• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Chat Thread 2021: huge historic day today ! you are living history congrats !

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess i don't understand the salt. It's hard to imagine that younger americans gain more of a benefit from a rosier portrayal of Jackson and his legacy than a less rosy portrayal

I'm not salty. Placing the blame on any one individual for an action in or period of American history is less than honest though. Demonize Jackson, Hitler, and the Coach K all you want, but realize that they exist in a culture that allows them to do the things they do and that many lionized them for it.
 
Point is, when you're teaching a 500-year American History survey course, you don't have time to truly examine all sides of an an event and the prevailing attitudes in a contemporaneous manner. Whatever additional facts and source material Brasky provides can't help but be cherrypicked, despite his intentions. Yes, critical examination of the events is important, but you have to realize that the students are likely to walk away with the conclusions to which the teacher teaches. And in Brasky's case, we know he has a rather cynical outlook.

Here are some mitigating factors I teach about Jackson:

- Rough childhood, parents died when he was young, brother was killed by British, he was beaten and treated badly by British when caught running messages for the Patriots during the Revolution.
- Elections of 1824/28 made him bitter. His wife died of a heart attack after being publicly smeared by Adams, Clay and their newspapers. This led him to hating his political enemies, particularly anyone aligned with those two.
- Jackson had broad support in the South and West. Indian removal was popular among white citizens of those regions.

Maybe I should have mentioned that as well, but I do attempt to tell the entire story.
 
I never tell my kids my true opinion about Maya Angelou.
 
Here are some mitigating factors I teach about Jackson:

- Rough childhood, parents died when he was young, brother was killed by British, he was beaten and treated badly by British when caught running messages for the Patriots during the Revolution.
- Elections of 1824/28 made him bitter. His wife died of a heart attack after being publicly smeared by Adams, Clay and their newspapers. This led him to hating his political enemies, particularly anyone aligned with those two.
- Jackson had broad support in the South and West. Indian removal was popular among white citizens of those regions.

Maybe I should have mentioned that as well, but I do attempt to tell the entire story.

ok yes but -- and be honest here -- do you encourage your students to "cancel" him??
 
I'm not salty. Placing the blame on any one individual for an action in or period of American history is less than honest though. Demonize Jackson, Hitler, and the Coach K all you want, but realize that they exist in a culture that allows them to do the things they do and that many lionized them for it.

i don't get the sense we're using reverse Great Man theory in this case - if anything, this curriculum is actually teaching that Jackson's behavior is a reflection of the social mores of the era rather than blaming one president for the legacy of US Gov/Native relations
 
2020 Great Man theory - privatize the "tremendous achievements", socialize the disgusting behavior
 
Point is, when you're teaching a 500-year American History survey course, you don't have time to truly examine all sides of an an event and the prevailing attitudes in a contemporaneous manner. Whatever additional facts and source material Brasky provides can't help but be cherrypicked, despite his intentions. Yes, critical examination of the events is important, but you have to realize that the students are likely to walk away with the conclusions to which the teacher teaches. And in Brasky's case, we know he has a rather cynical outlook.

I think it's way more cynical to teach the 1950s textbook approach I was brought up on.
 
I think it's way more cynical to teach the 1950s textbook approach I was brought up on.

exactly. don't use those books and don't just give kids Zinn, either. Biff is right that kids are idiots but teachers only have so much time/attention.
 
I don't care for Jackson much politically or personally, but he does earn a measure of respect for beating the shit out of his would-be assassin with a cane.
 
What's seemingly crazy is how valuable old homes are now. I can build a new home for about $135/sqft. Three ish years ago, same home was like 105/sq ft. Ten years ago, 95ish

The increase in my cost to build a new home makes me look at my 7-10 year old rentals and say, fuck me, this thing is worth way more than it should be now.

This is kind of why we're moving.

Our existing 2013 house is "worth" way more than it ever should be and I feel like it is on the cusp of needing a bunch of work. But demand in our neighborhood is so high right now that we can sell it and move into a ridiculous house that we're building out in the middle of nowhere for substantially less money and just pocket/invest the difference.

I mean, it is a move that we can only make once and it fully monetizes the equity we have in our existing home... That kind of appreciation isn't likely to repeat over the next few years, so it seems prudent to make the move now.
 
I've been surprised about my daughter's 1st grade social studies class and how they've talked about certain historical figures. I was surprised she even knew who Andrew Jackson was (they weirdly focused on all of the personal tragedy in his life) and I enjoyed all of the things she learned about Teddy Roosevelt (who, love him or hate him, was an interesting dude).
 
I don't care for Jackson much politically or personally, but he does earn a measure of respect for beating the shit out of his would-be assassin with a cane.

True. He also walked around with a bullet in his left arm for most of his adult life, which is pretty metal.
 
Wife is a history teacher. Hates Jackson, loves Teddy.
 
what is the value in defending these guys against criticism? does Julius Caesar need defending, too?
 
Wait a minute, let me tell you how awful Teddy is !

Teddy did some good, did some bad. Definitely had a hero complex and bought too much into "white man's burden" but on the whole he was alright. I don't really believe in heroes but its Lincoln and FDR for me. LBJ was an asshole who has Vietnam problems, but his leadership on Civil Rights after JFK's assassination is extremely commendable.

1a. Lincoln
1b. FDR
3. LBJ

Biff - Jackson openly defied a Supreme Court ruling and initiated a genocide. You do realize that, right? We're allowed to vilify that.
 
Jesus man. I didn't say they needed defending. I used Hitler as an example. I said there's a broader world these people are operating in than their worst historical accomplisments. That's not defending someone, it's contextualizing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top