Japanese internment? When I was in high school, that wasn't even in our history book. Apparently that edition was new that year, and my history teacher was furious. She taught us about it anyway.
Katyn would be interesting since it is well taught in Europe but almost entirely forgotten in America or maybe Russian Revolution may the Alien and Sedition Acts or Citizen Genet. I'm not the best judge since for 9th grade history only goes up to early Enlightenment and didn't discuss any of the philosophers and since I'm in AP US I'm not exactly the best judge of what is taught and not taught.
I think the Armenian Genocide, Byzantine Empire, or theRussian Civil Warwould be good candidates. We don't cover those at all, and each of them are incredibly important. Of lesser importance is theWinter War, between Russia and Finland. It isn't taught in the United States, but it's pretty interesting as well.
Seconded entirely, although we covered the Russian Civil War and the Armenian Genocide in my European history class (it was AP European History, and I live near Detroit). For the topic: Mexican, Central and Southern American history is pretty much ignored. In the U.S. we only get Conquistadors, the Mexican American War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Zimmerman note, nothing else.
War of 1812from whatIUnderstand American schools don't even talk about it
Actually, we studied it pretty deeply. It was basically a stalemate between the US and Britain.
Well, until the Battle of New Orleans. Speaking of which, Andrew Jackson and the formation of the Democratic Party (corrupt bargain, etc.) would also be pretty important.
Or maybe something like the, ahem, Boer Wars, the first Iraq-like situation.
And now, I necro a thread where the last post is from a year before my account.
So, let me tell you all a little bit about Texas. Texas has been reserved a special seat in Hell as the only state to fight TWO wars over slavery. I think we've thoroughly established in many other threads about the better known of the two wars, the American Civil, but often forgotten is the Texan War of Independence. See, the other reason Texas is special is that it spent seven years independent of the Union or any foreign government, longer than any other state in the contiguous 48. Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1835, and achieved recognition as a sovereign state in 1836. There was a dispute about where the border between Mexico and Texas was, ultimately resulting in the Mexican-American War, but right now we're gonna focus on Texas as an independent country first.
Now, if you read the Texan Declaration of Independence, it's actually quite reasonable. It points out that Mexico had welcomed immigrants from the US in the 1820s, pledging that they would accommodate these settlers to continue their lives as they were lived in America, which it did not. The Declaration observes that the Catholic state of Mexico had not been kind to its Protestant immigrants, failed to establish a proper system for trial of criminals, and didn't establish a level of government smaller than the national government, despite provisions in the Mexican Constitution that guaranteed otherwise. It continues to elaborate that Mexico had failed to establish a public school system, a policy that would have proven Mexico to be more progressive than the United States at the time. The final blow to Texas as a state was in 1834, when the Mexican government rewrote its Constitution, without summoning delegates from across the country, resulting in a Constitution that did not consider the needs of all its citizens.
This seems like a good set of reasons to declare independence (to me, at least), until you start reading about everything that had happened before it, and the lives of the people who supported it. You see, Mexico had welcomed US citizens into Mexico in the 1820s, however Mexico passed the Laws of April 6, 1830 (Mexico seems to not be as good at naming legislation as us in America), which outlawed immigration from the States. Research into the lives of those who signed the Declaration of Independence has found that 50 of the 60 signatories had immigrated to Texas from the US after this act had been outlawed, making them illegal immigrants, living without Mexican citizenship. Furthermore, the political prisoners who had been taken (described in the Declaration as having committed "a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government") were militants, attempting to draw insurrection. And then there's this whole issue of the National Government working in "an unknown tongue", because the US Immigrants refused to learn Spanish, the official national language of Mexico (brief reminder that the US did not and continues to not have an official national language). But then there's the issue of slavery. You see, slavery is never brought up in the Declaration of Independence, making the Texan insurrectionists of 1835 a tad more self aware and possibly more progressive than the Texan insurrectionists of 1861, however it lives on in the fine print. You see, in 1829, Mexico nationally abolished slavery, causing an uprising in Texas. The uprising is what resulted in the Laws of April 6, 1830. Of course, we've already established that much of the Texan Independence movement arrived here after 1830, so they kept their slaves, because when in Rome, sack it like a Visigoth.
TL;DR: Texas gained Independence from Mexico (and ultimately admission into the US) because a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals wanted to keep their slaves.
I'm game for Wars of the Roses. As beast as I am with American history, I'm embarrassingly short on the rest of the world. At least, assuming it isn't one of those wars where animals kicked humans' collective ass, like, say, this battle fought by Napoleon.
"Napoleon's return from Austerlitz had been triumphant. As he traversed the German states, crossing the Rhine, church bells rang as he passed beneath a long series of triumphal arches of flowers in one city after another. The people of Paris cheered even more loudly giving balls and elegant dinners for this many who, only a few weeks earlier had been thought to be finished, and with him his tinsel empire. As a part of these celebrations, Imperial Master of the Hunt Marshal Berthier gave hunting parties for Napoleon, including one of his Corsican favorites, a rabbit hunt. Berthier, who personally preferred stag, had gone to considerable trouble to buy approximately one thousand 'hares.'
On the day of the hunt all was in the readiness, the rabbits in massive cages along the wooded sides of an open field, as several carriages finally appeared, Napoleon and his staff soon emerging in full hunting regalia. As Napoleon walked across the field, the signal was given to release the rabbits, and hundreds upon hundreds of black-and-white rabbits leaped forward, enjoying their new freedom. But as the intrepid hunters prepared to go in for the kill, the animals, instead of fleeing in the opposite direction, perversely turned straight for the hunters, coming at them in magnificent bounds.
At first Napoleon could not believe his eyes, nor could anyone else, laughing at the comic absurdity of the whole thing. But laughter soon gave way to perplexity to concern, as the hundreds of animals continued to head directly for Napoleon. Finally a bit anxious himself, he turned and ordered those around hi9m, even the coachmen and postilions, to grab sticks and chase away the insolent animals now poking fun at the emperor's reputation as a distinguished huntsman. But all to no avail. They swarmed around Napoleon, entwining themselves between his legs, even leaping into his arms. He tried beating them off with his riding crop, but more arrived. At last his aides-de-camp and coachmen came to his rescue and got him back safely into his carriage, though it too was quickly besieged.
It had been a narrow escape! A furious Berthier, humiliated by the absurd event, learned only afterward that his men, instead of trapping hares, had purchased a thousand tame rabbits -- due to be used for pate [food] -- from farmers. And the mighty victor of Austerlitz, who had soundly defeated a combined force of 85,000 Russian and Austrian troops armed with cannon, muskets, and sabers, had now ignominiously scurried off another battlefield, pursued by a thousand unarmed rabbits, who had mistaken him for the kindly man who was due to give them their daily feed." -- Schom, Alan, Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life. Harper Collins, 1998
Learned that at an MIT SPLASH class back in 2012. Took me literally years to find a proper source for it, but damn it I did it.
Yeah you needs dem sources! Its a kicker trying to figure out of something half remembered is real or not. Ill dig out some of my work, tart it up and stick it on here. Not that there is anything super new but I think its an interesting read.
That rabbit story seems a bit too perfect to be true. It fits a certain mold a bit too much. However, throughout history there seems to be many "use tame/zoo/farm animals in a hunt for the important guest" for all of them to be fake. Right?
I can ask my sister to take a look round the uni archives if you want see if anything turns up or if her lectures know anything? Napoleon isn't really my area of study but I can take a look if you want.
Nah, don't bother. Unless someone wrote about it in a diary on the day, I'm not going to believe anything about it is true except, maybe, someone bought a few farm rabbits and they didn't act like wild rabbits.
Its always a bugger when you go through the historiography of these things. There is so much there that getting through it is a nightmare. Your probably right, some rabbits didn't act how they were meant to and that has been embellished since then. Still it is a funny story.
I'd love there to be any source from even the same decade as it was meant to happen.
I checked the sources in the book I got that quote from. They were primary documents. I would've looked further, but they were in French.
But they can also suffer from embellishment, who is the author? If they were pro-bourbon then it is most likely fluff. Also what is the nature of the primary documents? where are they from?
A thread on history? Finally something on the forum relevant to my degree. So who wants that hot goodness that was the wars of the roses?
York 4 lyfe.
What's really amazing to me is the damage wrought by Victorian-era "scholars" on our actual knowledge of history. 19th century people literally made shit up that was absolutely not supported by the evidence at the time. But those erroneous conclusions became fact, and those things were repeated.
Of course, get far enough back in history, and what we actually know is shockingly scant.
A thread on history? Finally something on the forum relevant to my degree. So who wants that hot goodness that was the wars of the roses?
York 4 lyfe.
What's really amazing to me is the damage wrought by Victorian-era "scholars" on our actual knowledge of history. 19th century people literally made shit up that was absolutely not supported by the evidence at the time. But those erroneous conclusions became fact, and those things were repeated.
Of course, get far enough back in history, and what we actually know is shockingly scant.
Man its my boy Warwick who is the real MVP of the WoR.
Yeah those lovely antiquarians are just the best of people, and don't get me started on what they did to archaeology.
Yeah its why we laugh at Egyptology BA, quick lets base 100 years of history on a small stela that we found in a tomb. Cus we all know that is totally going to work.
I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts about the Mongols, something that I never learned about growing up, and according to historians, the Mongols killed between 10 million and 70 million people when they swept out of the steppes and founded their empire.
I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts about the Mongols, something that I never learned about growing up, and according to historians, the Mongols killed between 10 million and 70 million people when they swept out of the steppes and founded their empire.
Yeah be careful with Dan Carlin. He does an ok job at getting the broad strokes over, the problem is in telling the facts he gives his opinion as fact. So the water gets a bit muddied along the way. That and I find his pacing to be super off putting.
Oh those pesky Mongolians, viewed as savages anything but.
Also its an overview sort of thing there are a lot of really good specific ones out there. Revolutions for example is a great one that has covered the British, American and French revolutions in great detail. 12 Byzantine emperors and Norman centuries are good for getting an over view. History of the Crusades is another good one that is going over all the "medieval" crusades.
So, the Berklee drama group is doing Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, with a forum for discussion of the actual history, and I wanna go and ask really weird questions, like "was the primary beef between Jackson and Quincy Adams really Rachel, or did the hollow earth v flat earth conflict heighten things" or "how do you think Lyncoya's death effected Rachel, Jackson, and Theodore?"
I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts about the Mongols, something that I never learned about growing up, and according to historians, the Mongols killed between 10 million and 70 million people when they swept out of the steppes and founded their empire.
Yeah be careful with Dan Carlin. He does an ok job at getting the broad strokes over, the problem is in telling the facts he gives his opinion as fact. So the water gets a bit muddied along the way. That and I find his pacing to be super off putting.
Oh those pesky Mongolians, viewed as savages anything but.
Also its an overview sort of thing there are a lot of really good specific ones out there. Revolutions for example is a great one that has covered the British, American and French revolutions in great detail. 12 Byzantine emperors and Norman centuries are good for getting an over view. History of the Crusades is another good one that is going over all the "medieval" crusades.
You have trouble understanding when he's giving opinion and when he's talking history because it seems pretty obvious to me when I'm listening to him.
I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts about the Mongols, something that I never learned about growing up, and according to historians, the Mongols killed between 10 million and 70 million people when they swept out of the steppes and founded their empire.
Yeah be careful with Dan Carlin. He does an ok job at getting the broad strokes over, the problem is in telling the facts he gives his opinion as fact. So the water gets a bit muddied along the way. That and I find his pacing to be super off putting.
Oh those pesky Mongolians, viewed as savages anything but.
Also its an overview sort of thing there are a lot of really good specific ones out there. Revolutions for example is a great one that has covered the British, American and French revolutions in great detail. 12 Byzantine emperors and Norman centuries are good for getting an over view. History of the Crusades is another good one that is going over all the "medieval" crusades.
You have trouble understanding when he's giving opinion and when he's talking history because it seems pretty obvious to me when I'm listening to him.
Its his general approach to the whole thing that I dislike. I former complaint is what most of my friends have found with his work*. I gave him an episode and it did nothing for me.
*I know we don't like anecdotal evidence but I trust MA/PHD students on this one.
Edit; The dick way of saying this is; Although he conveys, for the most part, the facts of the events and information it is apparent that he has a focus on a narrative rather than an academic approach. Now I know he never professes to be a professional historian it is apparent at times that he is not.
Comments
For the topic: Mexican, Central and Southern American history is pretty much ignored. In the U.S. we only get Conquistadors, the Mexican American War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Zimmerman note, nothing else.
Or maybe something like the, ahem, Boer Wars, the first Iraq-like situation.
EDIT: Crap, someone beat me to it.
So, let me tell you all a little bit about Texas. Texas has been reserved a special seat in Hell as the only state to fight TWO wars over slavery. I think we've thoroughly established in many other threads about the better known of the two wars, the American Civil, but often forgotten is the Texan War of Independence. See, the other reason Texas is special is that it spent seven years independent of the Union or any foreign government, longer than any other state in the contiguous 48. Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1835, and achieved recognition as a sovereign state in 1836. There was a dispute about where the border between Mexico and Texas was, ultimately resulting in the Mexican-American War, but right now we're gonna focus on Texas as an independent country first.
Now, if you read the Texan Declaration of Independence, it's actually quite reasonable. It points out that Mexico had welcomed immigrants from the US in the 1820s, pledging that they would accommodate these settlers to continue their lives as they were lived in America, which it did not. The Declaration observes that the Catholic state of Mexico had not been kind to its Protestant immigrants, failed to establish a proper system for trial of criminals, and didn't establish a level of government smaller than the national government, despite provisions in the Mexican Constitution that guaranteed otherwise. It continues to elaborate that Mexico had failed to establish a public school system, a policy that would have proven Mexico to be more progressive than the United States at the time. The final blow to Texas as a state was in 1834, when the Mexican government rewrote its Constitution, without summoning delegates from across the country, resulting in a Constitution that did not consider the needs of all its citizens.
This seems like a good set of reasons to declare independence (to me, at least), until you start reading about everything that had happened before it, and the lives of the people who supported it. You see, Mexico had welcomed US citizens into Mexico in the 1820s, however Mexico passed the Laws of April 6, 1830 (Mexico seems to not be as good at naming legislation as us in America), which outlawed immigration from the States. Research into the lives of those who signed the Declaration of Independence has found that 50 of the 60 signatories had immigrated to Texas from the US after this act had been outlawed, making them illegal immigrants, living without Mexican citizenship. Furthermore, the political prisoners who had been taken (described in the Declaration as having committed "a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government") were militants, attempting to draw insurrection. And then there's this whole issue of the National Government working in "an unknown tongue", because the US Immigrants refused to learn Spanish, the official national language of Mexico (brief reminder that the US did not and continues to not have an official national language). But then there's the issue of slavery. You see, slavery is never brought up in the Declaration of Independence, making the Texan insurrectionists of 1835 a tad more self aware and possibly more progressive than the Texan insurrectionists of 1861, however it lives on in the fine print. You see, in 1829, Mexico nationally abolished slavery, causing an uprising in Texas. The uprising is what resulted in the Laws of April 6, 1830. Of course, we've already established that much of the Texan Independence movement arrived here after 1830, so they kept their slaves, because when in Rome, sack it like a Visigoth.
TL;DR: Texas gained Independence from Mexico (and ultimately admission into the US) because a bunch of illegal immigrant criminals wanted to keep their slaves.
Also 600 years since Agincourt.
"Napoleon's return from Austerlitz had been triumphant. As he traversed the German states, crossing the Rhine, church bells rang as he passed beneath a long series of triumphal arches of flowers in one city after another. The people of Paris cheered even more loudly giving balls and elegant dinners for this many who, only a few weeks earlier had been thought to be finished, and with him his tinsel empire. As a part of these celebrations, Imperial Master of the Hunt Marshal Berthier gave hunting parties for Napoleon, including one of his Corsican favorites, a rabbit hunt. Berthier, who personally preferred stag, had gone to considerable trouble to buy approximately one thousand 'hares.'
On the day of the hunt all was in the readiness, the rabbits in massive cages along the wooded sides of an open field, as several carriages finally appeared, Napoleon and his staff soon emerging in full hunting regalia. As Napoleon walked across the field, the signal was given to release the rabbits, and hundreds upon hundreds of black-and-white rabbits leaped forward, enjoying their new freedom. But as the intrepid hunters prepared to go in for the kill, the animals, instead of fleeing in the opposite direction, perversely turned straight for the hunters, coming at them in magnificent bounds.
At first Napoleon could not believe his eyes, nor could anyone else, laughing at the comic absurdity of the whole thing. But laughter soon gave way to perplexity to concern, as the hundreds of animals continued to head directly for Napoleon. Finally a bit anxious himself, he turned and ordered those around hi9m, even the coachmen and postilions, to grab sticks and chase away the insolent animals now poking fun at the emperor's reputation as a distinguished huntsman. But all to no avail. They swarmed around Napoleon, entwining themselves between his legs, even leaping into his arms. He tried beating them off with his riding crop, but more arrived. At last his aides-de-camp and coachmen came to his rescue and got him back safely into his carriage, though it too was quickly besieged.
It had been a narrow escape! A furious Berthier, humiliated by the absurd event, learned only afterward that his men, instead of trapping hares, had purchased a thousand tame rabbits -- due to be used for pate [food] -- from farmers. And the mighty victor of Austerlitz, who had soundly defeated a combined force of 85,000 Russian and Austrian troops armed with cannon, muskets, and sabers, had now ignominiously scurried off another battlefield, pursued by a thousand unarmed rabbits, who had mistaken him for the kindly man who was due to give them their daily feed." -- Schom, Alan, Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life. Harper Collins, 1998
Learned that at an MIT SPLASH class back in 2012. Took me literally years to find a proper source for it, but damn it I did it.
What's really amazing to me is the damage wrought by Victorian-era "scholars" on our actual knowledge of history. 19th century people literally made shit up that was absolutely not supported by the evidence at the time. But those erroneous conclusions became fact, and those things were repeated.
Of course, get far enough back in history, and what we actually know is shockingly scant.
Yeah those lovely antiquarians are just the best of people, and don't get me started on what they did to archaeology.
Yeah its why we laugh at Egyptology BA, quick lets base 100 years of history on a small stela that we found in a tomb. Cus we all know that is totally going to work.
Oh those pesky Mongolians, viewed as savages anything but.
Also its an overview sort of thing there are a lot of really good specific ones out there. Revolutions for example is a great one that has covered the British, American and French revolutions in great detail. 12 Byzantine emperors and Norman centuries are good for getting an over view. History of the Crusades is another good one that is going over all the "medieval" crusades.
*I know we don't like anecdotal evidence but I trust MA/PHD students on this one.
Edit; The dick way of saying this is; Although he conveys, for the most part, the facts of the events and information it is apparent that he has a focus on a narrative rather than an academic approach. Now I know he never professes to be a professional historian it is apparent at times that he is not.