I hated History

[LotusHead]

I hated history when I was in high school, college etc.

It bored me.  I was part of the MTV Generation.

In 11th grade, I had a "World History" teacher named Mr. Dick. No joke.  He was pretty boring, and had one year until retirement.  I was ok with his boringness, as I can handle boring (I am/is White and Nerdy), but he himself admitted that he was kinda boring.  One year from retirement and all that.

In a talk about WWII stuff, he mentioned, in passing, that of all the battles in WWII, the most interesting ones didn't involve the U.S. at all.  They were between ze Germans and the Russians.  The only reason we don't teach them in Public School America is that we generally don't care about history that doesn't directly involve America.  BUT, if you ever get a chance to do some research, try checking out some interesting battles between Germany and Russia.

Then I, and he, moved on with our lives.  It turns out that Mr. Dick's son was the World Championship Kickboxer dude (Dennis Alexia or somesuch. I don't follow sports, just tourney reports).

10 years later, Enemy at the Gates came out, Sniper Warfare between Russia and Germany.  Great Flick.  I have been hooked on War Flicks since Saving Private Ryan (ie, as long as I wasn't being graded, I LOVE history stories, post college).

Flags of our Fathers came out recently, about Iwo Jima (that picture of Marines raising flag, famous etc).

I was doing research about the lack of black soldiers in the film. Apparently, there were 900. But this isn't the point of this thread.

In my research, I came across this:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

Which has every Medal of Honor award text laid out.

Enjoy, if you like this thing.

Fact: I joined the Army Reserves at age 17 (11th grade in High School) on a whim, just cuz, in 1989.  THEN we started having wars every other year (or recently: FOREVER).

[Meddling Mike]

In a talk about WWII stuff, he mentioned, in passing, that of all the battles in WWII, the most interesting ones didn't involve the U.S. at all.  They were between ze Germans and the Russians.  The only reason we don't teach them in Public School America is that we generally don't care about history that doesn't directly involve America.

I would say that the american system of teaching history is more US centered due to the typical long term applications of a career in history. Being a history major myself, I can tell you that the vast majority of history majors are planning to go into some sort of law school for their graduate studies. Usually history is considered a subject that segues well into a law career because somebody well versed in history (in this case american history) will be aware of many of the larger precedent setting cases, the reasons why certain laws were enacted and under what historical context they were put in place and hopefully thereby have a greater understanding of the law and the spirit behind it. As such, usually non-american history lacks any such relevance to a law career and has a tendency to get glossed over in the grand scheme of things. This bias is clearly evident even at the college level. I'm not even aware of any history courses that address any sort of african history outside of the context of western imperialism/Ancient Egypt, it's certainly not required for my degree if it does exist. Any non-western history courses are usually taught by terrible professors or graduate students. Myself and most of my contemporaries consider it a painful experience to take the one Eastern history course required for our degree due to the lack of good Eastern history courses in an otherwise stellar History department.

[Komatteru]

Myself and most of my contemporaries consider it a painful experience to take the one Eastern history course required for our degree due to the lack of good Eastern history courses in an otherwise stellar History department

Do you suppose that most people who wish to study Eastern History live in the East, and don't come over here to teach because that is their home?  I mean, it makes perfect sense that a society is far more interested in its own history than someone else's.  If you're an American, it really seems natural that you would be more interested in American history than African history, unless you felt a particular tie to that continent's history.  Compare this to how virtually all people who extensively study Women's History or Women's Studies are women.

[Machinus]

When do I get to take Men's Studies? Or is it sexist to even ask?

[Komatteru]

You don't.  Men have too many fields already.  You don't get another one. 

[Klep]

When do I get to take Men's Studies? Or is it sexist to even ask?

That's what the Greek system is for, obviously.

[Machinus]

You don't.  Men have too many fields already.  You don't get another one. 

We're just so good at everything! How many is too many?

[Komatteru]

1, obviously!

[Godder]

When do I get to take Men's Studies? Or is it sexist to even ask?

Here, it's called Gender Studies, so it doesn't belong to any one sex in particular!

[Anusien]

Here it's SWAG (Studies in Women and Gender) and it's primarily based towards women, but not technically.

[Meddling Mike]

Myself and most of my contemporaries consider it a painful experience to take the one Eastern history course required for our degree due to the lack of good Eastern history courses in an otherwise stellar History department

Do you suppose that most people who wish to study Eastern History live in the East, and don't come over here to teach because that is their home?  I mean, it makes perfect sense that a society is far more interested in its own history than someone else's.  If you're an American, it really seems natural that you would be more interested in American history than African history, unless you felt a particular tie to that continent's history.  Compare this to how virtually all people who extensively study Women's History or Women's Studies are women.

This is certainly all very true as well, didn't mention it because I felt it was pretty much assumed. I didn't think that my reasoning was quite as obvious.

I often wonder about how much local ethnicities play into a school's history curriculum. For example, I don't think it's a coincidence that my school has what many consider to be the best irish studies program outside of Ireland. Maybe the heavy irish population of Boston had a teeny bit of influence on that? Maybe people in the Southwest spend alot more time on the mexican-american war and Texas history and sort of gloss over the revolutionary war?

[Matt]

Man, I absolutely despised history, even though I was really good at it in high school (I was good at mostly everything). But now I'm a political junkie and I love reading about history. The reason is that the history books don't even come close to teaching real history, it's the American equivalent of just memorizing a bunch of kings.

Kings are stupid, but nations are really interesting.

The conventional response to it has already been offered in, "Men control every field, why does The Patriarchy need a specialized area of study?"

I think a lot of good could be done for gender relations if Women's Studies talked about the ways the patriarchy controls and damages men too. I can't say I blame them for not spending much/any time on that, because the burden historically wasn't even close to equal; I just think that is the next step for feminism.

[Machinus]

When do I get to take Men's Studies? Or is it sexist to even ask?

I believe this is a legitimate question.  The conventional response to it has already been offered in, "Men control every field, why does The Patriarchy need a specialized area of study?"  I think this distorts the role men play in traditional academic study, and tries to analogize mainstream academic disciplines to Women's Studies, a comparison I think is inapposite.

First of all, I want to emphasize that just because conventional academic disciplines focus on male figures, they are not "Men's Studies."  History, Political Science, Literature, etc. focus on the leaders who advanced those fields and made them what they are; the fact that those people are men is incidental. Those disciplines were not created in order to glorify men qua men, and bear little relevance to 99.99% of "common" men, who have no place in the historical pantheon.

By contrast, Women's Studies is designed to focus exclusively on female figures, for the sake of focusing on female figures.  Furthermore, many WS classes deal with women's experiences and their struggles in society and culture today, from the perspective of the "common" woman.  No academic discipline offers the same interest in the lives and experiences of "common" men.  People instead say that because the leading figures in other fields are male, there is no need to provide an equivalent focus on the unique social and cultural experiences and struggles of men.  I find this assessment to be wholly inadequate, for the reasons stated above.

Precisely. I don't actually want to engage in "Men's Studies," but I do find it disturbing that there exist programs that amount to things less lofty than gender equality, and instead deal in prejudice and sexism.

[LotusHead]

Interesting thread.  On a whim, I'll just toss in a few replies and see what people think.

Fact: I joined the Army Reserves at age 17 (11th grade in High School) on a whim, just cuz, in 1989.  THEN we started having wars every other year (or recently: FOREVER).

Looking back on my own track through Western, American, and U.S. Legal history, I'd suggest that we've basically been in a near-constant state of war or warlike activity since WWII, thanks to the burgeoning influence of the military-industrial complex. 

Note for the record I don't mean to start any political debates over whether this was good or bad, only that I think U.S. political history is more intimately related with military activity and influence than most people acknowledge.

In 1989 (if I recall) we invaded Panama. Fun weekend I hear. Prior to that Reagan put a few F-16's up Khadaffi's ass (no way I spelled that right), before that Grenada (I'm guessing its in the Carribean Sea, but I don't really know).

Weekend outings.

Post 1990 (when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Desert Storm, etc) we fought Somalia  in 93 (I saw the movie), Bosnia 95ish(I fully supported this), No-fly Zones around Iraq, maybe a few Cruise missles inteded for Bin Laden.
Now, 911 -> Afganistan -> Iraq => Forever.

When I joined up in 1989, the last real war we were in was Vietnam. That at least ended.

[dandan]

The problem is, that these military adventures turn people against America.

I remember people joking that America turned up late for the last two World Wars so wanted to make sure it was really early for the next one. That seems to be US policy now.

If someone asked you which country is most likely to start a war (as in attack first) which of you would put money on anyone but the good old US of A? I'm not sure I would even back the rest of the world or the USA given the choice.

As many of you know, I live in Slovakia, a country where people were fed anti-US propoganda for years. Some of it stuck (not much, Pravda telling you something was bad was generally viewed as a sure sign that it was good), normal people happily tell me how the US wants to rule the world. I defend you guys, 'The average American doesn't even know where the world is' I say, 'They think the Middle East is Kansas'. (no need to thank me, guys)

America has more than enough economic might to get its own way, look at Vladimir Putin and how everyone is sucking up to him to get Russian gas and oil. Russia and China are able to gain influence whilst America is viewed as a warmonger (not even good as a Magic card).

[TracerBullet]

As to the original claim that the most interesting battles in World War Two were not American, I ask this man if he has even studied the Battle of Midway?

[dandan]

Midway blows compared to Stalingrad or Leningrad. Having wooden decks that allow bombs to fall through them is tech though.

P.S. Out of the approx. 120 000 Germans who surrendered only about 5 000 made it back to Germany, most of them several years after the war (1948-1950 I believe).

[Bram]

In a cosmic coincidence, my father recently met a German man in Poland who actually partook in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Now Stalingrad, for those who don't know, was by far the bloodiest battle in human history. Over its 200 day span, casualties amounted to about 2 million (!) and four-fifths of the city was reduced to rubble. The Nazi's lost 850,000 men during the battle. 91,000 were captured (among whom the guy my father recently met), but only 6,000 of those survived the Soviet POW camps. Stalingrad seems to have been as close to hell on earth as they come.

This man was about 20 years old when he got sent to the front. His current age coupled with the fact that less than one percent of the troops the Germans sent in even made it out alive, means that there are probably only a handful of men alive today who saw action in Stalingrad. Just this week, we recieved a letter by him, in which he said he wanted to spend some time in The Netherlands. I sincerely hope to have the chance to talk to him, even though he has (perhaps understandably) never since spoken of the things he witnessed. This man is living history.

[TracerBullet]

In the 56 years that the US Naval Academy has been running a Midway War-Games simulation, not ONCE has an American victory been replicated.

[Bram]

Doesn't that just mean they have crappy simulators? 

[Godder]

The Russians vs the Finnish was also a very interesting series of battles. Although heavily outnumbered, the Finnish didn't lose until the winter came, freezing the lake near the border, thus allowing the Russians to actually make use of their numerical superiority.

[kirdape3]

Oh jeez.  Kharkov x1 and x2, Kursk, BAGRATION (how's THAT for maneuver warfare, you German you), the Crimean campaign, Leningrad, Stalingrad, the march on Moscow.  All of these were insane.  There were a couple of major battles in the West, but most of them were with one side overwhelmingly omnipotent.

At sea, Midway was the real stop line.  But if Coral Sea doesn't happen, Japan will have the entire Kido Butai to commit against Fletcher's force.  Those two extra carriers were Japan's finest.  Against all six carriers, probably the US doesn't even commit to battle.  With that information advantage, they certainly didn't have to.  I hear that six thousand mile round trips for an already overtaxed merchant fleet are real fun in the face of effective long-range aviation and submarine attack.

Other awesome naval fights include Guadalcanal, North Cape, the Bismarck actions, the Norway campaign (lots of places where one side just shows up and pwns the other completely), and the early stages of the Battle of the Atlantic.

That's just one war

[Matt]

Someone sues McDonald's because she was careless and spilled her coffee on herself, causing extensive physical damage.  An extreme example, but the fact that there were 12 other people--selected randomly from among a community--who agreed with this woman and awarded her damage indicates that there is a fairly significant number of people who think this way.

There is some debate over just how frivolous that case was. Third-degree burns and a rejected out-of-court-settlment are involved.
See here for more.

[Komatteru]

The point is that the woman was careless.  Putting something that's hot between your legs and attempting to open the lid is not a smart idea.  My point is that if someone does something foolish that produces a negative result, some people will find that it was the someone else's fault.  McDonald's coffee was too hot, but she didn't burn her lips trying to drink it.  That would be using the product properly and as intended.  Proper use of a product that results in injury is a cause for action.  She put it between her legs--that's not where cups containing hot beverages should be placed--and must have squeezed the cup or otherwise perturbed it, causing it to spill.  Do I get to sue the lawnmower company if I put my frayed gloves somewhere near the blade, the gloves catch, and my hand gets sucked in there and get a lot of money?  What was my frayed glove doing near the blades in the first place?  Why should I get to hold someone else responsible for my own carelessness?

We like to find someone else responsible for something we've done that we weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.  That's what I hate.  Next thing you know students will download music, get caught and sued, and blame the RIAA for forcing them to commit the act because they charged too much money....oh wait...

[Godder]

It's interesting that coffee is recommended to be served not far short of boiling, which is a temperature at which any spills are likely to cause serious damage:

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.

The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."

Source: The Stella Awards. That said, while that particular lawsuit at least had some merit, even if one disagrees with the final outcome, the Stella Awards website has plenty of worse abuses of the system.

[Vegeta2711]

The point is that the woman was careless.  Putting something that's hot between your legs and attempting to open the lid is not a smart idea.  My point is that if someone does something foolish that produces a negative result, some people will find that it was the someone else's fault.  McDonald's coffee was too hot, but she didn't burn her lips trying to drink it.  That would be using the product properly and as intended.  Proper use of a product that results in injury is a cause for action.  She put it between her legs--that's not where cups containing hot beverages should be placed--and must have squeezed the cup or otherwise perturbed it, causing it to spill.  Do I get to sue the lawnmower company if I put my frayed gloves somewhere near the blade, the gloves catch, and my hand gets sucked in there and get a lot of money?  What was my frayed glove doing near the blades in the first place?  Why should I get to hold someone else responsible for my own carelessness?

We like to find someone else responsible for something we've done that we weren't supposed to be doing in the first place.  That's what I hate.  Next thing you know students will download music, get caught and sued, and blame the RIAA for forcing them to commit the act because they charged too much money....oh wait...

I agree that the U.S. is too litigation happy, however I always cringe about the McD's case, because it's a bad example.

Possibly a small quibble, but one I always bring up when someone mentions this case. I'm betting you have some idea that if you put your hand near your lawnmower blades you can see a reasonable consequence as being choppity-chopped and if you put coffee in your lap you may get get burned and be in some pain. However, there's no way to make the logical leap from hot coffee spilling on you to 3rd degree burns and needing skin grafts. I've had fresh coffee spilled on me before (both between my own carelessness and through other peoples) and I've never had to go to the hospital, let alone have scarring on my body.

You take responsibility for your actions, but you also expect reasonable answers and consequences for those actions. In McDonald (And now Starbucks case) it's simply cheaper for them to keep the danger unaware to it's customers for the most part and pay off everyone who does get injured.

If you want cases of spurious litigation causing stupid shit to occur: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_on_fe_st/playground_tag_ban

[Komatteru]

Yeah, I saw that case.  I lost faith in humanity just a little more.  I figure I'll be as cynical as Lenny Briscoe by the time I'm 25 or so.

[Vegeta2711]

Yeah, I saw that case.  I lost faith in humanity just a little more.  I figure I'll be as cynical as Lenny Briscoe by the time I'm 25 or so.

Concur. I'm saddened by just how retarded a significant portion of society has become.

[dandan]

Now Stalingrad, for those who don't know, was by far the bloodiest battle in human history. Over its 200 day span, casualties amounted to about 2 million (!) and four-fifths of the city was reduced to rubble. The Nazi's lost 850,000 men during the battle. 91,000 were captured (among whom the guy my father recently met), but only 6,000 of those survived the Soviet POW camps. Stalingrad seems to have been as close to hell on earth as they come.

P.S. Out of the approx. 120 000 Germans who surrendered only about 5 000 made it back to Germany, most of them several years after the war (1948-1950 I believe).

Note that both sets of numbers are basically correct. Bram used the number of Germans who were captured when the Germans surrounded in Stalingrad surrendered, I used the number who surrendered over the course of the battle. Some of the Germans who survived the workcamps (hardly POW camps IMHO) didn't return home to Germany. I was wrong about the date when the last POWs returned to Germany, 1955!!

[Meddling Mike]

Now Stalingrad, for those who don't know, was by far the bloodiest battle in human history. Over its 200 day span, casualties amounted to about 2 million (!) and four-fifths of the city was reduced to rubble. The Nazi's lost 850,000 men during the battle. 91,000 were captured (among whom the guy my father recently met), but only 6,000 of those survived the Soviet POW camps. Stalingrad seems to have been as close to hell on earth as they come.

P.S. Out of the approx. 120 000 Germans who surrendered only about 5 000 made it back to Germany, most of them several years after the war (1948-1950 I believe).

Note that both sets of numbers are basically correct. Bram used the number of Germans who were captured when the Germans surrounded in Stalingrad surrendered, I used the number who surrendered over the course of the battle. Some of the Germans who survived the workcamps (hardly POW camps IMHO) didn't return home to Germany. I was wrong about the date when the last POWs returned to Germany, 1955!!

Yeah....I suppose when you're captured by a power that's having significant difficulties feeding it's own people (even during peace time) it doesn't bode well for you as one of their POW's.