume that in other countries, more information is omitted. One can skip around and still get a gist of the "important" events that occur in a country. Right now in college I'm taking a whole semester course on just the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it's jam-packed. You can always zoom further in or out of a topic to suit the needs at hand.
I've decided that my signature is terrible. I'm open to suggestions.


Click me, or I'll die.


# Un-nominated in UG Top 100,
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
264 IQ
#6
English history lessons tend to start with William the Conqueror invading England in 1066, or at least it did when I was at school.
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#7
At my old school we took European history and American history. At my current school it's a eurocentric 'world history' class and American history. So really we have a short history but we're taught thousands of years too since in my experience Americans are taught European history as well.

Obviously I'm way off since I'm speaking of two schools in two states but it seems American schools I've been to tend to include some sort of European or 'World' history as a requirement.
Avedas
yoloswag420
Join date: Nov 2007
673 IQ
#9
Quote by Bushinarin
Right now in college I'm taking a whole semester course on just the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it's jam-packed.


While the topic is interesting, why would you need to be tested on such material? My high school history was awful (Canada is exciting) and I didn't care much for memorizing historical facts and such.
Ur all $h1t
Has an erection
Join date: Sep 2005
2,214 IQ
#10
We study everything from Ancient Stone age peoples to the Modern day European Union. There's a huge amount of world history involved in that, including Ancient Greece and Rome, The Renaissance and Reformation, the American and French Revolutions, The World Wars, The Cold War.

Irish History goes from Pre-Christian Ireland to the Modern Day; they tend to put specific focus on the Plantations, the Act of Union, The 1916 Rising and War of Independence, and the founding of the Republic.

In senior cycle (16-18) they pick 4 periods and give them a really in depth look for 2 years. They vary from year to year, but 2 are always international and 2 are about Ireland. When I did it the International ones were:
The Changes in the US after WWII, focusing on the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War
The History of WWII from the Interwar period to just after the war.
The Irish ones were:
Parnell and the Home Rule Movement
The War of Independence and the Foundation of the Republic.


It's a very good curriculum really, most people come out of it with at least a decent grounding in International and National History and those who are interested can go extremely in depth.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Burgery
crack hitler
Join date: Nov 2009
3,179 IQ
#11
iceland has a little over a thousand year long history, it's not much of a problem
Quote by JamSessionFreak
lots of really smart stuff
cubs
x
Join date: Jun 2006
3,949 IQ
#12
i've first hand experience with the american, mexican and french education systems.


i'm at university for hispanic literature & linguistics so i can't say much about highschool + prehighschool years. but right now, i am studying a bit of preshipanic mexican history. i study nahuatl, the aztec language, how the aztec society was organized, their rituals, their cosmogony, their poetry, etc. it is extremely complex and interesting stuff, from an anthropogenic, philosophical and artistic point of view. i believe this kind of shit should be taught. it offers a different perspective than the one offered by the western society. not 'inferior' at all. it is really interesting from semiotic points of view. it helps us understand ourselves (as humans) and our evolution better.

though, here comes the problem. in america (united states) you don't learn about prewestern shit. mostly because of the lack of records, interactions and interes europeans showed. when europeans came to the US, they didn't 'mix' much with native american cultures. whereas in mexico and lots of parts of latin america there was a major miscegenation (mix of cultures; to eventually create a new one). the spaniards that came here were extremely interested in learning about the different ethnic groups here, there are lots of texts from the XVI century (+ onwards) about preshipanic cultures, their myths, their social lives and their relation with existence and death. in the US (as far as i know), europeans basically came and started living in there. native americans live there too, but mostly separated. when the spanish came to Mexico they found extremely complex cities and empires (expanding throughout central america and mexico), scientific notions (astronomy, medicine, math, etc.). they recorded all that. since these preshispanic civilizations didn't use an alphabetic or even verbal writing system, we don't have much concrete information pre-1500. on top of that the spaniards burned and got rid of a lot of pictographic manuscripts.

still, i think it's sad how americans sort of 'not care much' about these aspects. though america is basically a representation of capitalism, posmodernism and other scary human stuff. so yeah.
CodySG
Boomshakalaka King
Join date: Sep 2005
758 IQ
#13
Because nothing existed before the white man came to America

I don't know, maybe being born in Oklahoma gave me an unfair advantage. I learned about a lot of America and it's vast history, all the way back to prehistoric man slaying mammoths using atlatls.

Just because the history of "America" is short doesn't mean the history of the North American or current United States is.

I mean, do you still see Barbarians in Europe? No... Because that culture died out long ago, was replaced, and probably replaced again.

Just because it's a different race or because of immigration doesn't make the history any different.

I mean, we were all technically British when we arrived here. Not that way now is it? So why is teaching anything earlier any different?

Find a better history teacher
All Hail! The Kala-Kala Chieftain!
Fender Dane.
Axe wielding viking
Join date: May 2010
361 IQ
#14
In the Denmark we start with a rough overview of world history and later we focus on a number of themes. Danish history lessons don't solely focus on Denmark, since it would be too much to cover in depth. During a school year subject such as "The Roman Empire", Danish agriculture reforms" and World I might be covered.

The goal isn't to remember a ton of historical facts, but rather to give us the tools to critical analyse historical text and understand the world behind the text.
Alright people, Move along - there is nothing to see.
"Or so you think..."
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#15
Quote by cubs
*long post*


I agree with this. I'm one out of probably six Americans (that has no real ethnic background with an indigenous nation) that does care. I think you named the biggest difference in your post- Mexico in many ways is the modern successor to the Mexica, just different (if I'm wrong feel free to tell me). Anyway, now's no the time for my rants.

In our history classes they've added twenty pages or so on pre-European colonial times in the textbooks, although you spend basically no time discussing it or really learning it. It's there just to be politically correct. With that said, I sort of understand why, since they are separate nations (who have been conquered), they weren't Americans, America is a Western nation, etc. I still think it should be considered important to learn, since whether I like to admit or not, despite nationalist movements, the natives are a part of American society, and many no longer care about their native identity and consider it a part of America only.

/sorry for going off topic. Blame the mod for getting me going.
Bushinarin
UG Senior Member
Join date: Jan 2007
808 IQ
#16
Quote by Avedas
While the topic is interesting, why would you need to be tested on such material? My high school history was awful (Canada is exciting) and I didn't care much for memorizing historical facts and such.


I don't need to be tested on it per say, but it's my thesis course to complete my degree. It's not so much about memorizing facts as it is about developing total understanding of something that you're interested in.

Also on topic, I've always thought that American history courses were confusing for the reason that Slipknot said. They have one full year on American history and then another full year on World history, but they aren't integrated at all. Especially in the 20th century, you have to try and understand world events as world events. Looking at them from one side of the Atlantic and then the other one year later doesn't quite cut it.

Also about the "world history" being Eurocentric. I agree, but to teach true "world history" would take years and years. You get better courses as a history major in college if you're interested.
I've decided that my signature is terrible. I'm open to suggestions.


Click me, or I'll die.


# Un-nominated in UG Top 100,
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#17
Quote by Bushinarin

Also about the "world history" being Eurocentric. I agree, but to teach true "world history" would take years and years. You get better courses as a history major in college if you're interested.


I wasn't complaining, I was just pointing out that it's not really world history and is basically European history.

Based on what kids have told me the world history course becomes a cluster**** whenever they did talk about somewhere outside of Europe. Which is obvious, but I won't insult your intelligence by explaining it to you.

Edit: Have we discussed this before?
Deliriumbassist
UG's only DB
Join date: Apr 2006
2,387 IQ
#18
Being in school in England between 1992-2006, I remember learning about:

The Romans. Lots about the Romans
Vikings
Middle Ages
The Tudors
Industrial Revolution
World War I
Medicine through history
The Greeks
Arab-Israeli Conflict

Those were the main large topics I leafnt about. There were little other bits here and there.
MikeAsHimself
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2011
57 IQ
#19
American history is short? I guess no one cares about Native Americans. The hidden holocaust......
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#20
Quote by MikeAsHimself
American history is short? I guess no one cares about Native Americans. The hidden holocaust......


See my post. Technically they comprise separate nations from America, or at least they did before European contact. America is basically a European country, so at least when we're talking about 'Americans' as a nation, it doesn't begin with the natives. They weren't Americans, that identity was forced on them. So it's understandable why American history can be viewed as short.

Don't get me wrong, I side with the natives and I think it should be taught, I just don't consider them Americans (aside from modern natives who chose to associate with America, which seems to be a majority). I've had several teachers call me stupid for referring to what happened as a genocide, and I hate how they're painted as the 'bad guys'.

I know, I care way too much about this.
Last edited by slipknot5678 at Nov 22, 2012,
cubs
x
Join date: Jun 2006
3,949 IQ
#21
Quote by slipknot5678
I agree with this. I'm one out of probably six Americans (that has no real ethnic background with an indigenous nation) that does care. I think you named the biggest difference in your post- Mexico in many ways is the modern successor to the Mexica, just different (if I'm wrong feel free to tell me). Anyway, now's no the time for my rants.

In our history classes they've added twenty pages or so on pre-European colonial times in the textbooks, although you spend basically no time discussing it or really learning it. It's there just to be politically correct. With that said, I sort of understand why, since they are separate nations (who have been conquered), they weren't Americans, America is a Western nation, etc. I still think it should be considered important to learn, since whether I like to admit or not, despite nationalist movements, the natives are a part of American society, and many no longer care about their native identity and consider it a part of America only.

/sorry for going off topic. Blame the mod for getting me going.



no, you're right. Mexico right now is in many ways tied to the mexica civilization (+ a lot others), in terms of food, language, beliefs, etc. did you know that Mexico has 68 official 'native' languages listed in its constitution which hold the same validity as spanish? great stuff, beautiful languages in terms of phonetics and structure (nahuatl, for example, is an agglutinative language, similar to german in this aspect). my prehispanic lit teacher is probably the 2nd leading expert in terms of native civilization research (specifically, the aztec and mayan cultures) alive right now; he is, funnily, a completely french/european guy who studied at La Sorbonne.

here's a fun fact. the word 'michigan' (of native american origin, which means something like 'place of lakes') is directly related to the word 'michoacan' (the name of a mexican state, thousand of km away from Michigan), linguisticwise. how much of that are americans taught in schools though? i think the different visions we adopt when we look at this stuff, whether as mexicans or americans or whatever, is interesting. the continent of america wasn't politically divided as such before the european arrival. no mexico or states, just lots of civilizations in contact with each other. the english dealed with this stuff different than the way the spanish did.


i also have no real 'ethnic background with an indigenous nation'. i'm white and i've green eyes, lol.


and don't blame me. i didn't even consider this to be 'off-topic' for some reason. i mod Songwriting & Lyrics, not the Pit
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#22
Quote by cubs
no, you're right. Mexico right now is in many ways tied to the mexica civilization (+ a lot others), in terms of food, language, beliefs, etc. did you know that Mexico has 68 official 'native' languages listed in its constitution which hold the same validity as spanish? great stuff, beautiful languages in terms of phonetics and structure (nahuatl, for example, is an agglutinative language, similar to german in this aspect). my prehispanic lit teacher is probably the 2nd leading expert in terms of native civilization research (specifically, the aztec and mayan cultures) alive right now; he is, funnily, a completely french/european guy who studied at La Sorbonne.

here's a fun fact. the word 'michigan' (of native american origin, which means something like 'place of lakes') is directly related to the word 'michoacan' (the name of a mexican state), linguisticwise. how much of that are americans taught in schools though? i think the different visions we adopt when we look at this stuff, whether as mexicans or americans or whatever, is interesting. the continent of america wasn't politically divided as such before the european arrival. no mexico or states, just lots of civilizations in contact with each other. the english dealed with this stuff different than the way the spanish did.


i also have no real 'ethnic background with an indigenous nation'. i'm white and i've green eyes, lol.


and don't blame me. i didn't even consider this to be 'off-topic' for some reason. i am a Songwriting & Lyrics mod, not a Pit mod


I actually did know about the 68 official languages and that many of those customs have been passed on. If I'm not mistaken, Nahuatl is spoken by over a million and a half still. I'm downplaying my intelligence because I feel weird knowing things some of these things about Mexico when I'm not Mexican. >_>

Regarding the stuff about America, I knew about many states being named after native languages but not the specifics. It is sad how colonialism divided everything, and what's interesting is I have more knowledge on the Mexica, etc. than most native nations in the modern U.S. It shows which country values which more, that's for sure. Here in America people tend to throw them into one category; as one 'native American' country that was conquered, then assume that the 'native Mexicans' and 'native Canadians' were also separate countries with no ties to each other.
CodySG
Boomshakalaka King
Join date: Sep 2005
758 IQ
#23
To contradict myself, all this talk about Mexican culture and predating American culture...

Does anyone know about what predates that Mexican culture?

We all seem to put passion in a specific culture or date when it all goes waaaaaaaaaaay back to prehistoric man.

What makes one culture "mean more" than others? Who cares what something means in a specific language when, if we even had the ability which we do not, everything seems to ultimately mean something else or something similar in another culture.

What makes "this culture" more relevant than another? Why are we not talking and debating cave art and SEVERLY ancient cultures?

Well... Because those have died out and honestly are irrelevant in modern times.

Other cultures might not be... Yet...
All Hail! The Kala-Kala Chieftain!
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#24
Quote by CodySG
To contradict myself, all this talk about Mexican culture and predating American culture...

Does anyone know about what predates that Mexican culture?

We all seem to put passion in a specific culture or date when it all goes waaaaaaaaaaay back to prehistoric man.

What makes one culture "mean more" than others? Who cares what something means in a specific language when, if we even had the ability which we do not, everything seems to ultimately mean something else or something similar in another culture.

What makes "this culture" more relevant than another? Why are we not talking and debating cave art and SEVERLY ancient cultures?

Well... Because those have died out and honestly are irrelevant in modern times.

Other cultures might not be... Yet...


Human culture in general was under-developed then. It didn't necessarily die out, it evolved, which is what is going to happen with all modern cultures. I will admit I'm not too educated on prehistoric human history or culture though.

I'm not sure if you're implying this or not, but I'll explain why I care about 'irrelevant native cultures'. They're not irrelevant; they're still around. They are still being forced to assimilate into something that isn't theirs, and their culture is also relevant. Some cultures are more influential, but none is more 'relevant' in the sense that one matters more. That is partially why I care.

Edit: TS, I apologise for derailing your thread.
Last edited by slipknot5678 at Nov 22, 2012,
CodySG
Boomshakalaka King
Join date: Sep 2005
758 IQ
#25
Coming from a fifth generation removed from a pure Native American culture, I do know that a lot of native cultures are completely irrelevant these days.

The only reason I don't receive Native American benefits is because my great great grandmother didn't sign the Dawes because she didn't trust the white man.

Sadly, she inadvertently screwed her family but hey... This was a time when the white man was public enemy number one.

So believe me, I absolutely "care" about native and dying culture.

And it IS dying.

Assimilation means changing your culture to be more cooperative with another. So it IS dying.

To speak Cherokee or Choctaw is an anomaly these days, when a few hundred years ago that was all the people around here spoke.

Honestly, it hurts me to know I know so little about my heritage. So little about the language. I can only speak a few broken sentences in Choctaw and that was taught to me by a non family member.

So yes... I am sorry... But it IS dying out.

Few people in America know their heritage, and I would bet money that the top four are Irish, Scottish, German, and Native American.

Whether or not they know anything from any of these countries is up to their parents and family.
All Hail! The Kala-Kala Chieftain!
Harvey Swick
Naive American
Join date: Jun 2011
1,260 IQ
#26
Quote by CodySG
stuff about Native Americans

hey dude come check out the Native American Thread i made. i am an enrolled member and have lived on the reservation my whole life. if you have any questions or anything, maybe you just want to discuss the culture, come check it out. or even send me a PM. oh yeah, Happy Thanksgiving or as we call it Happy Assimilation Day.
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
slipknot5678
UG Monkey
Join date: Jul 2009
670 IQ
#27
Quote by CodySG
*another long post I don't want to directly quote because it would take up so much space*


Unfortunately you're right. But there's still some hope. There has been a large revival in indigenous thought, or at least in a few larger nations (like the Navajo and Lakotah). The nations can still exist even without their strong linguistic heritage (See: Scotland, Ireland, the Mexica cultures we discussed earlier, it goes on). For the smaller tribes there is no hope but if we just give up completely several nations will just be forever forgotten and America will be forced to be ashamed of its very existence forever.

/idealistic post
Harvey Swick
Naive American
Join date: Jun 2011
1,260 IQ
#28
Quote by slipknot5678
America will be forced to be ashamed of its very existence forever.

/idealistic post


they justify by naming sports teams after racist portrayals of us.
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
CodySG
Boomshakalaka King
Join date: Sep 2005
758 IQ
#29
Red Skins FTW!!!!!

But seriously though, I will take you up on that offer man! Plan on reading the thread tonight then I'll probably pop in there tonight or tomorrow!

It does make me pleased to know people still care about pre-America. I mean, I'm not going to lie I am a patriot and America fick yeah!!! But it is annoying sometimes dealing with those types of folks
All Hail! The Kala-Kala Chieftain!
captainsnazz
~
Join date: Jul 2010
578 IQ
#30
It's been about 7 years since I was in a history lesson but I remember something about WW2 and not much else.
I have a genuine interest in history (and basically everything really), but I also have an aversion to walls of text and mind-numbingly dull things, so I slept through most of it.
danizzlesnizzle
Registered User
Join date: May 2008
520 IQ
#31
Quote by Lord_Doku
Naturally, the focus lies on Dutch history, but our history classes are alot more worldly than American classes.


Well, I don't know what you think we learn in America, but in my school (a public school), we had to take a lot of world history as well. So yes, we focus on the entire world. The biggest emphasis however seems to be on Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, China, Spain, France, and the UK. Which then leads into American history for the next year of school. We always switched between the two since 5th grade.
tyler_j
^ The **** who tyler_j is
Join date: Jun 2007
3,409 IQ
#32
Quote by YoTimDog
Basically, in Australian schools, Australian history consists of 1788 (the first fleet) to the present day, there's not really any Aboriginal (indigenous Australian) history to think of. I mean, they'd been here for 40 000 years, and they invented nought but the boomerang. So, I mean, yeah. Not much history for Australia. Sorry


Did you fall asleep from year 8 to year 12?
Man, we had Aboriginal history crammed down our throats. Everything from the instant genocide that occurred when the first fleet arrived, to the Stolen Generations to the 1967 referendum and everything in between them.
MH400
Banned
Join date: Mar 2008
8,793 IQ
#33
Quote by tyler_j
Did you fall asleep from year 8 to year 12?
Man, we had Aboriginal history crammed down our throats. Everything from the instant genocide that occurred when the first fleet arrived, to the Stolen Generations to the 1967 referendum and everything in between them.






OT: Uk history is full of the Tudors. NZ is full of the Treaty of Waitangi.
shattamakar
Clitigator
Join date: Jul 2008
788 IQ
#34
Indian history sucks.

Guess why?
Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

Harvey Swick
Naive American
Join date: Jun 2011
1,260 IQ
#35
Quote by shattamakar
Indian history sucks.

Guess why?


Indian? because of red dots?

no, actually, because you as a person, suck donkey balls for quarters...
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
shattamakar
Clitigator
Join date: Jul 2008
788 IQ
#36
Quote by Harvey Swick
Indian? because of red dots?

no, actually, because you as a person, suck donkey balls for quarters...


Quaint, Harvey.

No, its actually because we are made to study all the way back to the pre-Aryan invasion days in an unbroken line.

I wonder how the British teach colonialism in schools. We were taught they came to steal culture.
Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

flxjhnlrssn
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2008
36 IQ
#37
I never took history in high school, so I don't know how it is there, but in grade 1-9:

They start with like a brief something about the last ice age to the "viking age", and then a little bit about vikings + medieval history, and then start for real when Gustav Vasa became king in like 1500(basically when the "modern" sweden was founded). Then it's fairly detailed up until today, it's mostly european history with a focus on sweden, european history includes the new world and a bit of asia btw, it's what europeans did, not where the things happened.

And the things talked about is usually how people lived and so on, not so much wars and kings, but still a bit too much about kings here in sweden.


and yeah, the bits that are put into most detail is usually the 17th and 18th century, since that's when sweden actually did anything significant


Also, we do basically all of this up until 6th grade, then we start again in 7th, but spend most of our time on modern 19th/20th century history, which is the important stuff anyway.
Last edited by flxjhnlrssn at Nov 22, 2012,
daytripper75
Hold mah diiiick!
Join date: Jun 2003
2,960 IQ
#38
Quote by metal4eva_22
Canadian history is shorter than USA history. I just had to do one HS credit. Got it and never thought about that waste-of-time subject again. I mean, if I want to know the history then I'll google the event. There is no point in memorizing it. No understanding is required. I can just jump in anywhere and start reading. History is near the top of the list in the waste of time and money degrees.



You really couldn't be more wrong.
flxjhnlrssn
Registered User
Join date: Aug 2008
36 IQ
#39
Quote by CodySG
Few people in America know their heritage, and I would bet money that the top four are Irish, Scottish, German, and Native American.

Whether or not they know anything from any of these countries is up to their parents and family.

Fun fact:

American population ancestry (% of population):

German 15%
Irish 11%
African American 9%
English 9%
American 7%
Mexican 6%
Italian 6%
Polish 3%
French 3%
American Indian 3%
Scottish 2%
Dutch 2%
Norwegian 2%
Scotch-Irish 1%
Swedish 1%


Yeah, I'm bored
Deliriumbassist
UG's only DB
Join date: Apr 2006
2,387 IQ
#40
Quote by shattamakar
Quaint, Harvey.

No, its actually because we are made to study all the way back to the pre-Aryan invasion days in an unbroken line.

I wonder how the British teach colonialism in schools. We were taught they came to steal culture.


Colonialism wasn't taught when I was at school. I'll ask my brother when he gets back whether he's been taught. He's a decade younger than me, so it may have snuck onto the syllabus.