# Teaching the History of Your State



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I have always wondered what other states teach their children about their own state's history. Is it a passing thing during American history?

In Texas every 7th grader gets a full year of Texas history. In the 8th grade they get US history. Does any other state spend that much time on their own history? 

Every day school children pledge allegiance to the US flag. Do they also pledge allegiance to their State flag (we do)?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

dks202 said:


> I have always wondered what other states teach their children about their own state's history. Is it a passing thing during American history?
> 
> In Texas every 7th grader gets a full year of Texas history. In the 8th grade they get US history. Does any other state spend that much time on their own history?


History or mythology?



dks202 said:


> Every day school children pledge allegiance to the US flag. Do they also pledge allegiance to their State flag (we do)?


I do find the pledge of allegiance a bit, well, totalitarian really....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ There's your answer.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

State history was required for at least a semester when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

In Tennessee, I believe we had a semester of it (perhaps a full year) in grade 7 when I attended. I recently taught grade 7 as a student teacher in 2011 and my mentor teacher seemed to weave in and out of state history while also teaching out of a sort of world social studies text book. 

It's a pity, really. I feel that my state, at least, has enough of a colorful history to keep students entertained if really approached correctly.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ In today's climate, I'm afraid the bulk of the instruction would on racial attitudes in the Antebellum South.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Most likely, SG. I do not wish to wax poetic regarding Tennessee in this general thread, but I am often impressed in my study of my state's history. We too often impose twenty-first century values (and sickeningly politically correct ones, at that) to the past. Upon graduation from high school, I had very little respect for Andrew Jackson due to his policy of Indian removal. Today, having studied him in depth, I have the greatest admiration for the man.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You're correct. I'm all for teaching history, especially of western civilization and particularly Anglo-American. Unfortunately this has become uncomfortable for those in academia and it's far safer to teach the ills of the West and America than to just teach pure history.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

dks202 said:


> Every day school children pledge allegiance to the US flag. Do they also pledge allegiance to their State flag (we do)?


No, that's a Texas thing!!

When I was in the Texas National Guard in the 80's, our guidon read "For God, Country and Texas."

I wonder If I can still find one.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, that's a Texas thing!!
> 
> When I was in the Texas National Guard in the 80's, our guidon read "For God, Country and Texas."
> 
> I wonder If I can still find one.


I was curious and googled it for my state. Apparently the State Senate now requires that the pledge to Tennessee be recited daily before beginning session, as of 2012. I would like to see it become more common and said in schools here.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> I was curious and googled it for my state. Apparently the State Senate now requires that the pledge to Tennessee be recited daily before beginning session, as of 2012. I would like to see it become more common and said in schools here.


 May I ask why they, and you, think it necessary?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

At my school - I think this may have been typical of the time - history was taught in a rather odd way. I learned a very great deal about the Tudors and Stuarts, and the Reformation and Counter-reformation, and exactly nothing about more recent history. 

I think a sound grasp of history is essential to get on in life, but as a schoolboy, most of what I learned of the history of the twentieth century came from war films, novels and comics, and quite possibly warped my value system for ever.

Swearing oaths of allegiance to one's state sounds quite communistic and Chinese.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Chouan said:


> May I ask why they, and you, think it necessary?


Southerners, in particular, tend to identify first as just that or as occupants of their respective states. This may be because in a nation the size of America, this tends to say more about who you are as a person than calling yourself American.

Also, the South has always been more in favor of stronger state government and weaker federal government. It especially defined American politics from our colonial period through the Civil War with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Is it necessary? Absolutely not. We are all extremely proud to be Americans and happily recite our pledge to the stars and stripes. However, we each think our own state is the brightest star on that flag. 

Example A: *"Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?" - Robert E. Lee*


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> Southerners, in particular, tend to identify first as just that or as occupants of their respective states. This may be because in a nation the size of America, this tends to say more about who you are as a person than calling yourself American.
> 
> Also, the South has always been more in favor of stronger state government and weaker federal government. It especially defined American politics from our colonial period through the Civil War with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
> 
> ...


I'm aware that the Southern States were, and are, far more in favour of "States' Rights", and that States' Rights was one of the principal causes of the Civil War.

Perhaps I should have said "m_ay I ask why they, and you, think it desirable?". _Indeed, I don't understand why American kids should be required to pledge their allegiance to the US itself either. As I said earlier, and as Langham has also said, it smacks to me of totalitarianism.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Chouan said:


> I'm aware that the Southern States were, and are, far more in favour of "States' Rights", and that States' Rights was one of the principal causes of the Civil War.
> 
> Perhaps I should have said "m_ay I ask why they, and you, think it desirable?". _Indeed, I don't understand why American kids should be required to pledge their allegiance to the US itself either. As I said earlier, and as Langham has also said, it smacks to me of totalitarianism.


It's voluntary. I had a student opt out of the pledge for religious reasons (Jehovah's Witness).


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Is self loathing a symptom or a cause of the liberal mind set?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

^ I believe it begins with guilt and eventually turns to self loathing.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

universitystripe said:


> I was curious and googled it for my state. Apparently the State Senate now requires that the pledge to Tennessee be recited daily before beginning session, as of 2012. I would like to see it become more common and said in schools here.


Sorry, but this just seems odd to me. What exactly would "allegiance" to a state consist of? Promising to buy only Tennessee produce if it's available, rather than the sweeter peaches that might come from Georgia?

Peculiar concept.

Edit: apparently Ohio's standard curriculum calls for Ohio history to be taught in the 4th grade. Seems to me we were taught that stuff later on, maybe 7th or 8th grade, but my memory is vague (and increasingly so, sadly).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Is self loathing a symptom or a cause of the liberal mind set?


Oh look, a pointless smartar$e irrelevant unpleasant one liner from Hitch. There's a surprise!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> ^ I believe it begins with guilt and eventually turns to self loathing.


Oh, dear, another pointless smartar$e one liner. Any particular reason for blurting this particular *bon mot*, which appears to be without any relevance to the thread?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> It's voluntary. I had a student opt out of the pledge for religious reasons (Jehovah's Witness).


Truly voluntary? Or voluntary under pressure to conform? You still haven't explained why it might be desirable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Truly voluntary? Or voluntary under pressure to conform? You still haven't explained why it might be desirable.


Perhaps when a culture of allegiance and devotion to one's own State is fostered it lessens the likelihood that the little bastards will grow up to kill for Allah or enlist with ISIS.

Maybe.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Is self loathing a symptom or a cause of the liberal mind set?


Symptom.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Perhaps when a culture of allegiance and devotion to one's own State is fostered it lessens the likelihood that the little bastards will grow up to kill for Allah or enlist with ISIS.
> 
> Maybe.


Then it's a good thing that swearing allegiance would prevent that kind of thing. Or would it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Then it's a good thing that swearing allegiance would prevent that kind of thing. Or would it?


Fortunately I didn't say prevent, I said lessens the likelihood.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Ireland - 1,2,3

1. The Gaels came from NW Spain (1a would include the Scotti settling Scotland, and the Gaels settling the Isle of Man. 1b would include Irish monks settling Iceland & saving European civilization) 
2. My ancestors, the Normans landed in the 12th century (2a would include the Normans becoming Irish & fighting off subsequent waves of English. 2b would include Cromwell, the clearances, James, William, Protestants, settlers etc)
3. Under English rule until 1921 (3a would include the road to a full Republic in the 40s. 3b would include The Troubles. 3c would include the EU and the Celtic Tiger)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ireland - 1,2,3
> 
> 1. The Gaels came from NW Spain (1a would include the Scotti settling Scotland, and the Gaels settling the Isle of Man. 1b would include Irish monks settling Iceland & saving European civilization)


Mythology, not History.


Earl of Ormonde said:


> 2. My ancestors, the Normans landed in the 12th century (2a would include the Normans becoming Irish & fighting off subsequent waves of English. 2b would include Cromwell, the clearances, James, William, Protestants, settlers etc)


The Norman landed, at the invitation of Dermot MacMurrough, who made Clare (Strongbow, named after his Welsh archers) his heir. Subsequent waves of English? The Stuarts, English? The planters, English? William of Orange, English?


Earl of Ormonde said:


> 3. Under English rule until 1921 (3a would include the road to a full Republic in the 40s. 3b would include The Troubles. 3c would include the EU and the Celtic Tiger)


Surely as an integral part of the United Kingdom, with MPs, members of the House of lords representing Irish boroughs and constituencies in the same way that MPs and lords represented boroughs and constituencies in the rest of Britain. Being part of a parliamentary democracy is under English rule?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Fortunately I didn't say prevent, I said lessens the likelihood.


But does it? Really?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> But does it? Really?


I guess we will just have to see if more successful ISIS recruiting comes from cultures that emphasize devotion to their community and nation, or those that propose that all opinions, nations, and beliefs each have equal merit.

If I were a terror recruiter I know where I would look for weak minded stooges.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I guess we will just have to see if more successful ISIS recruiting comes from cultures that emphasize devotion to their community and nation, or those that propose that all opinions, nations, and beliefs each have equal merit.
> 
> If I were a terror recruiter I know where I would look for weak minded stooges.


Talk about recruitment into terrorist organizations...... Are these strong or weak minded stooges (recruits) in your opinion?

*1. Texas*
The SPLC says Texas has the most KKK chapters than any other state in the nation. Texas has 18 KKK organizations, almost twice as many as any of the states on SPLC's list, it made it to the top of this list as the most racist state in the U.S.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I guess we will just have to see if more successful ISIS recruiting comes from cultures that emphasize devotion to their community and nation, or those that propose that all opinions, nations, and beliefs each have equal merit.
> 
> If I were a terror recruiter I know where I would look for weak minded stooges.


Talk about recruitment into terrorist organizations...... Are these strong or weak minded stooges in your opinion?

Texas also seems to have high recruitment numbers for their many "unofficial" militias. Some might argue that many (most?all?)militias are borderline criminal organizations. What type of stooges are these? Strong or weak minded?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I guess we will just have to see if more successful ISIS recruiting comes from cultures that emphasize devotion to their community and nation, or those that propose that all opinions, nations, and beliefs each have equal merit.
> 
> If I were a terror recruiter I know where I would look for weak minded stooges.


How about recruiting for violence in general? You know going out to fight for a cause or ideology be it religious or societal. The state with the most people willing to kill (and die) for god and country is once again Texas... I suppose these are the strong minded stooges?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

See??

ISIS, KKK, Unofficial militias, The US Army, all the same, all equal.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> See??
> 
> ISIS, KKK, Unofficial militias, The US Army, all the same, all equal.


I asked your thoughts and stated no opinion myself. High Recruitment numbers into the KKK and unofficial militias aren't as alarming to you as a couple ISIS recruits? I guess if it's local, it's legal? I'd worry more about the patriotic As*hole carrying a submachine in my backyard compared to some whacked out religious sh*t shooting up a country I will most likely never visit.

All in all, if you're looking for someone to do violence in the name of some organization (in the U.S.), it's actually Texas where you'd be most likely to find them. I know it's counter to what you were trying to say, but the numbers are hard to hide. Many, many people consider militias and the KKK as terrorist organizations. So...

In your quote "If I were a terror recruiter I know where I would look for weak minded stooges. " were you refering to Texas which is one of the" cultures that emphasize devotion to their community and nation" or were you refering to say i.e. Illionis which is one of "those that propose that all opinions, nations, and beliefs each have equal merit."? By numbers alone, if 1 terroist organization recruits 1 person out of Illinois, what would 16 terrorist organizations (KKK) recruiting 1 person each come up with in Texas?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

justonemore said:


> I asked your thoughts and stated no opinion myself. High Recruitment numbers into the KKK and unofficial militias aren't as alarming to you as a couple ISIS recruits? I guess if it's local, it's legal? I'd worry more about the patriotic As*hole carrying a submachine in my backyard compared to some whacked out religious sh*t shooting up a country I will most likely never visit.
> 
> All in all, if you're looking for someone to do violence in the name of some organization (in the U.S.), it's actually Texas where you'd be most likely to find them. I know it's counter to what you were trying to say, but the numbers are hard to hide. Many, many people consider militias and the KKK as terrorist organizations. So...
> 
> In your quote "If I were a terror recruiter I know where I would look for weak minded stooges. " were you refering to Texas which is one of the" cultures that emphasize devotion to their community and nation" or were you refering to say i.e. Illionis which is one of "those that propose that all opinions, nations, and beliefs each have equal merit."? By numbers alone, if 1 terroist organization recruits 1 person out of Illinois, what would 16 terrorist organizations (KKK) recruiting 1 person each come up with in Texas?


Deranged.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Deranged.


Ah. The first personal insult of the thread. And not so shockingly, it comes from Penteos. I guess you had nothing of value to add into the discussion? It's funny how you quote my whole post. Could you not actually come up with an example as to what you found deranged versus factual and prove me wrong? Probably too difficult to argue with the numbers huh??

Oh- Did you bother to read Andy's note above as to Interchange rules? :icon_headagainstwal

That's ok. I'll post it for you...

Rule #1 which applies to all Forums:1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators. ​If you are having difficulty controlling your emotions and are not able to support your point of view with respect for your fellow Members with opposing views you just might want to stay out of the Interchange!

If you are unwilling or unable to behave civilly, please do not participate in the Interchange.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

The KKK hasn't claimed any mass terrorist attacks, to my knowledge. I won't dismiss the crimes they committed throughout the twentieth-century, but I can't say they are relevant today. They may march and share their beliefs, but they aren't getting away with decapitating journalists or creating a new state. So it really isn't a valid comparison.

As for the pledge appearing totalitarian, I could see that assuming that we were swearing fealty to a person or regime. Instead, we are pledging allegiance to a nation, but truly to the republic for which it stands. If America ever became dictatorial, it would obviously no longer stand as an oath.

Though, monarchy also has the trappings of totalitarianism. However, I have enough common sense to know that it is largely symbolic in today's world.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> The KKK hasn't claimed any mass terrorist attacks, to my knowledge. I won't dismiss the crimes they committed throughout the twentieth-century, but I can't say they are relevant today. They may march and share their beliefs, but they aren't getting away with decapitating journalists or creating a new state. So it really isn't a valid comparison.
> 
> .


But you can agree that 16 KKK ichapters in Texas is more of a threat in Texas to a non-whiteTexas resident than ISIS, correct?

The whole idea behind the klan is to terrorize. Therefore there are 16 active terrorist organizations right in Texas making it the premier u.s. state to recruit terrorists in. As such, I was questioning wouldashoulda on his comment... "If I were a terror recruiter I'd know where to look for weak minded stooges". By numbers alone, without considering terrorist reasoning, Texas has the most "home grown" terrorists of any u.s. state. They are also active in the u.s. (versus isis in the middle east) and act against u.s. citizens (versus Iraqi, Syrian, etc.).


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

justonemore said:


> But you can agree that 16 KKK ichapters in Texas is more of a threat in Texas to a non-whiteTexas resident than ISIS, correct?


No, I absolutely can not agree with that. I can't find any record of the KKK killing or terrorizing anything as of late. They get together, march in protest of all sorts of things, and that's about it. Even in the South, they are largely ridiculed and mocked as a group of impoverished, senile old white men.

On the other hand, as of 2011 over 400 Texans had died in the Middle East fighting Al Qaeda.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> No, I absolutely can not agree with that. I can't find any record of the KKK killing or terrorizing anything as of late. They get together, march in protest of all sorts of things, and that's about it. Even in the South, they are largely ridiculed and mocked as a group of impoverished, senile old white men.
> 
> On the other hand, as of 2011 over 400 Texans had died in the Middle East fighting Al Qaeda.


How many texans were killed by al qaeda/isis in texas? In the u.s. in general?

I think it's a stretch to state that military men killed in action were victims of terrorism versus casualties of war. They are not innocent civilians sitting on a bus when a bomb goes off. They are combatants fighting for an organization with opposing views on religious & social values. They are in fact part of an invading force.

Oh. In 2000 there were 600 hate based terrorist groups in the U.S. Last year that number was around 1'100. It hardly seems as if they are as impotant as you'd have us believe. Texas is in the top ten states as to "hate crimes". The average year has 7'600 hate crime incidents with about 9'500 victims. According to Texas itself, while they had only one hate murder, there were 80 assaults & 80 cases of intimidation/vandalism in 2010. In 2011 the numbers were almost the same. Surely such crimes act to terrorize do they not?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

justonemore said:


> How many texans were killed by al qaeda/isis in texas? In the u.s. in general?
> 
> I think it's a stretch to state that military men killed in action were victims of terrorism versus casualties of war. They are not innocent civilians sitting on a bus when a bomb goes off. They are combatants fighting for an organization with opposing views on religious & social values. They are in fact part of an invading force.
> 
> Oh. In 2000 there were 600 hate based terrorist groups in the U.S. Last year that number was around 1'100. It hardly seems as if they are as impotant as you'd have us believe. Texas is in the top ten states as to "hate crimes"


You made the assertion that non-white Texans were more afraid of the KKK than ISIS. I can guarantee that this is not true. Americans, as brave as they are, do live under a constant cloud of terrorist threat. Like the Cold War before it, the shadow of 9/11 hangs over the United States and its people.

Now, as per your insistence that "hate crimes" are somehow comparable to terrorism....

What does it mean to say that Texas is in the top ten states for "hate crimes"? It means that only in comparison to the rest of America is Texas ranked unfavorably. Are hate crimes in America really that much of a problem? As you would like to imply, are hate crimes as immediate and terrifying a threat as terrorism? No, this tells us nothing of the sort. It only means that Texas has more hate crimes than, say, Connecticut.

You are playing quick and loose by applying statistics to your unrelated argument. Nothing you have shown has given any evidence that anyone is more terrified of any number of hate groups than foreign terrorist organizations.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/12/10-states-with-the-most-hate-crimes-per-capita.html

Perhaps a little brushing up on the actual rated before we start to insult residents of particular states.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

There were less than 3'000 9/11 victims in 1 (4) incident(s) 13 years ago. According to the FBI there has been around 130'000 victims of 90'000 hate crimes since then. While Americans may fear ISIS more than hate groups, the numbers don-t seem to support such.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

One in thirty-six homes in the United States will be broken into by criminals each year, as well. 

So, according to your logic, we should be most afraid of the things that are most likely to hurt us. Of course, you never take into account that Americans, and humans in general, are more prepared to deal with the most common threats. We arm ourselves for burglars. We diet and exercise if we are scared of cancer, or do nothing if we are not. 

I believe you have an ultimately skewed view of the human psyche.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

If I were walking in Chicago I would be much more worried about someone robbing/assaulting/shooting me than I would about ISIS taking out the Sears Tower while I was in it. That's me. There are hundreds of american on american murders there each year but I have never heard of a terrorist attack killing anyone there at all. My viewpoint may be skewed but you sound like a guy stating that airplanes are unsafe while driving a motorcycle (a much more dangerous method of transport compared to planes).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> If I were walking in Chicago I would be much more worried about someone robbing/assaulting/shooting me than I would about ISIS taking out the Sears Tower while I was in it. That's me. There are hundreds of american on american murders there each year but I have never heard of a terrorist attack killing anyone there at all. My viewpoint may be skewed but you sound like a guy stating that airplanes are unsafe while driving a motorcycle (a much more dangerous method of transport compared to planes).


Oh dear, Justonemore, you've again committed the cardinal sin of being thought to be criticising the US! In any case, when will you learn that a dreadfully high murder rate bears no relation to the fear that dark-skinned foreigners might do something? That evil foreign fanatics might, one day, kill as many Americans as 1% of those that other Americans kill?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

The likelihood that an American civilian will die as a direct result of ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorism is remote. The likelihood that an American will die as a direct result of KKK action is far more remote yet.

The likelihood that a family's child will die in a swimming pool accident is fairly substantial; the likelihood the child will die as a result of a stranger's assault is quite remote. But which is the incident more parents fear?

Fear and actual risk are in most cases largely disconnected. That doesn't mean we should be unconcerned about any risk, but a rational approach would be to allocate concern proportionally to risk likelihood; humans do not actually do that, though, in the USA or elsewhere.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> The KKK hasn't claimed any mass terrorist attacks, to my knowledge. I won't dismiss the crimes they committed throughout the twentieth-century, but I can't say they are relevant today. They may march and share their beliefs, but they aren't getting away with decapitating journalists or creating a new state. So it really isn't a valid comparison.
> 
> As for the pledge appearing totalitarian, I could see that assuming that we were swearing fealty to a person or regime. Instead, we are pledging allegiance to a nation, but truly to the republic for which it stands. If America ever became dictatorial, it would obviously no longer stand as an oath.
> 
> Though, monarchy also has the trappings of totalitarianism. However, I have enough common sense to know that it is largely symbolic in today's world.


Did the Italian children who swore allegiance to Italy from 1923 to 1943 swear allegiance to Mussolini, or to Italy? I think that you'll find that it was Italia! 
How has monarchy the trappings of totalitarianism? An oath of allegiance from officers to the head of state (which I took)? Do American officers not take a similar oath? In any case, you still haven't answered my question.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Did the Italian children who swore allegiance to Italy from 1923 to 1943 swear allegiance to Mussolini, or to Italy? I think that you'll find that it was Italia!
> How has monarchy the trappings of totalitarianism? An oath of allegiance from officers to the head of state (which I took)? Do American officers not take a similar oath? In any case, you still haven't answered my question.


Again, Americans do not blindly swear fealty in their pledge. They pledge allegiance to "the flag" and "the republic for which it stands." Assuming our republic no longer functioned and our elected officials were deposed by a dictator, that pledge no longer applies because we no longer exist as a republic. If you look at the wording, it is very clear in that regard.

So, rather than pledging allegiance to America, we pledge allegiance to our republic. Those children you reference pledged allegiance to Italy, and Italy was still Italy under Mussolini, dictatorship or not.

Since you are so insistent that I answer your question, it is simple: patriotism. It is simply incorrect to assume that reciting a pledge leads directly to totalitarianism. Just because you think there is a similarity there does not mean there is.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Also, I believe it should probably be stated that Americans do not live in constant fear of a terrorist attack. In my small town, I seriously doubt I will ever be the target of terrorism on my home soil. What would worry me is that if left alone, ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations would spread into what could eventually become a serious threat.

So it is likely more appropriate to state that most Americans fear _the spread_ of terrorism, and its political ramifications, rather than terrorism as it exists in its limited form today.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Perhaps when a culture of allegiance and devotion to one's own State is fostered it lessens the likelihood that the little bastards will grow up to kill for Allah or enlist with ISIS.
> 
> Maybe.


Allah is simply the word for god. If one pledges, joins the USAF, and kills someone, well; isn't there a "god" in the pledge?

Generally, Allah and Jehovah are considered to be the same deity. As in contrast to, say, Odin and Shiva. There's just minor disagreements within the desert religions.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A USAF airmen does not pledge to kill in the name of God.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

No he pledges (to god) to kill in the name of the u.s. *


I find neither option very palatable.


*The USAF refuses to re-enlist an airman that doesn't believe in god and doesn't want to swear to one in his oath to office. Sounds rather religious based to me.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> Again, Americans do not blindly swear fealty in their pledge. They pledge allegiance to "the flag" and "the republic for which it stands." Assuming our republic no longer functioned and our elected officials were deposed by a dictator, that pledge no longer applies because we no longer exist as a republic. If you look at the wording, it is very clear in that regard.
> 
> So, rather than pledging allegiance to America, we pledge allegiance to our republic. Those children you reference pledged allegiance to Italy, and Italy was still Italy under Mussolini, dictatorship or not.
> 
> _*Since you are so insistent that I answer your question, it is simple: patriotism. It is simply incorrect to assume that reciting a pledge leads directly to totalitarianism. Just because you think there is a similarity there does not mean there is.*_


But that still doesn't mean that you've explained why swearing an oath of allegiance on a daily basis is desirable. It is quite easy to be patriotic, assuming that patriotism is a good thing, without having to go through the theatrical process of swearing allegiance to a flag on a daily basis. You've explained to me that it's a voluntary act. How would other children and the teachers and the other parents react to a child refusing to take part in the performance?


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Absolutely nothing. I learned no history of any sort until the end of high school; I self-taught myself about the history of many things, but American History (not Wisconsin's; it's too short and too similar to Canada's) is one of my favorites.

-Quetzal


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Quetzal said:


> Absolutely nothing. I learned no history of any sort until the end of high school; I self-taught myself about the history of many things, but American History (not Wisconsin's; it's too short and too similar to Canada's) is one of my favorites.
> 
> -Quetzal


No History at all? Is the curriculum in your State determined at State level? To clarify, does that mean that in your State History isn't taught until the end of High school? What age would that mean?


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Chouan said:


> No History at all? Is the curriculum in your State determined at State level? To clarify, does that mean that in your State History isn't taught until the end of High school? What age would that mean?


Apparently, state history is taught in college, but not high school? In terms of American History, it is only taught in High School (but I taught myself about history LONG before this; history has always been a fascination of mine, and I've self-taught myself since Elementary School; history has introduced me to all of my primary interests, including clothes, as I thought, after watching old films and pictures, that it was normal for men to wear a suit and tie and a hat as regular, everyday attire; how wrong I was). Of course, my old school district has apparently been revamped or something, so perhaps things have changed (not that people in my area really care, anyway).

-Quetzal


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

In southern California, I got state history in the 3rd and 4th grades. Actually, it was one of the more useful things I learned in elementary school, since, in the 3rd grade, we learned to play poker. Yup. Turns out that, back in the 1800s, the name of my hometown was decided via a poker game, with the losers getting to name major streets. Thus, to recreate the city's founding, my teacher taught us the different poker hands, how to bet, the rules, etc. 'Twas wonderful.

Nowadays, many 4th-graders in southern (or Southern, if you like to call it a distinct region, which I think is more accurate) California actually fly up to Sacramento, the state's capitol, for a day-trip. I didn't get to do it, but my little sister did.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Eighth grade in North Carolina, with day trip to state capital . As I recall, we spent so much time on colonial and Revolutionary minutiae that from Reconstruction through the 20th century was covered in a rush the last month. State history_ should_ be a serious course, since more of your day-to-day life is affected by state and local law than by national.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Ekphrastic said:


> In southern California, I got state history in the 3rd and 4th grades. Actually, it was one of the more useful things I learned in elementary school, since, in the 3rd grade, we learned to play poker. Yup. Turns out that, back in the 1800s, the name of my hometown was decided via a poker game, with the losers getting to name major streets. Thus, to recreate the city's founding, my teacher taught us the different poker hands, how to bet, the rules, etc. 'Twas wonderful.
> 
> Nowadays, many 4th-graders in southern (or Southern, if you like to call it a distinct region, which I think is more accurate) California actually fly up to Sacramento, the state's capitol, for a day-trip. I didn't get to do it, but my little sister did.


Now THAT'S how you learn State History!

-Quetzal


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

By visiting the State Capital? How does that teach one History?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> By visiting the State Capital? How does that teach one History?


That's more like geography.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> That's more like geography.


Or, gulp,"Citizenship"!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> By visiting the State Capital? How does that teach one History?


Well, for starters, the students know where the state capitol resides!

Don't laugh, there are many kids in this country that don't even know the basics of how things work.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

But surely that can find that out without visiting the place? In any case, whilst I realise that American States and British counties aren't the same thing, what does it matter whether a student knows that Richmond is the capital of Virginia (is it?) or that Ipswich is the county town of Suffolk (again, is it?)? I can't see the connection between such knowledge and History.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I am of the opinion that every citizen of a free country should at least have some basic understanding of how government works, and where it resides. The history lesson can start with that.

May I ask, would you prefer to visit the Louvre and be face to face with the masters or are you content just looking at them in your computer screen? Does being in proximity to history invoke thought and reflection or is just reading about it sufficient?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Every American needs to know where their local County seat is.

It's where one shows up for their trial, to sign up for benefits, and register to vote Democrat.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Don't forget it's also where one shows up looking for a patronage job.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Though what all of you have pointed out is true, I was referring to Poker. Unfortunately, the schools around my area (UNLESS, of course, if they have changed for the better) never taught us what our capital was (another one of those self-taught things, I'm afraid) until High School (but some folks keep thinking that MILWAUKEE is our capital!).

Perhaps not being educated has made me more educated, so to speak.

-Quetzal


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

History is everything that happened in the past, regardless of current day subject divisions. End of! Teach it all or teach nothing at all.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I am of the opinion that every citizen of a free country should at least have some basic understanding of how government works, and where it resides. The history lesson can start with that.
> 
> May I ask, would you prefer to visit the Louvre and be face to face with the masters or are you content just looking at them in your computer screen? Does being in proximity to history invoke thought and reflection or is just reading about it sufficient?


Appreciating works of art in the flesh, as it were, and visiting a nineteenth century building that houses the State Government aren't really comparable. One can learn all that one needs to about State, or even National, Government without seeing the building in which it is housed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ One can learn what the Mona Lisa looks like as well by viewing it online. 

For that matter, I can look at most of these works on my place mats.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^* One can learn what the Mona Lisa looks like as well by viewing it online.
> *
> For that matter, I can look at most of these works on my place mats.


You really cannot learn that much about fine Art until you have viewed it in situ.

FWIW- the Mona Lisa is a gloomy, tiny, over-rated, piece of old tat.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> FWIW- the Mona Lisa is a gloomy, tiny, over-rated, piece of old tat.


What he said!

Until you've stood in front of it, you don't realise how small, dark and boring it actually is, more than disappointed I was physically shocked.

This is what you see in real life

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...U1C10zQ9n3SWcfRa9uFjIakL48IRdD6ghGbYVB3Lf5lFs


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> You really cannot learn that much about fine Art until you have viewed it in situ.
> 
> FWIW- the Mona Lisa is a gloomy, tiny, over-rated, piece of old tat.


That's actually a forgery. The real Mona Lisa is hanging in Carmine Sabatini's living room.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I never properly appreciated Van Gogh until I saw some of his works in the Musee D'Orsay. I still wouldn't have a Van Gogh print though, as it would lack the lustre that the real things have.
Visiting an historical site can be a very emotional experience, the Pantheon in Rome, for example. A victorian town hall wouldn't have that effect, any more than the Capitol at Nashville, for example.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> I never properly appreciated Van Gogh until I saw some of his works in the Musee D'Orsay. I still wouldn't have a Van Gogh print though, as it would lack the lustre that the real things have.
> Visiting an historical site can be a very emotional experience, the Pantheon in Rome, for example. A victorian town hall wouldn't have that effect, any more than the Capitol at Nashville, for example.


I may not have that effect on you, but perhaps on school children it would. At the very least, it would engage them one on one and perhaps spur more interest in history. People here feel the same way when they visit Civil War battlefields.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ One can learn what the Mona Lisa looks like as well by viewing it online.
> 
> For that matter, I can look at most of these works on my place mats.


The typical Euro-snob profits insist that nothing can be learned unless we leave the US and see it for ourselves, but that educational field trips to our own State Houses are meaningless.

Forgive then. For they know not what they are!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I never properly appreciated Van Gogh until I saw some of his works in the Musee D'Orsay. I still wouldn't have a Van Gogh print though, as it would lack the lustre that the real things have.
> Visiting an historical site can be a very emotional experience, the Pantheon in Rome, for example. A victorian town hall wouldn't have that effect, any more than the Capitol at Nashville, for example.


Agreed on the Van Gogh, it was seeing his work in real life that finally allowed me to appreciate it.

Disagree on the Victorian town hall. Cuthbert Broderick's Leeds town hall is awe-inspiring.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The typical Euro-snob profits insist that nothing can be learned unless we leave the US and see it for ourselves, but that educational field trips to our own State Houses are meaningless.
> 
> Forgive then. For they know not what they are!!


I don't suppose you can source this, can you? I mean you are claiming that it's "typical".


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ One can learn what the Mona Lisa looks like as well by viewing it online.
> 
> For that matter, I can look at most of these works on my place mats.


Indeed. Everyone has access to cheap copies(on placemats? oooff) but can they experience everything else that comes with seeing the Mona Lisa in person? I suppose by viewing a few on-line photos we can all claim to be experts on Da Vinci? The Louvre? Paris? France? Italy?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The only thing worse than a Euro-Snob,

Is an American Ex-patriot Euro-Snob with a broken funny bone!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

^^^^ Yes. I blame it on not being exposed enough to the Kardashians and Honey boo-boo while being forced by my spouse to watch (hear actually) NCIS and Dr. House in French...:rolleyes2:....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I may not have that effect on you, but perhaps on school children it would. At the very least, it would engage them one on one and perhaps spur more interest in history. People here feel the same way when they visit Civil War battlefields.


But a Civil War battlefield would mean something, as would Thiepval or Vimy Ridge, Beaumont Hamel, or The Battery in Hartlepool, as would Versailles, or Carcasonne. Visiting Leeds Town Hall, whilst it might be an interesting, even fascinating building, won't really teach kids much about History that couldn't be learned in a classroom.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Nor would walking onto a grassy field somewhere in Northern France.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Nor would walking onto a grassy field somewhere in Northern France.


Stop it, you.

We will visit the places WE hold in esteem and poo-poo YOUR ill informed suggestions!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Stop it, you.
> 
> We will visit the places WE hold in esteem and poo-poo YOUR ill informed suggestions!!


In order to stop all this bickering, I would suggest we just put everything on placemats. History, science, math, arts, etc.... Heck...Is there a topic that can't be made better (and mastered) by putting a plate on top of it?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Quetzal said:


> Perhaps not being educated has made me more educated, so to speak.
> 
> -Quetzal


Worked for Winston Churchill.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

justonemore said:


> In order to stop all this bickering, I would suggest we just put everything on placemats. History, science, math, arts, etc.... Heck...Is there a topic that can't be made better (and mastered) by putting a plate on top of it?


Weight loss


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> In order to stop all this bickering, I would suggest we just put everything on placemats. History, science, math, arts, etc.... Heck...Is there a topic that can't be made better (and mastered) by putting a plate on top of it?


That would be better than comic books how exactly??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That would be better than comic books how exactly??


I keep looking for Adamantium on the periodic table and can't find it!


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What he said!
> 
> Until you've stood in front of it, you don't realise how small, dark and boring it actually is, more than disappointed I was physically shocked.


Kind of like Plymouth Rock.
I do visit historic places and like to discover for myself that the real object may not meet what has built up in my mind. It's called perspective. Nothing more than a new data point.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I keep looking for Adamantium on the periodic table and can't find it!


It's between Kryptonite and Dilithium.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

ChrisRS said:


> Kind of like Plymouth Rock.
> I do visit historic places and like to discover for myself that the real object may not meet what has built up in my mind. It's called perspective. Nothing more than a new data point.


Even more disappointing is the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen, the posters and postcards and photos really build it up, make it look like it is huge and sits in pride of place in the centre of town in a main river or canal or right out in the middle of ah uge harbour. Well, it doesn't, it sits about 2 metres out from a pathway in the harobur behind a castle and it is tiny. And there is no water between it and the shore, just rocks, you can actually step out to it form the pathway without getting your feet wet.

This is what you think it looks like: https://images2.fanpop.com/images/p...e-little-mermaid-andersen-2763876-500-375.jpg

This is what it actually looks like: https://changehere.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/aimg_4231.jpg?w=875&h=656


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Nor would walking onto a grassy field somewhere in Northern France.


Why would a grassy field in Northern France mean less, per se, than a grassy field in Pennsylvania? If the Gettysburg battlefield means something to an American, surely one can accept that Beaumont Hamel or Vimy can mean something to a Canadian? Or that Verdun can mean something to a Frenchman, or Saint Mihiel could mean something to an American? A Victorian town hall means nothing in terms of teaching History, civic pride, perhaps, but seeing such a building wouldn't help to enable kids to learn the History of their State, or their country.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Why would a grassy field in Northern France mean less, per se, than a grassy field in Pennsylvania? If the Gettysburg battlefield means something to an American, surely one can accept that Beaumont Hamel or Vimy can mean something to a Canadian? Or that Verdun can mean something to a Frenchman, or Saint Mihiel could mean something to an American? A Victorian town hall means nothing in terms of teaching History, civic pride, perhaps, but seeing such a building wouldn't help to enable kids to learn the History of their State, or their country.


You misunderstand my point.

You said nothing can be gained from walking about one's state capital.

A sense of history can be gained the same as a grassy patch of land in the north of France can mean something.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> You misunderstand my point.
> 
> You said nothing can be gained from walking about one's state capital.
> 
> A sense of history can be gained the same as a grassy patch of land in the north of France can mean something.


I can't see how. Could you explain such that I can understand? Thanks. (No sarcasm intended)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I can't see how. Could you explain such that I can understand? Thanks. (No sarcasm intended)


I doubt it!!


----------

