I think you may have misread the emotional content in his post. I didn't see much emotion in the stuff you quoted, certainly not the same as you seem to read in it.
Christopher Colombus (Split from Taekwondo isn't from Karate...thread)
- Thread starter JR 137
- Start date
I knew there were multiple civil wars in British history, but not which bore the name. We have the convenience of there really only being one, so "Civil War" (with capitals or without) is unambiguous at this point.
Er what 'emotional content'? I think you are reading waaaaay too much into my posts, there's no deep meaning there, he does seem crotchety, that's not 'emotional' that's being cranky and that's how it seems on just reading it, I don't delve into people's emotional state though I'm curious as why you keep trying to delve into mine and criticise my posts these days.
Each of our civil wars has a different name, we've had 7 so far, we're waiting to see if no 8 comes about shortly.
1. Rebellion of 1088 to 1091
2. The Anarchy 1135–1154
3. First Barons War 1215–1217
4. Second Barons War 1264–1267
5. Dispenser War 1321–1322
6. Wars of the Roses 1455–1487
7 English Civil War 1642–1651
No 5 is very juicy. The wrong side won in no 6.
I'm confused...how much time do you think we spend in school? For americans, at least where I am, it starts between 2 and 4, and high school finished at either 17 or 18, depending on your birthday. Then most people in america (google says 70%) go to college as well. So it's the exact same amount of time...did you think americans start school later, or that we left earlier?
I didn't mean to appear defensive...I'm not offended or otherwise concerned about what people in the UK think of american history, any more than I care what people in Virginia think about New York. As far as I'm concerned, the UK is just a large state (or group of states I guess).
Just confused about why people in Europe think they know more about american history than americans. I've thought about it in the past, and came up with three theories (sticking with the UK for this conversation, but generalizing for most europeans I've met):
1: People from the UK actually do know more, and spend more time learning it. That would surprise me though, since even though we are very interdependent like you said, we don't spend as much time learning about the UK's history as we do on american history, and so many countries once belonged (for lack of a better word) to the UK that to spend all that time on every countries cessation would be impossible.
2: People from the UK tend to believe Americans spend less time learning about our history than we actually do. Since you mentioned time in schooling earlier...the year estimate I made earlier was just for high school. We also spend a year in middle school and a year in elementary school learning about that stuff as well. And a ton of students learn more in college, or on their own.
3: People from the UK think there is a mass conspiracy out there that americans are actively being taught incorrect facts. This seems to be a popular idea, but I can't wrap my head around actually thinking it's true.
I think you're confusing me with wandering student. Rereading his post, he mentioned not knowing a lot about it, so that explains your post and it's a good link IMO. Maybe that's also where you're reading the defensiveness and crotchetiness? I didn't see that in his post either though. I also didn't refer to it as British occupancy. I also don't have any british roots, nor would it effect me if I did. And I haven't said anything about us rebelling, the 'rightness' of that, or universal suffrage. I think you're attributing a lot of things to me I never said.
Okay, so you subscribe to both theory 2 and 3 from above. Are people in the UK taught two versions of events...what actually happened and what you believe Americans believe happen? I really can't wrap my head around this.
I might do that at some point. I took a couple electives in college focusing on WW2, so it could be fun.
I think you have this quite mixed up, historians study history, there are a great many historian in the USA who study European history, ancient Greek, Egyptian, Roman etc etc history. I know an American professor who is an expert on the Romans in Britian. As I said, American history is part of world history which we are taught so yes we know about American history but I'm not sure why you think all Europeans know more American history than all Americans. You have some strange ideas about Europe and the Brits.
Miffed are you?
Oh for good ness sake, we don't tend to go for conspiracy theories, but perhaps you want to stop Americans telling us how evolution isn't taught in many schools only Creation, how American schools don't teach properly ( not British words) this is from an American writer not British or European. Is it true, we don't actually care, it's an American thing to sort. We are somewhat busy with our own problems.
American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math - The Atlantic
Completely and utterly wrong on all counts. I think you are floating around in your own world here mate.
Medium sized, actually.
I'm referring to the general public, not experts in the field. Obviously the experts are the most knowledgeable, regardless of where they're from. And I don't think europeans know more american history than americans...I think a lot of europeans think that. Which I've gathered from europeans who have both directly and indirectly said as much.
How is me saying I'm not offended a sign of me being miffed?
Going to have to go through that article later to read it.
You stated, or at least pretty heavily implied, that brits are in school for longer than americans. You also pretty heavily implied that I/americans did not learn the truth in school, which you've said a couple times in the past as well. You're not the only person to have done this. I'm just trying to figure out why people think this.
Do you want some fish with those chips on your shoulders?
Actually it's the other way around you implied you spent longer at school than we did so therefore studied more history.
You may want to stop thinking you know what I mean, I rarely imply anything, others will tell you I come straight out with what I'm thinking.
Again no chip. I really am unconcerned, it just confuses me.
No. I stated
"People seem to be taught (not you, basically any foreigner), that americans know less than everyone else about the american revolution, when in reality (I hope) we spend more time learning about it in school than any other country."
I specifically said we spent longer learning about the american revolution than others, and acknowledged it was an assumption. I said nothing about length in school in general.
I later said "Exactly. You guys have so much more to learn, in the same amount of time. So I domt get where the idea that Europeans know more about the history of the USA than americans comes from."
That's about length, but stating that we spend the same amount of time in school, not more time.
When you reply to a statement that we are in school the same amount of time with "In the same amount of time? Are you sure? We start school at four and a half, leave at 16 or 18, a lot of years to learn history. University and college is extra years." So you question if we spend the same amount of time in school, then state the amount that you are in school. I'm pretty sure anyone reading that would read it as you stating that brits spend more time in school than americans.
When you tell someone to research something more, and offer a correction to what you think I learned, followed by "Learning what you are taught and learning the truth are often two very different things, you always have to bear than in mind.", again, I'm pretty sure anyone reading that would read it as you stating americans (or at least me) did not learn the truth in school.
If those aren't what you meant, and what you write is different than what's in your mind, I'm not sure there's a point in continuing this conversation. I'll never know what arguments you actually mean to make, and which ones your going to backtrack on.
It's pretty clear who has a chip on their shoulder in this conversation.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
says the member of kingdom formerly known as the British Empire.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Are we talking about an actual chip or a fry?
Regarding my previous post, I didn't realize things were getting so heated. I was just being a smart aleck.
Not me mate, I'm having a giraffe. Really why do people take this so seriously? is this part of the current political climate that people think their country has to be the best? Oh we know more history than anyone else, oh we spend more time in school than you do. We have the biggest bestest words...….. Nu?
says the member of kingdom formerly known as the British Empire.
Actually not so much, I have dual nationality. And American Empire - New World Encyclopedia
So me dears, carry on trying to dog pile, it's amusing me no end, I always enjoy watching you trying to upset me, ain't going to happen, you all get so touchy when you assume you are being criticised, I'm not heated about this, you will find Brits are the people most likely to poke fun, denigrate and generally laugh at the 'British Empire' and themselves, if you can't laugh at yourself life is pretty pointless.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Again, I didnt realize the heat level in the thread. Wasn't trying to dog pile. In spite of everyone's assurances to the contrary, it's clear by the end of the thread that folks were getting upset.
Again, none of which was said. I'm bowing out of this conversation now though, as I am getting frustrated. Not from national pride or anything like that (and I wasnt frustrated up til this post), but because I was asking questions trying to understand something, and your response was to be argumentative and change your own statements for some unknown reason, then ignoring when it was pointed out, and wasting both of our time. Not for the first time.
So, everyone is clearly upset except the person acting upset? Interesting theory.
Really, you need to stop doing this, you have been like this since you become a mod. Anyone who has been on here long enough knows I don't get 'upset' on here. I will provoke, tease, chide, be argumentative and laugh at posts but I do not get 'upset', it's the internet and you are people I don't actually know, why would I get 'upset'. Please do stop trying to think you know me, that you can read from my words what emotion you think I'm feeling, it really doesn't suit you trying to be Steve.
kempodisciple has taken an interesting thread and turned it into his crie de coeur about how he thinks Americans are thought of outside America, that he is completely wrong and has totally not understood very much is not my fault, it's also not my fault that he has no sense of humour, who knew telling the truth about Paul Revere would cause such a reaction.
So sweetie, as the expression goes, chillax. You get it wrong when your blood pressure goes up, mine is fine. I have only once got upset on this site and that is when, back in the days of the Study, someone, a very right wing American gentleman stated as truth that in the UK we let premature babies die to save money for the NHS, as someone who lost a premmie baby you can understand why I was upset and perhaps too why I don't get upset because someone is being obtuse and far too overly serious. If you don't then well, your loss not mine.
Not it's not clear, as I wasn't, why do this? why assume that a poster is 'upset', I posted a light hearted comment about Paul Revere and some other facts, another poster got upset as he thought I was criticising American education. He has a bee in his bonnet about Europeans who he thinks are saying they know more about the American Civil War than Americans do and really?
did you think I'd not laugh at that and try to disabuse him of that idea. The problem, as was said on another thread is that people read into others posts what they are feeling. You have no facial expression, no tone of voice to judge yet you think I was upset, you know how I write as much as anyone on here, what on earth would make you think I was 'upset', crying into my tea? Oh that's right a mod decided, and a mod jumped in with that decision so he must be right. perhaps I need to put little smileys after all my sentences to prove I'm not bothered.
And who posts Micheal Palin videos if they are upset?
Really gentlemen, do lighten up.
And again, you seem to think there's an emotional thing going on (hence "chillax" and blood pressure comments). As you seem to think there's a deep emotional content in KD's posts (hence "crie de coeur", etc.).Really, you need to stop doing this, you have been like this since you become a mod. Anyone who has been on here long enough knows I don't get 'upset' on here. I will provoke, tease, chide, be argumentative and laugh at posts but I do not get 'upset', it's the internet and you are people I don't actually know, why would I get 'upset'. Please do stop trying to think you know me, that you can read from my words what emotion you think I'm feeling, it really doesn't suit you trying to be Steve.
kempodisciple has taken an interesting thread and turned it into his crie de coeur about how he thinks Americans are thought of outside America, that he is completely wrong and has totally not understood very much is not my fault, it's also not my fault that he has no sense of humour, who knew telling the truth about Paul Revere would cause such a reaction.
So sweetie, as the expression goes, chillax. You get it wrong when your blood pressure goes up, mine is fine. I have only once got upset on this site and that is when, back in the days of the Study, someone, a very right wing American gentleman stated as truth that in the UK we let premature babies die to save money for the NHS, as someone who lost a premmie baby you can understand why I was upset and perhaps too why I don't get upset because someone is being obtuse and far too overly serious. If you don't then well, your loss not mine.
I'm amused.
jobo
Grandmaster
anyway back to the thread title, here's an article that suggests that the colonization and subsequent depopulation of the America s lead to climate change, I'm not convinced myself,
America colonisation ‘cooled climate’
America colonisation ‘cooled climate’
Similar threads
