American History

[dilute micro]

If you ask on a predominantly British board, then it will be.

Which can only be the case if nothing in American history prior to the creation of the United States bore anything material to it.

The US is a product of things that happened in America before there was a US. It all contributed to making things the way they were and for how things are now. It's all connected if people can appreciate it or not.

 

[mrs quoad]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Violence-Am...8380656?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189287144&sr=8-1

I'm - admittedly - not hugely far into it; but already pretty hooked.

There's a second volume too that's, umm...

Ah. Protest, rebellion and reform

 

[Gavin Bl]

Which can only be the case if nothing in American history prior to the creation of the United States bore anything material to it.

The US is a product of things that happened in America before there was a US. It all contributed to making things the way they were and for how things are now. It's all connected if people can appreciate it or not.

No, if someone asks for book recommendations about 'American history' on a general bulletin board in the UK, then it seems likely that they will recommended books about the USA, which may or may not contain pre-columbian history.

 

[D]

Lies My Teacher Told Me

 

[nino_savatte]

Which can only be the case if nothing in American history prior to the creation of the United States bore anything material to it.

The US is a product of things that happened in America before there was a US. It all contributed to making things the way they were and for how things are now. It's all connected if people can appreciate it or not.

That's a selective take on history: one that airbrushes out certain facts because they don't serve the narrative. The trouble with many Americans - yourself included - is that you don't particularly like your history, so you will find ways to revise it. The average American is ignorant of the country's labour history and whose fault is that?

 

[Diamond]

Tom Paine's 'Common Sense' is pretty essential

Depends what period you're interested in really but these are good:

'American Scripture: The Making of the Declaration of Independence' by Pauline Maier

'The Democratisation of American Christianity' by Nathan O. Hatch

'Roll, Jordan, Roll' Eugene D. Genovese

Try and shoehorn some C. Vann Woodward in at some point as well. 'The Strange Career of Jim Crow' is the biggie. Useful both on post-civil war south and as a source for the civil rights movement.

The Foner book is excellent too.

 

[nosos]

Ta all

 

[N_igma]

The Civil War Years by Robert E. Denney.

 

[dilute micro]

No, if someone asks for book recommendations about 'American history' on a general bulletin board in the UK, then it seems likely that they will recommended books about the USA, which may or may not contain pre-columbian history.

No it doesn't just seem that way. That's the usual limit of scope. As I said, to understand the US then and now it's necessary to understand the politics, cultures & people of the colonies and so forth.

 

[nino_savatte]

No it doesn't just seem that way. That's the usual limit of scope. As I said, to understand the US then and now it's necessary to understand the politics, cultures & people of the colonies and so forth.

Or, in your case, they have to be totally narrativised in order to be valid. Your understanding of certain parts of US history have been loaded with a particular ideological value. As for "cultures", I doubt you would understand what the word actually means.

 

[nosos]

have been loaded with a particular ideological value.

As oppposed to 'value-neutral' historical interpretation?

 

[nino_savatte]

As oppposed to 'value-neutral' historical interpretation?

Well, quite, Dilute has a particular view of the Civil War that asserts that slaves weren't as badly treated as many historians (and the slaves themselves) actually claim.

 

[nosos]

My point was less about that and more about the idea of value-neutrality. I don't see how such a thing is possible. You can adopt a more or less rigorously objective methodology but the idea of value-neutral inquiry is oxymoronic.

 

[nino_savatte]

My point was less about that and more about the idea of value-neutrality. I don't see how such a thing is possible. You can adopt a more or less rigorously objective methodology but the idea of value-neutral inquiry is oxymoronic.

In the case of the writing of history that is not possible anymore than it is possible to free history from ideology.

 

[nosos]

In the case of the writing of history that is not possible anymore than it is possible to free history from ideology.

So why is it, in itself, a criticism of dilute micro to say his understanding of civil war era America has "been loaded with a particular ideological value"?

 

[nino_savatte]

So why is it, in itself, a criticism of dilute micro to say his understanding of civil war era America has "been loaded with a particular ideological value"?

I gave my reason here

Dilute has a particular view of the Civil War that asserts that slaves weren't as badly treated as many historians (and the slaves themselves) actually claim.

 

[nosos]

Ah sorry I underinterpreted that

 

[littlebabyjesus]

IMO, any study of North American history should start here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For South America, start here:

 

[newbie]

If you like your history fictionalised you might enjoy the Gore Vidal series, Lincoln, Burr,,, through to Hollywood.


There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

 

[dilute micro]

Or, in your case, they have to be totally narrativised in order to be valid. Your understanding of certain parts of US history have been loaded with a particular ideological value. As for "cultures", I doubt you would understand what the word actually means.

Do you homework and it won't sound "narrativised".


Just our of curiosity, how much have you studied cultures in American history be they Native, any European ones or African? Are you going to tell me you have a great deal?

 

[dilute micro]

So why is it, in itself, a criticism of dilute micro to say his understanding of civil war era America has "been loaded with a particular ideological value"?

I'm only getting he usual reaction from the disciples of popular history. It rubs some people wrong - popular history initiated by the leaders of the federal government back in the day rewrote in real time and afterward the history of the war and slavery and other things involving the times. The way they have it is the war was fought by the US to 1) free the slaves; and 2) preserve the Union. Both of these patriotic and moralistic reasons can be proven false even though it is the US as the star of the show.

Different people will give different arguments 1 or 2. Most elite thinkers/writers don't argue the emancipation one any more. That's not to say they are outspoken against it. But interestingly it is what school children are taught not directly but suggestively. Open up any 6th grader history book and you'll see the tug-o-war immediately drawn out in slave vs non-slave sides squaring off on the battlefield.

The worse argument to engage is that of preserving to Union because it seems to make sense. It's not until people are forced to do actual study that they understand the real reason for the war - money and power. But you can't make somebody study. Everybody thinks they know what it's all about, as someone here once said on the causes of the American civil war, "it's ABC". It certainly seems so when the official history has you thinking you got it. Understand the difficulty in arguing against these two. On the one hand you seem to argue a pro-slavery argument fueled by possible closet racism. And on the other you're anti-American, a traitor. These are very emotional things, slavery and patriotism. It encourages people to believe they are knowledgeable.

 

[nino_savatte]

Do you homework and it won't sound "narrativised".


Just our of curiosity, how much have you studied cultures in American history be they Native, any European ones or African? Are you going to tell me you have a great deal?

How about you get it through your incredibly thick skull that your "factoids" mean diddly squat in the grand scheme of things? You're quite fond of narrativised accounts of history as you have so ably demonstrated over the course of the last couple of weeks. The only person who needs to "do" their "homework" is you, chum.

It's also pretty clear that you have a very narrow understanding of the word "culture". Read some Raymond Williams...oh, shit, he was a Marxist and you once had a tagline that read "Middle Class Fascist" - did you not?

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm only getting he usual reaction from the disciples of popular history. It rubs some people wrong - popular history initiated by the leaders of the federal government back in the day rewrote in real time and afterward the history of the war and slavery and other things involving the times. The way they have it is the war was fought by the US to 1) free the slaves; and 2) preserve the Union. Both of these patriotic and moralistic reasons can be proven false even though it is the US as the star of the show.

Different people will give different arguments 1 or 2. Most elite thinkers/writers don't argue the emancipation one any more. That's not to say they are outspoken against it. But interestingly it is what school children are taught not directly but suggestively. Open up any 6th grader history book and you'll see the tug-o-war immediately drawn out in slave vs non-slave sides squaring off on the battlefield.

The worse argument to engage is that of preserving to Union because it seems to make sense. It's not until people are forced to do actual study that they understand the real reason for the war - money and power. But you can't make somebody study. Everybody thinks they know what it's all about, as someone here once said on the causes of the American civil war, "it's ABC". It certainly seems so when the official history has you thinking you got it. Understand the difficulty in arguing against these two. On the one hand you seem to argue a pro-slavery argument fueled by possible closet racism. And on the other you're anti-American, a traitor. These are very emotional things, slavery and patriotism. It encourages people to believe they are knowledgeable.

Try as hard as you like but it won't wash. Slavery was a cruel and barbaric institution that split up families and brutalised those who resisted.

The worse argument to engage is that of preserving to Union because it seems to make sense. It's not until people are forced to do actual study that they understand the real reason for the war - money and power.

And so who had the money and the power in the South? Furthermore, the entire economy of the South relied principally on slave labour. You also seem to have forgotten the Kansas-Nebraska Act...you know, the - as they were ten - new territories and the debate on whether or not those new states would be free or slave. How about so-called State's Rights...the right that the southern states believed they had to retain and possibly, extend, the institution of slavery. The issue of "State's Rights" last cropped up during the Jim Crow era. The Civil War happened, the Confederacy lost and the rest is- as they say - history. You don't have a time machine and the closest you can get to changing history is to revise it.

On the one hand you seem to argue a pro-slavery argument fueled by possible closet racism.

Would you mind clarifying this statement? It doesn't appear to make any sense (well, perhaps it makes perfect Orwellian sense ). How am I "arguing" a "pro-slavery argument"?

And on the other you're anti-American, a traitor.

Weak. I wondered when you'd dig this one out. What does "anti-American" mean praytell?

These are very emotional things, slavery and patriotism. It encourages people to believe they are knowledgeable

As Samuel Johnson once said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Though how the line "some slaves didn't work under overseers" becomes a declaration of one's 'patriotism' seems a little warped. As a comeback, this statement doesn't work, particularly, if you consider yourself to be a "patriot". Are you telling me that "patriotism" confers knowledgeability directly upon the subject? Lay off the crack, chum.

 

[dilute micro]

Try as hard as you like but it won't wash. Slavery was a cruel and barbaric institution that split up families and brutalised those who resisted.

Again, I'm not making any such argument. You're only saying I am.

And so who had the money and the power in the South? Furthermore, the entire economy of the South relied principally on slave labour. You also seem to have forgotten the Kansas-Nebraska Act...you know, the - as they were ten - new territories and the debate on whether or not those new states would be free or slave. How about so-called State's Rights...the right that the southern states believed they had to retain and possibly, extend, the institution of slavery. The issue of "State's Rights" last cropped up during the Jim Crow era. The Civil War happened, the Confederacy lost and the rest is- as they say - history. You don't have a time machine and the closest you can get to changing history is to revise it.

What makes you think I "forgotten" the Kansas-Nebraska act? Why do you say things like that, I mean, out of the blue? I think you want to give the impression of being well read like when you write in French. First do some homework on states rights. It wasn't about slavery. Nobody was taking slavery away. The idea that someone was is pure myth and I've gone into that before about 3 years ago in another thread. Look up the original 13th amendment. That is what 'state's rights' has come to be defined as being given the rewriting of history by the victorious republicans, the same people that replaced schoolteachers with ones that would teach the war was over slavery and preserving the union. In short: the attempt by the South to have new territories be slave territories was a last ditch effort to gain seats in congress. That way the Southern states could block passage of bills that forced them to pay such high tariffs and Federal monies that by the Constitution were supposed to be reinvested by equal proportion back into the states where the money had come. Instead, for 38 years prior, Northern politicians kept that money themselves investing it into their own states.

Would you mind clarifying this statement? It doesn't appear to make any sense (well, perhaps it makes perfect Orwellian sense ). How am I "arguing" a "pro-slavery argument"?

Weak. I wondered when you'd dig this one out. What does "anti-American" mean praytell?

I wasn't talking to you. Go back and read the post. "Anti-American" in this case is what is thought of any opinion that runs against the official US version we're taught since childhood, that being that the US fought to preserve the Union. To be against he Union is treasonous, anti-american, anti-baseball, mom or apple pie.

As Samuel Johnson once said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Though how the line "some slaves didn't work under overseers" becomes a declaration of one's 'patriotism' seems a little warped. As a comeback, this statement doesn't work, particularly, if you consider yourself to be a "patriot". Are you telling me that "patriotism" confers knowledgeability directly upon the subject? Lay off the crack, chum.

You're so crackbrained. You misread my post and then write this?

 

[nino_savatte]

Again, I'm not making any such argument. You're only saying I am.



What makes you think I "forgotten" the Kansas-Nebraska act? Why do you say things like that, I mean, out of the blue? I think you want to give the impression of being well read like when you write in French. First do some homework on states rights. It wasn't about slavery. Nobody was taking slavery away. The idea that someone was is pure myth and I've gone into that before about 3 years ago in another thread. Look up the original 13th amendment. That is what 'state's rights' has come to be defined as being given the rewriting of history by the victorious republicans, the same people that replaced schoolteachers with ones that would teach the war was over slavery and preserving the union. In short: the attempt by the South to have new territories be slave territories was a last ditch effort to gain seats in congress. That way the Southern states could block passage of bills that forced them to pay such high tariffs and Federal monies that by the Constitution were supposed to be reinvested by equal proportion back into the states where the money had come. Instead, for 38 years prior, Northern politicians kept that money themselves investing it into their own states.




I wasn't talking to you. Go back and read the post. "Anti-American" in this case is what is thought of any opinion that runs against the official US version we're taught since childhood, that being that the US fought to preserve the Union. To be against he Union is treasonous, anti-american, anti-baseball, mom or apple pie.




You're so crackbrained. You misread my post and then write this?

More rubbish. You're no historian chum. You may think that because you have a couple of books written by soi-disant Civil War historians that you have some sort of superior knowledge to me. You don't.

You are being wilfully ignorant and this is another characteristic that I have identified in many right wing Americans; you twist words and you churn out "facts" which are no more than strawmen.

The only "crackbrained" person here is you.

First do some homework on states rights. It wasn't about slavery.

And the right of a state to practice slavery could be referred to as? Seems to me you're missing something here.

This is what this is all about for you.

Instead, for 38 years prior, Northern politicians kept that money themselves investing it into their own states.

Still harbouring bitterness, eh Johnny Reb?

"Anti-American" in this case is what is thought of any opinion that runs against the official US version we're taught since childhood,

Nothing like the auld nationalist mindset, eh? In the 50's and 60's you'd have used the term "unAmerican"...but that refers to anyone who is American and is perceived to be working against the interests of the state. Whereas the new term "Anti-American" is now used to describe anything that doesn't fit into the narrow frames of reference constructed by so-called patriots (opposition to the Iraq invasion, for example). How does "preserving the union" become an expression of "anti-Americanism"?

So you're a bit of a red hunter/redbaiter on the side - non? Why am I not surprised?

I think you want to give the impression of being well read like when you write in French.

I am pretty well read. I don't limit myself to single periods of history nor do I restrict my reading to one subject. You appear to have an atypical southern obsession with the Civil War and it is one that I have encountered before from other soi-disant historians.

There is more to history than the regurgitation of facts and data.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm only getting he usual reaction from the disciples of popular history. It rubs some people wrong - popular history initiated by the leaders of the federal government back in the day rewrote in real time and afterward the history of the war and slavery and other things involving the times. The way they have it is the war was fought by the US to 1) free the slaves; and 2) preserve the Union. Both of these patriotic and moralistic reasons can be proven false even though it is the US as the star of the show.

Different people will give different arguments 1 or 2. Most elite thinkers/writers don't argue the emancipation one any more. That's not to say they are outspoken against it. But interestingly it is what school children are taught not directly but suggestively. Open up any 6th grader history book and you'll see the tug-o-war immediately drawn out in slave vs non-slave sides squaring off on the battlefield.

The worse argument to engage is that of preserving to Union because it seems to make sense. It's not until people are forced to do actual study that they understand the real reason for the war - money and power. But you can't make somebody study. Everybody thinks they know what it's all about, as someone here once said on the causes of the American civil war, "it's ABC". It certainly seems so when the official history has you thinking you got it. Understand the difficulty in arguing against these two. On the one hand you seem to argue a pro-slavery argument fueled by possible closet racism. And on the other you're anti-American, a traitor. These are very emotional things, slavery and patriotism. It encourages people to believe they are knowledgeable.

Another very "emotional thing" is the resentment felt by Dixiecrats over the way they were forced to abolish segregation. Your view of the history of the Southern states is a romantic one that has no basis in reality. Your emotional attachment to your neo-Confederalist ideology blinds you to the realities of both the institution of slavery and the actual political character of the Confederacy.

Your use of the word "emotional" is revealing, since it is often employed as a means of controlling the discourse by your fellow ideologues. It was used rather extensively by the US right to shit down any anti-war discourses. If you don't want to hear the message, you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "emotional" or worse, "hateful".

 

[dilute micro]

And the right of a state to practice slavery could be referred to as? Seems to me you're missing something here.

I knew you'd fall for that one.

Slavery was a Federally protected institution.

Of course it seems to you I'm missing something. You don't bother with study on Civil War history.

And I have a whole lot more than a couple books.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I knew you'd fall for that one.

Slavery was a Federally protected institution.

Of course it seems to you I'm missing something. You don't bother with study on Civil War history.

And I have a whole lot more than a couple books.

But wasn't the retention or abolition of slavery touted as a states' rights issue?

 

[dilute micro]

Another very "emotional thing" is the resentment felt by Dixiecrats over the way they were forced to abolish segregation. Your view of the history of the Southern states is a romantic one that has no basis in reality. Your emotional attachment to your neo-Confederalist ideology blinds you to the realities of both the institution of slavery and the actual political character of the Confederacy.

Your use of the word "emotional" is revealing, since it is often employed as a means of controlling the discourse by your fellow ideologues. It was used rather extensively by the US right to shit down any anti-war discourses. If you don't want to hear the message, you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "emotional" or worse, "hateful".

No basis in reality? Then why do so many facts have to be silenced? Why do parts of history have to be excluded to promote the Officially Approved version of the period that says the US acted on high morals and patriotic duty?